i Glass 1 664 PUBLIC RECORD OF PERRY BELMONT A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE 47TH ♦ 48TH • 49TH ♦ 30TH Congress Vol. I COMPRISTXr, THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE 47tH CoNGRESS, FROM 1881 TO 1SK3, AXD OF THE 48TII COJTGRESS, FROM 1883 TO 1885, WITH Appendix Relating to Other Matters of Public Record PRINTED FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION 1898 •VJ^ p.. ,— ^ lU . ; , f ^ JAMES B. LYON, ■PRINTER, KLECTROTYPER AND BINDER, LYON BLOCK, ALBANY, N. Y. JP-^^HQ/L SPEECHES, LETTERS, MEMORANDA. FIRST CONGRESSIONAL NOMINATION AND CAMPAIGN. FIRST NOMINATION FOR CONGRESS, ISSO. (Summnry of a r«»port In tho Xi'w York HcraUl, October 17, ISSO.) The Democratic Convention of tlu> First Congressional District of New York wuH held yesterday afternoon at the Town Hall, Jamaica. L. I. There was a full attendance of delepates from Suffolk. Queens and Richmond counties, and a yoodly sprinkling of representative Democrats from various parts of the district. The Convention was called to order by Thomas AY. Fitzgerald. Solomon B. Noble, of Queens, was then elected temporary Chairman. He was afterward made permanent Chairman. He stated the object of the Convention, and said he believed its action would further the elevation to the Presidency of General Han- cock, a remark which was heartily indorsed by his hearers. The naming of candidates was declared in order, and Hon. Henry C. Piatt, of Suffolk, took the floor. " On behalf of the united delegation of Suffolk," he said, " 1 have the pleasure of presenting as candidate for Member of Congress, and choice of the people of Suffolk, through their delegates, the name of Perry Bel- mont, of Babylon." ♦ • * Ilayward I'rince, on behalf of the Richmond county delegation, then proposed the name of Erastus Brooks. * * ♦ An infonnal ballot was then called for, on which Perry Belmont received eigh- teen votes; Erastus Brooks, ten; Dwight Townsend, six, and Stephen Taber, two. After a few minutes recess, a formal ballot was taken with the following result: Perry Belmont, twenty-one votes; Dwight Townsend, eight; Erastus Brooks, seven. Mr. Belmont's nomination was made unaninious. The Committee on Notification brought Mr. Belmont before the Convention. ♦ * * In accepting the nomination, Mr. Belmont said: "Fellow Citizens of the First Congressional District: At a moment like this it is, indeed, ditlficult for me to express the gratitude and satis- IV ELECTION TO CONGRESS. faction I feel in accepting this great honor at your hands. Long since it has been my desire and my pride to be called into the service of those two great queens of the sea^ Staten Island and Long Island, Avliose ambas- sadors you are in this convention. I see here assembled the influence, strength and power of the Democracy of our district, and I know that it . is your settled purjoose to be, again represented in Congress by a Democrat. Two years ago you selected Mr. Covert as your representative, and no one more than I recognized the wisdom of your choice. I wish to say here, in his presence and in yours, that although the nominee of this conven- tion, I yet can fully comprehend and appreciate the regret so generally expressed that he does not again seek the position which he has so honor- ably filled, and if at the end of my service I can come back to you and obtain the same commendation Avhich you so justly bestow upon him, I should be abundantly satisfied, and I mean to do all that I can to deserve it. I look forward with great hope to the performance of that duty. It is the mission of the Democratic party to perpetuate under a Demo- cratic administration the era of peace and prosperity which was inaugu- rated with the incoming of a Democratic Congress in 1874, and with General Hancock as our leader we are certain to have once more the entire control of this Government. It is the mission of the Democratic party to protect all established industries and to correct all abuses of Custom House taxation, and insure the prosperity of our working people. It is the mission of the Democratic party to establish the supremacy of our mercantile marine and of that flag \\hich shall once more be seen in every harbor of the universe. Gentlemen, it is within our own State that the battle is to be waged. Let there be no faltering in the lines of Sufi'olk, Queens and Eichmond counties, the First Congressional District of New Yoi'k. We must giv.e to General Hancock and to our ticket the full measure of the sup])ort of a united Democracy." (From the New York World, October 17, 1880.) The Democratic Congressional Convention for the First District was held -in tlie Town Hall, at Jamaica. L. I., yesterday afternoon, and on the second ballot nominated Perry Belmont for Congress. All the thirty- six delegates were present. The convention Avas called to order at 1:15 and S. B. ISToble, of Long Island City, was made Chairman. The names of Perry Belmont, of Suffolk county: Dwight Townsend, of Eichmond county; Erastns r)rooks, of Piclimond county, and Stephen Tabor, were laid before the convention, each meeting witli a hearty reception. An effort to ba\e the vote taken I'iz'o z'occ was unsuccessful, and it was taken ELECTION' TO COXGKESS. T by ballot, tbe Cbairman, assisted b}' the secretaries, counting and an- nouncing tlie result. The first ballot was as follows: Belmont, 18: Townsend. G; Brooks, 10: Ta])or, 2. Of :\rr. Belmont's 18 votes on the first ballot, Suffolk cast a solid 12. Queens o, and Eichmond 1. That he would be nominated on the second ballot, if taken at once, seemed to be the opinion on all hands, and the adherents of the other candidates endeavored to secure a recess; but by a decided vote, the motion to that end was defeated. The second ballot was then taken and the vote was as follo^vs: Belmont, 21; Townsend, 8: I,if(l Mr. Bond, of Eichmond county, moved that the nomination Ijc made unanimous, and the motion was carried with enthusiasm. A committee was a])])ointed to luing Mr. Belmont to the stand, and James W. Covert, the })resent Congressman, was called on foi' a speech. Ho tlianked his constituents for their confidence in him, proved by his election for two terms, and asked that the same encouragement be ex- tended to his successor, lie had been noniin;ite(l when a very young man; so had ^Ir. IJelmoiit. lie had abylon. Long Island, was held last night in the Wigwam near the center of the village. r>on-Jires blazed along the roads, every house was illuminated, and Hancock and English clubs from Babylon and neighboring towns paraded with torches, banners and transparencies. Dr. Provost was chairman of the mass meeting. Mr. Perry Ikdmont, the Democratic candidate for Congress, was introduced by lion. Alger- non S. Sullivan. Mr. Belmont spoke at length. He said, among other things: " I can not leave you without expressing the satisfaction I have felt at being among you. In the course of my journey over our C'ongressional District, I have learned the great responsibility which will rest upon me if I am elected. The vast interests of this district are National in character. * * * I believe, slioidd we liave a Democratic administration, they will receive the attention for whicli they have waited, and I promise to devote all my energies and ability to the performance of that duty. I trust I may have the same generous support you have given to Mr. Covert. Should I have the good fortune to be elected, I hope I may give you the same satisfaction that he lias." :\Ir. ik'lmont also had to speak at meetings at Freeport and Jamaica. H: :!< ::■: (From the Brooklyn Eagle, October 31, 1880.) :^lr. Perry Belmont and .Mr. John. A. King are the Democratic and Ee]}ublican candidates for Congress, respectively. They have been mak- ing a most active and gentlemanly canvass, but ^Mr. Belmont lias done much the hardev work. He has ti-aveled from point to point by special train, speaking to Democratic audiences everywhere. He has been well received bv the people. The district is strongly Democratic, but it has been carried in the past Ijy the Republicans, both for Congress and State Senator, .Mr. Skudder defeating Mr. Covert and :^[r. King defeating Dr. Thompson. It is admitted by Repul)licans that :\Ir. King's strong par- tisanship makes him objectionable to Democrats who might be per- suaded to support a conservative man, and, inasmuch as no Picpublican can be elected without the aid of Democratic votes, Mr. Belmont's elec- tion would seem to be a foregone conclusion. Four years ago. Queens gave the Democratic electoral ticket a major- ity of 3.300. It should do equally well this year, but the most san- guine Democrats do not place the figures higher than 2,500. Viii ELECTION TO CONGEESS. (From the New York Herald, October 31, 1880.) ]\Iore attention is concentrated on the First and Eleventli Congres- sional Districts than on any others at this end of tlie State. The com- bat in them between the Republican and tlie Democratic candidates is of a fair, old-fashioned kind, untainted by disgraceful personalities. * * * (From the New York Herald, November 2, 1880.) The Democrats closed the campaign last night in Queens county with meetings at various places. The canvass of Mr. Perry Belmont, can- didate for Congress in the First District, was particularly active, his election being regarded as certain. (From the Brooklyn Eagle, November 3, 1S80.) Mr. Perry Belmont is elected to Congress by a majority of about 1,500 in the district. If it had not been for Mr. Belmont's vigorous campaign in Queens, the probability is that the Eepublicans would have carried the county. He deserved his victory. The Eepublicans did not rally for his opponent, Mr. King, with much enthusiasm. He was ob- jectionable to a large part of the bone and sinew of his party. (From the Directory of Congress.) Forty-seventh Congress, 1881 to 1883: Perry Belmont: First District, counties of Suffolk, Richmond and Queens, Ncav York. Perry Belmont, of Babylon, Long Island, was born in the city of New York, December 28, 1851; graduated a,t Harvard College in 1872; was admitted to the bar in 1876. and has since been engaged in the practice of the law; was elected to the Forty-seventh Congress as a Demo- crat, receiving 20,815 votes, against 18,163 votes for John A. King, Republican. RECORD IN CONGRESS. FORTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS-FIRST SESSION. December 5, 1881, to August 8, 1882. Speaker, J. WARREN KEIFER. APrOTXT:\[EXTS OX STAXDIXG COMMITTEES. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. December 21, ISSl. The SPEAKER announced the appointment of the FOLLOwiNa standing AND joint COMMITTEES: COMMITTEE OX EOREIGX AFFAIRS.— Messrs. Williams, of Wis- consin; Orth, Kasson, Rice, of Massachusetts; Bunnell, Lord, Walker, Blount, Wilson. Deuster anrl Belmont. EXR0IJJ:I) bills.— Messrs. Aldrich, Pierce, West, Shallenberger, Kenna. Warner and Belmont. EECOED IX COXGKESS. EELIEF FOE AMERICAN SHIPPING. December 16, ISSl. Mr. BELMONT iNTaoDucED the following bill to repeal and amend CERTAIN ACTS RELATING TO COMMERCE AND NAVIGATION AND TO MERCUANT SEAMEN: Be it enacted by tJic Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled: That section forty-oue hundred and thirty-one of the Revised Statutes of the United States be amended by adding the words " except that in a foreign port, in case of necessity, an ollicer may be rephiced by a foreigner if a competent officer of American citizenship can not be obtained. Such foreign officer shall, however, be retained only until the arrival of the vessel at a port in the United States." That section forty-five hundred and sixty-one of the Revised Statutes of the United States be amended by striking out the words " each of whom shall be entitled to throe months' pay in addition to his wages at the time of discharge," and by striking out the words " and receive each one month's wages in addition to their pay up to the time of discharge." That section forty-five hundred and seventy-eight of the Revised Statutes of the United States be amended by striking out the words " not exceeding ten dollars for each person," and inserting after the words " as may be agreed upon between the master and the consul or officer," the words " or, in case of dis- agreement for a compensation, to be computed at the rate of fifty cents per day for the average voyage of a vessel of like character, which shall in no case, however, exceed fifty dollars." That section forty-five hundred and eighty of the Revised Statutes of the United States be amended by striking out all after the words " the officer shall discharge such seaman.'' That section forty-five hundred and eighty-one of the Revised Statutes of the United States be repealed. That section forty-five hundred and eighty-two of the Revised Statutes of the United States be amended by striking out all words after " sold in a foreign country and her company discharged." and insert therefor " or whenever a sea- man is discharged, except for his own misconduct or by termination of his con- tract of service, each seaman so discharged shall, in addition to the wages then due him, be paid a sum sufficient to pay his passage to the port from which he shipped in the United States, or he shall be provided with an engagement on another vessel bound to the port for which he originally shipped. In case such seaman be discharged in consequence of inability to perform his duty because of injuries received in the service of the vessel, he shall be paid, in addition to the foregoing, a sufficient sum to pay for his medical care and support until such titue as he can be sent home." EECOED IX COXGEESS. 3 That section forty-five hundred and eighty-three of the Revised Statutes of the United States be amended by striliing out all after the words " then he may, if he deems it just, discharge the mariner." That section forty-five hundred and eighty-four of the Revised Statutes of the United States be repealed. That section forty-six hundred of the Revised Statutes of the United States be amended by striking out the words " and receive, in addition to his wages to the time of his discharge, three months' pay." THE SHIPPIXG BILL. (Xew York Evening Tost, March 11, 1882.) Representative Belmont has introduced a bill for the relief of shipping from some of its burdens. A notion of the variety and extent of these impositions may be derived from a statement recently published of the expenses of a vessel of six hundred and fifty-four tons upon returning to this port a short time ago. ^"'' I^""^-"^^^ ?S0 50 Health ofiicer's fee o ^r. Entry fee at Custom House 5 ^q Permits, extra or. United States Hospital moneys 64 00 Harbor-master's charges o ca Tonnage duty, 30 cents per ton, 054 tons jgy 20 That is to say it cost the vessel to get to a landing place in this city .^SGT.GS, a very considerable addition to the cost and risk of the voyage. Of course, these expenses increase with the size of the ship. Mr. Belmont's bill cancels the heaviest charge, by repealing tonnage duties. All American vessels will take the benefit of it, and the measure applies also to foreign ships excepting those from ports which our own are not allowed to enter, and those of nations which levy discriminating duties upon our ships and cargoes. The proposed exemptions will, of course, be more valuable to citizens of the United States when the repeal of other laws allows them to own ocean-crossing steamers. The same obvious coninu'ut i7)ny l.e made upon the law passed by the New York Legislature last year, to exempt Aincricnn vessels from State and local taxation. Both measures, however, are not only right, but siiow an awakening interest in the subject which may lead to the removal of those more formidable obstacles which the navigation laws in their present shape oppose to a revival of our carrying trade. QUE " MEECHAXT MAEIXE." (Xew York Evening Telegram.) All the ix.litical signs indicate that the American public is fast becoming aware of the anomalnus rcl.ilive posifiuii now held by this countrj- toward foreign nations in tJie matter of "'taking tolls" on the valuable ferry of the Atlantic ocean. Supplying, as we do, Ity far the larger portion of the freight and passengers car- ried, and having i)oth the mechanical skill and the material for the production of a "merchant marine" indigenous to our country, the dullest intelligence must conclude immediately that, viewed in point of political economy, something must 4 EECOED IN CONGEESS. be radically Tvrong, for not only are the energies of our people cramped, but our valuable natural resources are being dissipated also. Trade between countries balances itself, but the earnings of the carriers, as the history of the commercial world attests, is a positive relative gain, i. c, superior wealth — gold. If by reason of some great upheaval abroad or by the decrease of the productive capacity of our (now) virgin soil, the demand for our productions should cease, how would we stand in comparison with those countries with which for many years past we have held such intimate commercial relations? We would have our lands, our system of railroads, etc., but who would have the gold power? We view with pleasure the bill introduced by Mr. Perry Belmont, to amend and, without doubt, to im- prove our shipping laws. The restoration of the carrying trade is a matter that must be approached tentatively by a judicious attention paid to all connecting details, one of which, the improvement of American seamen by wise legislation, as noticed in another column, is of immediate vital importance in its bearing on the question. THE BELMONT BILL. (The Babylon, L. I., Budget, February 25, 1882.) To the Editor of the Budget: Dear Sir. — In view of the criticisms contained in The Budget of Feb- ruary 18th upon the shipping bill introduced by me, and trusting to your sense of justice, I will gladly occupy a brief space in your journal upon that subject. The bill of Mr. Eussell, of Massachusetts, adopted the recommenda- tions of the various shipping conventions to repeal the law that officers below the rank of master should in all cases be citizens of the United States. The bill introduced by me provided that ships shall continue to be commanded by citizens of the United States, and added moreover a restriction clause as to the shipment of foreign officers to the effect that such officers below the rank of master should be detained only until the arrival of the vessel at a port in the United States. Besides, in committee I have suggested the adoption of the proposition that " officers of vessels of the United States shall in all cases be citizens of the United States." That is the clause as it now stands before the House, with a unanimous report of the Committee on Commerce in favor of the whole bill. I may add that the provision for the payment of the passage home and medical care of seamen, have also the approval of Dr. Eang of the Seaman's Eetreat. Yours very truly, PEERY BELMONT. We very cheerfully give place to Congressman Belmont's letter. We acknowl- EECORD IN COXGEESS. 5 edge that we were deceived in the provisions of the bill introduced by Mr. Belmont, through relying on the extract from the New York Protectionist. We have since received a copy of the act, and, from a careful reading, and reference to sections sought to be amended, give it as our opinion that the measure is a just one, and one which reflects credit upon Mr. Belmont's foresight and knowl- edge of needed reforms in marine law. We have known cases where groat in- convenience was occasioned, and risks run, through the operation of the old law, which prohibited the employment of foreign officers on board American vessels, when, through a mishap, vessels had lost, when in a foreign port, an officer. The bill introduced by Mr. Belmont amends the old law. (The Xew York World.) Mr. Pern- Belmont, who arrived from AYashington last night, said to a reporter of The World, regarding the bill to repeal and amend certain acts pertaining to the shipping and discharging of seamen, which was passed by the House of Eepresentatives yesterday: " The bill passed by the House was reported by the Commitee on Com- merce, to which was referred the bill for the same object introduced by me at the last session, and is substantially the same as my bill. The measure is a relief for which shipowners have prayed about ten years. Formerly, when the master of a ship wanted to sell his ship in a foreign port, or for any other reason was compelled to discharge his crew, he had to pay each man three months' extra wages — an unreasonable and oppressive charge. Xow, instead of paying three months' wages to seamen, the masters of ves- sels are simply bound to provide them employment on another sliip or to defray the expenses of their passage home, so that the new law, while granting a much needed interest to our shipping interests, does not neglect to properly proAide for the sailors. I may mention the fact that the Special Committee on American Shipping, which was appointed in accordance with a resolution introduced by me, intended to recommend substantially the same bill as w^as passed to-day. It argues well, I think, for the prospect of legislation in favor of a revival of our shipping, that the members of the Committee on Commerce and the Special Committee on Shipping manifested on Monday an anxious rivaliy in having bills in regard to shi})ping referred to their respective committees." [see this subject continued JULY S3, 1883.] RECORD IN CONGRESS. THE CHILIAN-PEKUVIAK INVESTIGATION. January 17, 1882. Mr. BELMONT introduced the following resolution: Resolved, That the Presideut be and he is hereby requested, if iu his opinion it be not incompatible -n'ith the public interest, to communicate to the House all correspondence and communications between the Government of the United States and its diplomatic and other agents, occurring since the 1st day of April, 1879, relating to the efforts of the Government to bring about peace between Chili and Peru and Bolivia, and touching public affairs in or between those States, and also such other correspondence and information on the subject as may be iu the possession of the Executive Department. The resolution was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. This resolution was agreed to later, as follows: January 24, 1882. Mr. BELMONT, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, reported the following resolution, which was read and agreed to. Resolved, That the President be and he hereby is requested, if in his opinion it be not incompatible with the public interest, to communicate to the House all correspondence between the Govei-nment of the United States and its diplomatic and other agents, or between the Government and European Governments, oc- curring since the 1st day of April, 1879, except such as has been already com- municated to Congress, relating to the efforts of the Government to bring about peace between Chili and Peru and Bolivia, and all communications of any nature made by our Government to either of those countries in relation to the war, and also copies of all communications, and documents from diplomatic agents, or from any private individuals, companies or corporations, concerning any claims against or contracts respecting either of the belligerent Governments. CORRESPOXDEXCE WITH J. R. SHIPHERD. February G, 1882. Mr. BELMONT offered for adoption the following resolution of in- quiry: Resolved, That the President be and he is hereby requested, in further com- pliance with the resolution of the House of the 24th ultimo, to furnish this House with a complete transcript of the letters of Jacob R. Shipherd, Esq., ot New York, dated June 2, August 19, September 28 and November 1.5, 1881, and of the replies thereto, now in the files of the Department of State; EECORD IX COXGEESS. '7 Also, copies of any other letters already comiiuuiicated from which uanies of persons and firms have been omitted; And that the President be requested to inform the House what measures hare been taljen to recover the letters declared to be missing from the files of the department. The resolution was adopted. CniLIAX-PERUVIAX COERESPOXDEXCE. February 24, 1882. Mr. BELMONT siiljmitted for immediate adoption the following resolution: Rcsok'cd, That the Committee on Foreign Affairs be directed to inquire and report to the House respecting the abstraction from the files of the Department of State of certain letters and documents referred to in the letter of the Secretary of State, of February 17, 1882; also, respecting the making of any C(nitracts in Paris, or elsewhere, by and between any foreign corporation or company and any American citizens, concerning any concession made by Peru to any French or foreign company, wherein allusion was made to the diplomatic action of the United States; and that the committee have power to send for persons and papers, and have leave to report thereon at any time. Mr. KASSOX.— When the gentleman from New York [Mr. Belmont] ob- tained the floor I was attempting to get the attention of the Speaker to offer a resolution, on the subject which I tliink will be perhaps more satis- factory than that offered by the gentleman from New York. I ask that my resolution be read, and if the subject is to be considered now I ask its adoption as a substitute. Tlie SPEAKEE. — • Is there objection to the present consideration of this subject? Several MEMBERS.— Read tlie resolution. The Clerk read as follows: "Whereas, It is alleged, in connection with the Chili-Peruvian correspondence recently and ofhcially published upon the call of the two Houses of Congress, that one or more ministers plenipotentiary of the United States were either per- sonally interested or improperly connected with business transactions in which the intervention of this Government was requested or expected; and. Whereas, It is further alleged that certain papers in relation to the same subjects have been improperly lost or removed from the files of the State Depart- ment; therefore, Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Affairs Vie and are hereby instructed to inquire into the said allegations and ascertain the facts relating thereto, and report the same with such recommendations as they may deem proper; and they shall have power to send for persons and papers. Mr. SINGLETON, of Illinois.— I object. The SPEAKER. — Does the gentleman ol)ject to the consideration of the resolution? Mr. SINGLETON.— Yes; I object to its consideration. 8 EECOED IN CONGRESS. Mr. COX, of New York. — Let them both be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, as there seems to be some diversity of opinion in reference to them. Mr. KASSOISr. — If there be no question as to which should be adopted, I have no objection to their reference, with leave on the part of that com- mittee to report at any time. The SPEAKEE. — Objection is made to their present consideration. Is there objection to their introduction for reference to the Committee on Foreign Affairs? Mr. HEWITT, of New York.— Who objects? The SPEAKEE.— The gentleman from Illinois. Mr. SINGLETON, of Illinois.— I withdraw my objection. The SPEAKEE.— The Chair hears no further objection. The gentle- man from New York offers a resolution which has been read, to wliich the gentleman from Iowa moves a substitute. Mr. KASSON. — If they are referred they can both go together. The SPEAKEE. — Objection to their consideration has been withdrawn. The question is then on the substitute of the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. HEWITT, of New York.— Better accept it. Mr. BELMONT. — I accept it as a modification of my own resolution if it sufficiently covers the ground of my proposition. Mr. KASSON. — There need be no debate, and I will retain the floor for the purpose of calling the previous question. Mr. SPEINGEE, of Illinois. — Let the resolution of the gentleman from Iowa be again read, to see whether it covers one of the points of the reso- lution of the gentleman from New York. The SPEAKEE. — The resolution of the gentleman from Iowa has been accepted by the gentleman from New York as a modification of his, and, therefore, there is no proposition before the House but that of the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. Kasson's resolution was again read. Mr. BELMONT. — The second clause of the resolution I presented, I think, would cover the point better than the resolution as read. The SPEAKEE. — The Chair understood the gentleman from New York, to accept and adopt the substitute as it was offered by the gentle- man from Iowa. Mr. BELMONT.— I did; but as to the second clause I would like to have it agreed to. The SPEAKEE.— The Chair has no power in that regard. Mr. KASSON. — I retain the fioor for the purpose of not interfering with other business, in order to call the previous question, if necessary, but am quite willing to hear any suggestion. EECOED IN CONGRESS. 9 Mr. BELMONT.— I will offer mine, then, as an amendment, and I ask the Clerk to read that second clause of my resolution. The Clerk read as follows: Also respecting the making of any contract in Paris or elsewhere by and be- tween any foreign corporation or company and any American citizens concerning any concession made by Peru to any French or foreign company, wherein allusion was made to the diplomatic action of the United States. Mr. KASSOX. — I object to that, because it is involved in the other in- quiry, and distinctly intended in the first resolution. Mr. SPEINGER. — Does the gentleman from Iowa insist that this is covered by his resolution? Mr. KASSOX. — Unquestionably, it is covered by the first resolution. Mr. BELMONT. — I think I will insist on my amendment, as the gentleman's resolution does not cover the whole ground. Mr. KASSON. — The gentleman will see it is involved from the fact the signatures of the paper referred to are the very thing which is inquired in reference to. Mr. BELMONT. — I can see no objection to the adoption of my amendment. Mr. KASSON. — I think there is objection to it simply because it is not necessar}' and I do not want at this stage of the case to aim a specific charge. When it comes back into the House they will see undoubtedly this and all other subjects involving the general question will be inquired into. I state distinctly the intention of the resolution, and now demand the previous question. Mr. BELMONT. — I accept the gentleman's resolution on the gentle- man's statement that his covers the whole ground. The resolution of Mr. Kasson was adopted. ENVOY TO SOUTH AMEEICAN GOVEENMENTS. March 13, 1SS2. Mr. BELMONT introduced the following resolution, which was re- feri'ed to the Committee on Foreign Affairs: Resolved, Tluit the Secretary of State be requested to inform the House what compensation has been paid or is to be paid by the Department of State to Mr. Trescot, as Envoy to the South American Governments; also, out of what appro- priation any money has been paid or is to be paid to him as such Envoy; also, by what law Mr. Trescot has been appointed or employed in the Department of State, since or at any time after March 4, 1877, and what compensation since that date has been paid to Mr. Trescot, and out of what appi'opriation. [see investigation, continued, march Ifi, 1882.] 2 10 RECORD IX COXGRESS. NATUEALIZATION. March 13, 1SS2. Mr. BELMOXT submitted the following resolution, which was re- ferred to the Committee on the Judiciary: Rcsoh'cd, That the Committee on the Judiciary be directed to inQiiire aud report, by bill or otherwise, ^Yhat legislatiou, if any, is needed to encourage and protect the naturalization of aliens who desire to become in good faith American citizens; also, what legislation, if any, is needed to secure in naturalization pro- ceedings a due and careful judicial ascertainment and record of all the facts on the existence of which naturalization is or may by law be permitted; also, what legislation, if any, is needed to prevent improper interference by election officers or other persons in any State of the Union with the right of a naturalized citizen to vote, being entitled thereto by a judgment of naturalization that has not been vacated or set aside, or otherwise impeached by a competent court. ANTI-POLYGAMY BILL. March 14, 1882. ON THE SENATE BILL TO AMEND SECTION 5352 OF THE REVISED STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES, IN REFERENCE TO BIGAMY — Mr. BELMONT said: I have but a word to say in this connection. I shall not vote for this bill, because I desire effective and proper legislation against polygamy and because I am not willing to submit to trial a measure so crude and ill-con v=ic!ered that its evil consequences may easily be foreseen. Even those whc arc loudest in the clamor for the immediate and hasty passage of the m(>asure as it now stands before the House are obliged to confess that it is not what it should be. Many Avho content themselves with voting in its favor say that it will disappoint its framers and will not accomplish the purpose for which it is intended; and I feel satisfied that such is the fact. Before this session of Congress is over it may become necessary to remedy its glaring defects, but until that is done I will not lend it my support. EECOED IN COXGEESS. 11 [CHILIAN-PERUVIAX INVESTIGATION CONTINUED.] JACOB K. SHIPHERD. March IG, 1SS2. Mr. BELMOXT offered the following resolution, which was adopted: Resokrd. That the Committee on Foreign Affairs he directed to demand of Jacob R. Shipherd, Esq., copies of all correspondence between himself and any person or persons whatsoever, and all other evidence in his possession, tending to show what said Shipherd did or attempted to do to enforce the claims of the Peruvian Company, or to induce the United States to enforce these claims against Peru. (From the New York Tribune.) On motion of Eepresentative Belmont the House yesterday adopted a resolution intended to bring out the whole of the Shipherd correspond- ence with the State Department about the absurd Peruvian Company, including the names of the persons concerned in the enterprise which were omitted from the letters already published. The resolution plainly intimates that some letters have been abstracted from the files of the department. Since the fantastic attempt of a visionary speculator to foreclose an imaginary mortgage on the whole of Peru has been used as a club for political purposes, the puljlic has a right to know all the facts ancl all the names connected with it. ]\[r. Belmont deserves credit for his successful effort to throw light upon an affair which evidently has a mysterious side. IINVESTKJAXION CONTINUED, MAY 3, 18S2.] TONNAGE DUTIES. April 10, 1882. Mr. BELMONT introduced the following bill to repeal the tonnage duties upon ships and vessels of the United States and upon certain foreign vessels: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled: That from and after next no duties upon the tonnage of foreign vessels or vessels of the United States shall be levied by virtue of sections forty-two hundred and nineteen, forty-two hundred and twenty-three, forty-two hundred and twenty-four, and forty-two hun- dred and twenty-five of the Revised Statutes of the United States, except such foreign vessels as enter from ports into which vessels of the Uunited States are not permitted to enter for trade, and excepting further the vessels of such foreign nations as impose discriminating duties on the vessels of the United States or their cargoes. [see this subject CONTINUED, JCLY 22, 18S2.] 12 EECORD IN CONGEESS. [CHILIAN-PERUVIAN INVESTIGATION CONTINUED.] SOUTH PACIFIC SQUADEON. May 3, 1882. Mr. BEL]\IONT submitted the following resolution, wliicli was re- ferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs: Resolved, That the President be requested, if not incompatible with the public interest, to send to this House complete copies of any and all orders and instruc- tions from the Navy Department to the commanding officer or officers of the South Pacific Squadron during the year 1881; and also copies of any and all letters, communications or reports of such commanding officer or officers to the Navy Department during the same period. [subject continued below and JULY 5, 188S.] EXAMINATION OF SECRETARY BLAINE. [MR. BELMONT'S EXAMINATION OF SECRETARY BLAINE, IN THE CHILI-PERU- VIAN INVESTIGATION, ORDERED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF MR. BELMONT'S RESOLUTIONS, FEBRUARY 24, 1882, AND MARCH 16, 1882, THE INCIDENTS OF WHICH ARE REFERRED TO IN THE FOLLOWING PRESS COM- MENTS. ETC., IS CONTAINED IN REPORT NO. 1790, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FORTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION, A REPRINT OF WHICH ACCOMPANIES THIS COMPILATION. FOR THE FINDINGS AND REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE, SEE UNDER AUGUST 1, 1S82, OF THIS VOLUME. SEE, ALSO SPEECH, JULY 5, 1SS2.] PRESS COMMENTS, LETTERS, ETC. RESOLUTION OF THE YOUNG MEN'S DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION OF PHILADELPHIA. " Philadelphia, May 3. "Hon. Peert Belmoxt: "Dear Sir. — At a largely attended meeting of the Young Men's Demo- cratic Association, held last evening, the following resolution was adopted: " Resohcd, That this association heartily approve of the efforts of the Hon. Perry Belmont as a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the House of Representatives to compel James G. Blaine, late Secretary of State, to testify fully as to his action in the negotiation connected with the Peruvian difficulties. That, in the judgment of this association, Mr. Blaine deserves to be condemned for his insolent disregard of propriety and gross discourtesy to Mr. Belmont, who was acting in the strict performance of his official duty. " Y'ours very respectfully, "JOHN CADWALADER, President. " SAMUEL Q. JAQUETTE, Secretary." KECOKD IN CONGRESS. 13 REPLY TO YOUXG MEX's DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATIOiSr. " Washixoton-, May 5. " My Dear Sir. — The approval which the Young ]\Ien's Democratic Association of Pliiladelphia has by formal resolution bestowed upon the course I thought rig-ht to adopt on a recent occasion as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee is extremely grateful to me. " The inquiry which the House of Eepresentatives directed the com- mittee to make respecting the diplomacy pursued by the Department of State in South America is undoubtedly of the gi'eatest national importance. "After the successful mediation of this Government in 1871 between Spain and the allied republics of Bolivia, Chili, Ecuador and Peru, by which a general armistice was arranged between the parties, then in a state of war, the position and influence of the United States in South America, and in Central America as well, were all that we could desire. " But it must be acknowledged that at the present moment the estima- tion in which the United States are held in that portion of the continent is not conducive to our political and commercial interests. "What has produced the change? Has oiu- Giovernment alarmed and alienated any of the American republics by forcing upon any of them in their days of trial and distress claims for vast sums of money in disregard of the accepted rales of international intercourse and the obligations of international friendship? Certainly every consideration, political and commercial, made it important for our Government in its dealings, if it dealt at all with the unhappy condition of affairs in Chili and Peru, to ado])t and pursue a policy in harmony with the best and universally accepted rules of ])ublic law, which regulates the rights and duties of neutrals in the presence of war between neighboring nations. " Did our Government after March, 1881, either formulate or announce or steadily and successfully pursue such a policy toward Chili and Peru? Was it either wise or prudent or necessary for the Department of State to diminish or prejudice the moral influence which the Government of the United States would exert over each and all of the belligerent powers by thrusting to the front vast pecuniary claims the validity of which in an American and a diplomatic sense can not be ^dndicated? " The hostile criticisms which have been made in certain quarters upon my course of action on the occasion to which you refer were to be ex- pected and have not disturbed me. Even had they momentarily done 14 EECOED IN CONGEESS. SO I should have found ample cause for satisfaction in the expressions of approval like that I have received from your association and from those whose judgment and good opinion I value so highl}'. " Believe me, very truly yours, "PERRY BELMONT. " John' Cadwaladee, President." VThe Brooklyn Eagle.) Mr. Blaine's testimony before tlie Congressional Committee on Foreign Affairs, who by Ji resolution of the House of Representatives were instructed to inquire into the public scandal of our relations with the belligerent South-American re- publics of Chili and Peru, terminated yesterday. That it should have ended in a display of personal ill-feeling but little removed from a brawl is entirely dis- creditable, but the discredit attaches altogether to the Avitness. Driven to the wall by the persistent and unswerving interrogatories of a young member of the committee who had made up his mind to elicit whatever information was to be obtained, Mr. Blaine fell back upon his last device, namely, truculence and bluster, and provoked Mr. Belmont to the application of the unpleasant words " bully and coward." Throughout his examination the ex-Secretary had mani- fested a determination to discredit Mr. Belmont as the author of the resolution of inquiry and the only member of the committee who showed any desire to get at the facts. In his examination of Shipherd, Mr. Belmont had exhibited a persistency and thoroughness of study of the question which necessarily annoyed the ex-Secretary, who could see in his handling of tlie subject nothing but a partisan motive. He volunteered to tell all he knew on the subject, but evidently came prepared only to let out so much as he chose of the information which he alone could furnish. The majority of the committee were willing to let him conduct the examination, but Mr. Belmont from the outset had shown an- opposite intention. Consequently he addressed liimsclf to the business of silencing an unfriendly examiner by sneers, stump speeches, arrogant contradictions and other pettifogging devices for the purpose. of cowing him. Mr. Belmont is not made of the stuff to submit, ap- parently, and kept his temper until Mr. Blaine opened the proceedings of yesterday with a direct attack on him, made in the most theatrical and impressive way. Instead of frightening Mr. Belmont off he goaded him in his turn to sarcasm and provoked the galling reminder that the witness had been before Congressional committees in the past, and that his arrogant tactics were all understood and discounted. The younger man showed an equal capacity for retort with his un- dignified senior, and the latter, smarting under the unexpected thrust, gave way to personal abuse. Expecting to have the last word he audaciously charged his opponent with falsification and earned the unpleasing definition of himself which wound up the session of the committee. As a matter of fact Mr. Belmont's language regarding Mr. Blaine's dispatches as "in effect" a determination not to peimit a treaty of peace between Chili and Peru in disregard of Landreau's claims is justified as an interpretation of the dispatch under consideration, be- cause the very language was employed in a previous dispatch, dated August 4th, which we quoted some day^ ago. EECOED IX COXGKESS. 15 To say that Mr. Blaiue's bearing before the committee, his trueulence, his evasiveness aud his petty triclis will destroy forever the chances of distinction to which he aspires would be to display ignorance of the past. Mr. Blaine stands no lower to-day than he did when to escape conviction he stole the Mulligan letters. Since then fortune raised him to a place of great eminence aud paved the way to his future exaltation. The manner in which he turned this great truot to account is of much more importance to the country than his trickery before a committee of investigation. His policy proved him to be a most dangerous man to wield power; his examination merely illustrated his moral and intellectual calibre, which is not greater than that of a ward politican. He has damaged himself, doubtless; but he is in no worse plight than he has been before. The extent of his self-interest in this miserable Landreau aff-.iir will probably not be ascertained by any formal imiuiry. He has thrown away his opportunity of justifying his policy, if he could, and the practical people of tlie United States are driven to the conviction that he can not justify it. The situation disclosed by the publication of the diplomatic correspondence after his removal from the Secretaryship was surelj' one which denuiuded at- tention. The United States, it was plain, had pledged its influence, backed by its military and naval strength, to secure from a sister republic with which we were upon cordial terms the payment of a sum of money alleged to be due a citizen of the United States by another republic with which the former had been at war. The war-making power oc the United States resides, constitution- ally, with Congress, not with the Executive or with the head of any department. Congress was l)ound by every obligation to ascertain, if it could, the merits of the controversy, and Mr. Belmont's resolution calling for an investigation was passed without dissent. The statements of one Shipherd, that the retired Secre- tary of State had been inlluenccd by him to press one claim, afterward proved to be spurious, furnished a clue to ^Ir. Blaine's policy, and from this it was dis- covered that while discussing Mr. Shipherd's pretensions the Secretary had been all the time using his inlluence to press an independent suit. Mr. Blaine knew that he would be called upon to explain the reason for such vigorous espousal of a private citizen's claim w-hlcli had for years been in abeyance, and volunteered to (mligliten the committee. Inquiiy developed the fact that the claim was held by an alien; that the so-called naturalized American, his brother, had no status as a claimant, and lastly, that there being no record of this ptTson's natnrnlization — in spite of his appointment to a consular oSice — on its face the entire claim was alien aud did not justify the interference of the United States in the slightest degree. In view of all this some other motive than duty and patriotism was to be found for j\Ir. Blaine's pushing the claim to the point of war. If Hint motive was a proper one he should have had no hesita- tion in making it clear. He has not done so. He has not endeavored to do anything but defend the claini. If he sincerely believed in its genuineness he showed incomi)etency for the oflice he held; if he was not incompetent he manifested an eagerness which can not: be reconciled with integrity. The country i.s reluctantly forced to the other alternative, namely, that the motive which underlay his South American policy was an improper one. Such a conclusion is humiliating enough in consideration of the fact that the man whom it characterizes has occupied the most exalted position in the Cabinet and has for years been a. strong candidate for the Presidency of the United States. If the cartoonists of Chili, whose exultation had led them to ascribe cowardice 16 EECOED IN COXGEESS. to the United States as a motive for more or less graceful recession from an attitude of belligerency, have wounded the sensitive nature of Mr. Blaine, the people of the United States, confident in their strength and rectitude of purpose, can afford to smile. The caricature makers might have done worse. They may do worse yet, and represent us as a nation not of bullies and cowards only, judging from the type of Americans they encountered in the chair of the Secretary of State of the United States, but a nation of footpads or bandits. And then we could not afford to smile, because of the melancholy glimmer of truth they could advance in justification. (The New York Star.) The action of Congressman Belmont in the Committee on Foreign Relations will have the hearty indorsement of every fair-minded man who knows the facts. He is the youngest member of the committee. But he found the other members either afraid to cross-question Mr. Blaine so as to get the bottom facts of the case, or predisposed to accept Mr. Blaine's dramatic and declamatory declarations without question. Mr. Belmont reluctantly undertook to perform a disagreeable duty. He set out to ascertain the truth behind the stories of Shipherd, the dispatches to Hurlbut, the instructions to Trescot, and the con- flicting reports and rumors, partly from the State Department, partly from ex- Minister Christiancy, and partly from Blaine himself. He simply assumed that beneath so many streams of smoke there must be some fire. He questioned Mr„ Blaine, whom he found intractable, irritable, unwilling to answer simple interro- gations, insolent and abusive. He made it evident that, while perfectly willing to tell what was of no consequence, he did not mean to tell what Mr. Belmont, Congress and the whole country wanted to know. He acted the part of a bully and a coward, and Mr. Belmont did right to tell him so. The amazing thing is that the committee cowardly capitulated to Blaine, and tried to soothe his irritation and let him down easily, instead of supporting Mr. Belmont in his difiicult task. The committee cravenly consented to be insulted by a bully, instead of compelling him to give the information that was asked for, or re- porting him to the House for contempt. It was rumored yesterday that Mr. Belmont intended to report the case to the House and ask to be excused from further service on the committee. We are glad to learn that he will do no such thing. He is wanted on that com- mittee. It is the place of all others where he is most needed. And the post of danger in this case is the post of duty. In no other position can he render such important service to the country as the one he is in and has so courageously filled. His example ought to shame his associates into remorse and stimulate them to show the spirit of men if they can not act the part of statesmen. The eyes of the whole country are fixed on Mr. Belmont, and he will disappoint the high expectations he has raised by anything which looks like a retreat. EECOED IX CONGRESS. 17 (From the Boston Post.) It was through no seeking or desire of his thut the task of plying Mr. Bhiine with those questions to which the country wanted answers devolved upon him. But it was evidently not to be done unless he did it, and he stood manfully in the breach. As the New York Evening Post has said: "If he had not taken the task on himself, Mr. Blaine wotild have left the committee-room with his tongue in his cheek, after making the little stump speech with which he opened the proceedings," and " it should be remembered to Mr. Belmont's credit that he is the only member of the committee who from the first showed any desire to make the Peruvian investigation thorough." Mr. Belmont shows the ancestral traits of pluck and energy. He is a young man, it is true, but he is as old as Commodore Perry was when he fouglit the battle of Lake Erie, and he does not swerve from his duty even when so heavy a hulk as Blaine bears down upon him with every port hole frowning. The provocations which Mr. Belmont had to encounter were almost too great for youthful impetuosity to stand, but he soon recovered his balance. He has gained the confidence and won the respect of the country, and a large and useful future opens before him. 18 RECORD IN CONGRESS. A PRIME MERIDIAN. June 24, 1882. Mr. Belmont reported back from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Joint resolution (H. R. No. 209) to authorize the President of the United States to call an international conference to fix on, and recommend for universal adoption, a common prime meridian to be used in the reckoning of longitude and in the regulation of time throughout the world, with the recommendation that it do pass, and submitted the following unani- mous report from the committee. r REPORT. There is at present no common and accepted standard for the computation of time for other than astronomical purposes. In the absence of agreement, serious embarrassments are felt in the ordinary affairs of modern commerce, especially since the widespread extension of telegraphic communication and railroad trans- portation, and, owing to the diversity of methods now in use for indicating points on the earth's surface, navigators, geographers, and all who have occasion to use charts or maps, are put to the greatest inconvenience. International agreement upon this subject is demanded more imperatively every day, both by science and by trade. We have had as provisional or partial standards the meridians of Alexandria, the Canary Islands, Toledo, Cracow, Vranbourg, Copenhagen, Goes, Pisa, London, Paris, Rome, Greenwich, Vienna, Ulm, Berlin, Nuremberg, Venice, Bologna, Augsburg, Rouen, Dantzig, Milan, Washington and other places. As long ago as the time of Richelieu, an attempt was made to put an end to the confusion arising out of so great a variety of usages, and a congress was invited to assemble in Paris in 1G30 to agree, if possible, upon a common meridian. In speaking of this congress, Professor Barnard, of Columbia College, says: " The island of Ferro, the most southwesterly of the Canary Islands, was fixed upon, and a royal order establishing this decision was promulgated in July of the same year. Unfortunately, however, the exact latitude of Ferro, with refer- ence to any point on the continent of Europe, was at that time unknown. The determination of its position was never made by authority, and at length, in 1724, is was resolved to assume it as twenty degrees west from Paris. To name the island, therefore, without naming the point in it, was to leave the meridian unfixed, even had its general position been better known; at any rate, this effort to estab- lish uniformity was without practical result." The Government has, by section 435 of the Revised Statutes, adopted the Green- wich meridian, for nautical purposes, but the establishment of the Meteorological EECOED IN CONGRESS. 19 Bureau and Signal Service system, with postal and other stations extending over nearly four hours of solar time in North America, has already compelled the adop- tion of the standard time of 7:35 a. m. at Washington, as the moment of making telegraphic reports from all stations, and the observations on our naval vessels are made at the same hour of Washington time. There is already pending in this Congress a measure (H. R. 5009) for securing national standard time to our ports of entry and principal cities. This would accomplish what is desired in the regulation of time in the United States, and might be incorporated in any internal system to be adopted, but the remaining points as to the construction of charts and the reckoning of longitudes would require the concurrence of other nations, and could only be determined by an international convention. The propositions embodied in this resolution have been discussed in this country and in Europe by various commercial and scientific bodies, and the necessity for an international convention is generally conceded. At the recent meeting in Cologne and A'enice, the idea of holding such a convention in Washington was very much favored. It is obvious that the United States, having the greatest continuous longitudinal area of any country traversed by railway, postal and tele- graph lines, should take the initiative in a movement so important to science and to the world's commerce. The committee, therefore, recommend the passage of the joint resolution. The SPEAKER. — Is there objection to the present consideration of this joint resohition? Mr. HOLMAN. — I suppose the power to appoint three persons to repre- sent the United States at this convention of nations, is not intended to be a source of expense. I am advised by the gentleman reporting the bill that it will not be attended with a cent of additional expense, and, therefore, I have no ol)jection to it. The SPEAKEE. — The question is on the engrossment and third read- ing of the joint resolution. Mr. CAELISLE. — It seems to me there ought to be some explanation of a measure as important as this seems to be. It will necessarily involve a reconstruction of all our maps and nautical almanacs and disarrange everything we now have. Mr. BELMONT. — That will depend on the action of the convention. Mr. CARLISLE.— But it looks to that. The SPEAKER. — The House is dividing on ordering the joint resolu- tion to be engrossed and read the third time. The House divided, and there were ayes, 23, noes, 58. The House refused to order the joint resolution to be engrossed and read the third time. Later Mr. Belmont moved to reconsider and ob- jection being raised, the motion to reconsider was entered upon the Journal. 20 EECOED IN COVGRESS. [LATER IN THE DAY.] Mr. BELMONT. — I move to reconsider the vote by which the House this morning refused to order to be engrossed for a third reading the joint resolution (H. E. No. 209) to authorize the President of the United "States to call an international conference to fix on and recommend for univer- sal adoption a common prime meridian to be used in the reckoning of longitude in the regulation of time throughout the world. Mr. CAMP. — I make the point that the motion is not in order pend- ing a motion to adjourn. The SPEAKEE. — The Chair thinks the motion to reconsider may be entered upon the Journal, and that will be done. [see this subject continued, JULY 6, 1882.] EECOED IN C0NGKES3. 21 SPEECH UPON NAVAL APPROPRIATION BILL. THE CHILIAN-PERUVIAN INVESTIGATION. July 5, 1S82. THE HOUSE HAVING UNDER CONSIDERATION THE BILL (H. R. 6616), MAKING APPRO- PRIATIONS FOR THE NAVAL SERVICE, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1883, Mr. BELMONT said: Mr. Chairman. — I move a pro forma amendment. I "believe that measures should be taken to place our navy on a proper footing. But I can not agree with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Robeson) when, in his zeal for the passage of this bill, he says that had there been in the harbor of Callao last summer such an ironclad as he would now build, the dismemberment of Peru need not have taken place. If I thought this was a coiTect conclusion it would have great influence in determining my vote upon this bill, because anything that we can do to better our position in South America, I think ought to be done. But the gentleman is, I think, in error. I should be sorry to say so unless I were secure in the- facts of the case, and I feel it incumbent upon me, therefore, to present those facts somewhat in detail. The country has been surfeited with the scandals of Mr. Shipherd and his Peruvian Company — scandals of which it is enough to say that they would have been impossible had the State Department always been ad- ministered with propriety and dignity. I do not now propose to speak of these scandals in detail. But there is a much more grave and im- portant aspect of our South American relations, of wliich too little heed has been taken, and of which the mischievous significance is daily in- creasing. We have lately heard a great deal of an alleged American policy. It should be understood, however, that the treatment of the questions arising out of the unfortunate war between Cliili and Peru and Bolivia during the recent administration of the State Department contrived in the short space of six months not only to gamble away the moral influ- ence of the United States in South America, and to discredit American dii>lomacy throughout that part of the world, but actually resulted in 22 EECOED IN CONGRESS. opening the way to a direct European interference in South American affairs and in giving a color of necessity to such an interference. To make this perfectly clear I must ask the House to allow me to sketch the story of these South American troubles as briefly as the nature of the subject will permit and as plainly as I am able to do. In the year 1879 war broke out between the Eepublic of Chili and the allied Eepublics of Bolivia and Peru. This event attracted the anxious attention of three leading powers of Europe — • England, France and Germany — each of whom cames on an important trade ^\-ith the west coast of South America, and each of whom has a direct pecuniary interest in the condition of these EepubHcs. Of the thousand milHons of dollars to wliich in round numbers the aggregate public debts of the South American nations are estimated to amount, very nearly one- tliird, or about three hundred millions, are represented by the public debts of Chili, Bolivia and Peru, Peru being much the more heavily indebted of the three States. The European creditors of the three Ee- pubHcs were seriously alarmed at the outbreak of hostilities which could not fail to cripple the resources of their debtors, and the war had scarcely begun when overtures were made from Europe to the United States with the view of ascertaining whether something could not be done to end the conflict. The fact that the direct pecuniary interest of the Euro- pean States in the re-establishment of peace was far greater than that of the United States, obviously offered the Government of this country a decided moral advantage in the work of amicable inteiwention to check the progress of the war, should it be deemed the policy of this Govern- ment to interfere at all. Of course, therefore, the creation of any im- portant American claim on the resources of either of the belligerents was a tiling to be avoided if order and prosperity were to be restored in South America through the influence of this country, especially when such a claim was of a doubtful character. Bearing these facts in mind, let us now consider the progress of events. THE "WAR ON THE PACIFIC. The conflict has been a contest for the practical control of the nitrate and guano trade of the world by means of the possession of the Province of Tarapaca, which lies within the boundaries of Peru and close to the territories of Chili and Bolivia. The nitrates can not be exported without considerable preparation; the Peruvian Government had, on this account, apportioned them among a number of foreign commercial houses, and had levied an export duty upon them. EECORD IN CONGRESS. 23 The revenue thus obtained, though great, was insufficient for the pur- poses of the Peruvian Government, whose debt in 1860 amounted to $20,000,000, and wliich had grown to more than $250,000,000 at the breaking out of the war of 1879. It is said that half of this debt is held in England, and more than one-fourth of it in France and Holland. Harassed by the complaints of the bondholders, Peru tried to satisfy them by raising the export duty on the nitrates from 88 cents to $2 per ton. Finding that even tliis strong measure failed to produce suffi- cient revenue, the Government of Peru reclaimed the nitrate beds from the foreign houses and assumed control of them itself. The result of this experiment was precisely the result which always attends such Government operations; the expense of production left only a nominal profit, and the national debt was largely increased. Moreover, new nitrate beds were discovered at Antafogasta, in Bolivia, which were ceded by the Bolivian Government to the Anglo-Chilian house of Gibbs & Co., and were worked with such success as to overstock the market and lower tlie price of the nitrates, thus adding to the financial difficulties of Peru. In 1874 an old-standing boundary question between Chili and Bolivia had been settled by a treaty, under which Bolivia agreed to impose no new taxes on Chilian industries in the Bolivian districts of Antafogasta, Mejillones, Caracoles and Salinas. In 1878 the Bolivian Congress, hold- ing that this agreement did not affect taxes previously levied and unpaid, insisted on collecting a considerable amount of taxes from the Anglo- Chilian houses at Antafogasta, and gave notice that in case of default the works there would be occupied and sold. Thereupon the Chilian Minister at La Paz demanded his passports, and a Chilian force, landing at Antafogasta, drove out the Boli\ian authorities mthout firing a shot and occupied the place. On this, Peru, as a neutral, in March, 1879, sent a special Minister, Senor Lavalle, to Chili with offers of mediation. The Government at Santiago, having been infonned that a secret alli- ance existed between Peru and Bolivia, interrogated Senor Lavalle on this point. He denied all knowledge of such a treaty. On the 14th of March the Chilian Minister at Lima, Senor Godoy, received orders to demand a declaration of neutrality from Peru, Peru declined to make such a declaration at Lima, stating that Senor Lavalle had been sent to assure Chili of the neutrality of Peru. On the 24th of March the Chilian Government instructed Senor Godoy at Lima to insist that the question of Peruvian neutrality should be discussed not at Santiago, but at Lima, to demand an explanation of the Peruvian armaments, and to request an immediate and explicit avowal or disavowal of the alleged secret treaty between Peru and Bolivia. Tlie Peruvian Government responded 24 RECORD IN CONGRESS. by avowing that a treaty conditional in its terms had been concluded between Peru and Bolivia, February 6, 1873v with the object of strength- ening the Peruvian Government's control of the nitrates, and that this treaty provided in its eighth article for arbitration in case of any inter- national difficulty, and in its second article for an alliance in case the integrity of the territory either of Bolivia or Peru should be threatened. To this Chili replied that the case for an alliance had not occurred, as Chili " did not intend to conquer a hair's breadth of Bohvian territory; " and, finally, considering herself really threatened by an alliance long before consummated. Chili, on the 7th of April, 1879, formally declared war against Peru. The language of the eighth article of the treaty between Peru and Bolivia runs thus: The contracting parties bind themselves to employ with preference, whenever it is possible, conciliatory measures in order to avoid a rupture or to put an end to war, holding as the most effective the arbitration of a third power. It is not necessary here to express an opinion as to which party at the outset of tliis war was in the right; it is enough to know that these were the circumstances in Avhich it began. THE TIME FOR OUR GOOD OFFICES. Clearly, this was an occasion when other powers might properly tender their good offices to the belligerents in order to make more easy some adjustment of the dispute, especially as arbitration was already provided for in the treaty of 1873 between Peru and Bolivia, and was not objected to by Chili in 1879. This important fact as to Cliili appears from a conversation held at Santiago by Mr. Osborn, the American Minister, with Mr. Fierro, the Chilian Minister of Foreign Affairs, and reported to Mr. Evarts in a dispatch dated April 3, 1879, in which Mr. Osborn says: In response to a suggestion from Mr. Fierro, I remarked that I did not doubt that the United States Government would cheerfully lend its efforts to an ami- cable arrangement of the difficulties, if the Governments engaged in the contro- versy should request it to do so. Of this dispatch no notice whatever seems to have been taken by Mr. Evarts. Although familiar beyond most of our pu])lic men with the methods and the merits of the great principle of arbitration, as exempli- fied in those Geneva conferences in which he took so eminent a part, this opportunity for applying that principle to the immense advantage of three sister Eepublics in South America, and to the honor and ad- vantage also of the United States, seems entirely to have escaped his attention. He was not even reminded of it when, a fortnight afterward. EECOED IN COXGEESS. 25 April 19, 1879, Mr. Osborn sent to the State Department the war mani- festo of Chili announcing the outbreak of these deplorable hostilities. The only notice taken of this communication appears to have been such a formal expression of conventional regret as might have been expected from the Government of Portugal or of Siam, and even this was uttered not by the Secretary of State, but by his assistant, Mr. Seward, in the following cool and indifferent terms: Whatever may have been the causes leading to this war, its commencement and continuance can not but be regretted by the United States, and it is hardly neces- sary to add that the announcement of an early peace between the two Govern- ments, as also with Bolivia, would be news most welcome to the Government of the United States. In justice to Mr. Evarts, I may here observe that, unlike his successor, he was, for a time at least, consistent in his coiu'se, or rather in his atti- tude; for he sat perfectly still and did not trouble himself to do anything until in June, 1879, about four months after the outbreak of hostilities, Lord Salisbury telegraphed to the British Minister in Washington " that the English and German Governments greatly regretted the war, which was largely waged at the neutral powers' cost, and that he wished to know whether the United States Government would be disposed to join tliose two powers in offering theii' mediation." Mr. Evarts, who could find no time to reply to his own Ministers on the subject of American arbitration between the belligerents, instantly replied to the appeal of the neutrals in the negative. This Government — He said — has been and is ready to assist in the restoration of peace between the belligerents whenever its good offices may be usefully proffered. It does not, however, favor a premature effort in combination with other neutral powers which would carry the impression of dictation or coercion in disparagement of belligerent rights. Mr. Evarts doubtless remembered that many j^ears had not elapsed since the United States Government had felt its very existence to depend on maintaining belligerent rights to their full extent, and he was not at first disposed to stultify liimself by helping to abridge the rights for which we had so long and so strenuously contended. It does not appear that he took any step whatever to interpose between the combatants. Nevertheless, it is evident that he was not altogether easy in his isolation; he had, in fact, through his neglect to notice the information given him by his Ministers in the belligerent States, incurred a serious responsi- bility; although he had said not a word which showed a double motive, 4 26 KECOKD IN CONGKESS. it is clear that he wished not only to respect belligerent rights himself^ not only to forego interference on our part, but to keep England and Germany aloof. This was a position he conld not long hold. If the United States would not act with England and Germany, the United States must act alone, or run great risk of forfeiting their influence, and also of unpleasant complications with foreign States. So, at least, Mr. Evarts seems to have thought, for when, in the following September, the British Minister returned to the subject, and inquired whether it was true, as the newspapers alleged, that our Government had expressed its willingness to offer its good oflfices independently of European powers, Mr. Evarts replied: That our Ministers have given and are giving attention to the wishes of this Government in favor of peace at the earliest indication of the readiness of the belligerents to consider such good offices acceptable. This is all very well, and was meant to satisfy the British Minister, but there is no evidence in the dispatches to show that Mr. Evarts was giving attention to the action of our Ministers. The Important point is, that our Government refused to co-operate with England and Ger- many, on the alleged ground that Mr. Evarts desired to do nothing " in disparagement of belligerent rights." It is, perhaps, unnecessary to raise the question whether the unasked mediation of the United States, even thus acting alone, was strictly in accordance with this desire, but from the moment Mr. Evarts decided to have recourse to mediation, after having declined the offer of England and Germany, he assumed for the United States, to a certain extent, the moral obligation to succeed in the undertaking thus imposed upon the country by him, and it was obvious that a failure in such circumstances must deeply injure the proper influence and position of the United States. While, then, Mr. Evarts was thus answering the British Minister in Washington, his Envoy (Mr, Christiancy) at Lima was actually offering the good offices of the United States in behalf of peace, as it appears from the dispatches dated September 17th and 24th: In the meantime I have taken the liberty, in a confidential and informal manner (which I deem much the best in the present stage of the case), to inform the Minister of Foreign Affairs that our Government is ready to tender its good offices to bring about peace whenever it shall be satisfied that such a course will he agreeable to all the belligerents. In a long and frank conversation yesterday with the Minister of Foreign Af- fairs, I again gave him the assurance (mentioned in my dispatch No. 59) that our Government was ready to tender its good offices to all the belligerents in behalf of peace whenever there should be good reason to believe that it would be acceptable to all the belligerents. I offered to make this tender formally, and officially if he preferred; but, like me, he thought best to leave it in this informal shape for the present. EECOED IX COXGKESS. 27 On the 13th of October Mr. Evarts approved Mr. Christiancy's course in a dispatch in which lie expresses the distinct condition that it should be the " evident desire of all the parties to the struggle " that such a course should he adopted. The fact is that neither of the belligerents now asked intervention, despite these overtures of our agents. By this time the positions of the United States and the belligerents, thanks to Mr. Evarts's neglect at the outset to notice the intimations of his Ministers, had become completely reversed. Our Ministers were now seeking in vain the opportunity which Mr. Evarts at the beginning might have accepted, but did not. Neither of the belligerents in October desired our intervention, and it might have been expected that self-respect would have induced the Secretary of State to desist from overtures which were not encouraged. But Mr. Evarts had exposed himself to a growing pressure from the neutral pow- ers. He had assumed, in dealing with them, a responsibility which he could neither meet nor shake off. Nearly a year passed, and it became more and more evident that Peru was in great peril. On the 9th of May, 1880, we find IMr. Evarts in vain urging j\Ir. Osborn at Santiago to induce Chili to turn to the United States as an arbitrator. This was just about a year after the time at which Mr. Evarts had treated with absolute neglect Mr. Osborn's intimations that Chili would then have entertained such action by the United States Government. Mr. Chris- tiancy, on the 12th of June, 1880, got to the point of renewing the offer of his services, this time directly to the " supreme chief of Peru," Pierola, who had established a dictatorship. The offer was made with vei7 little reference to any reservation as to the " evident desire of all the parties,"' but, instead of a favorable answer, which he was unable to obtain, Mr. Evarts' Minister thought fit to send his own inferences, in the following terms: He (the supreme chief) received uiy suggestions iu the kindest manner, and, though he did not say so in so many words, I thought I could perceive by his manner that he would be glad to secure peace on any reasonable terms, and would feel grateful to our Government for any effort which might lead to such a result. If we bear in mind the declaration of Mr. Evarts that the United States would not interfere by way of mediation, excepting in case this Government was requested to do so by the belligerents, it may appear strange that on the 29th of July, 1880, he addressed the following tele- gram to our Ministers: Press upon Chilian Government our desire to aid in restoring peace on honor- able terms between nations to which we are sincerely and equally friendly. A like instruction is sent to-day to Lima. 28 EECOED IN COXGHESS. TERU ENCOURAGED TO ACCEPT OUR AID. Step by step Mr. Evarts had drifted forward until he had altogether lost sight of his starting point. Under tlie force of circumstances and the supposed necessity of keeping up appearances in the eyes of neutral powers he had reached a position where Peru was encouraged to expect the aid of the United States Government. If the policy of intervention was to be adopted at all, why was not a decision reached in April, 1879, at the beginning of the war? It might then have been more easy to restore peace on " honorable terms." But to seek for such a result in July, 1880, by a simple moral pressure, when tlie victories of Chili had been so marked, Avas to court a failure which the conference of Arica emphasized and made ridiculous. Nevertheless, the policy being fairly adopted, it became necessary to know what means our Government had of intervening with effect. It Avas known what Chili would demand. Five months before this time, on the 5th of March, 1880, our Minister in Chili, Mr. Osborn, had written that no one in Chili presumed to question the annexation of Tarapaca, " and that no proposition for peace which should exclude such a settle- ment would be seriously considered by the Chilian Government." Whether this Avas true of the Chilian people or not may be open to question. But it Avas the only information our State Department had any right to act upon. JSTotAAathstanding this information the only instructions which our diplomatic agents received were to the effect that they should " aid in restoring peace on honorable terms." Surely this seems somewhat vague, if intended to serve as a guide to men charged AA^th the duty of medi- ators in so important a conference as that about to be opened at Arica. Our Government might either have told Peru that she must submit to the fortunes of AA^ar and lose Tarapaca, or else that she should have the support of the United States in refusing to do so. As a matter of fact neither course was followed, but on the strength of this vague dispatch of July 29th, and after laborious negotiations, the belligerents Avere in- duced at least to listen to, if no longer to solicit, the mediation of the United States. The conferences Avere opened on the United States ship Lackawanna on the 22d of October, 1880. After three sittings the conferences came to an end on the 27th. Chili made propositions which Avere declined by the allies. These, on their part, proposed the arbitration of the United States, which Chili rejected. Our Government remained silent for some weeks, but on the 25th of December, Christmas day, Mr, Evarts began again. Two months had EECOED IX COXGRESS. 29 elapsed since the failure of his conferences at Arica. There is nothing on record to show that in the interval either victorious Chili or the van- quished allies or the despairing neutrals had solicited his good offices. But suddenly the silence of the State Department was broken, and the riotous Eepublics of South America were solemnly called to order. This time Mr. Evarts distinctly intimated that the President of the United States would he willing to he made arbitrator. He caused this to be made officially known to the three belligerent Governments in the fol- lowing note to Mr. Osborn: Sir.— My attention has been called to the following passage of your remavks at the conference held at Arica, Peru, on the 25th of October last, as reported in the second protocol of those conferences: " His Excellency Mr. Osborn remarked that it seemed proper to him as well as to his colleagues to place upon record that the Government of the United States does not ask the position of arbiter in this question. A strict compliance with the duties inherent to that position would involve much trouble and great labor, and, while he could not doubt that this Government would accept the position if properly requested to do so, it was nevertheless proper that it be understood that its representatives did not court that distinction." As it is not quite clear what the meaning and scope of your remarks on that occasion was, I will thank you for explanation on the subject. There was no impropriety in your making it clear to the representatives of the belligerent States that this Government had no desire to unduly urge its arbitration upon them. If, however, it was your purpose to convey the impression that we would not cheerfully assume any labor and trouble incident to arbitration in the inter- ests of peace and the service of justice, you have not correctly appreciated the views and wishes of this Government. It is the sincere desire of the President to see an honorable and lasting peace secured among the South American Repub- lics now engaged in war, and he will shrink from no effort or responsibility which can properly tend to the accomplishment of such a desirable result. In order to remove a possibly wrong impression which your language may have made upon the representatives of the belligerent powers, you will read this in- struction to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chili, and I will instruct Mr. Christiancy and Mr. Adams to read a copy of it to the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Peru and Bolivia, respectively. In this dispatch, for the first time, we see our Government, thanks to Mr. Evarts and Mr. Osborn, assuming something very like a hostile atti- tude toward Chili, the so far victorious belligerent. Mediation is one thing; arbitration another. A mediator is a friend; an arbitrator is a judge. A mediator can stop when he will; an arbi- trator must assume the responsibility of an-iving at a conclusion. More- over, Chili, at Arica, had refused our arbitration. Had anything hap- pened since the conference at Arica to make Mr. Evarts suppose she would accept it? The Chilians marched on Lima. The situation had become more grave than ever, and Mr. Evarts could offer no acceptable suggestion, could impose no restraint. 30 BECORD IN CONGEESS. On the 10th of February, 1881, still pressed by the neutral powers, Mr. Evarts again wrote to Mr. Osborn: Urge upon Chili the desire of the United States to bring about peace. Now that the Chilians have captured Lima and Callao, it is believed that Peru will accept the mediation of the United States. Naturally enough! In answer Mr. Osborn wrote to Mr. Evarts on the 8th of March following: I can not urge upon the Chilian authorities the mediation of the United States, because Chili has decided to accept no foreign mediation. Perhaps Mr, Evarts's appeal, almost pathetic, after all that had hap- pened, would have been ineffective; yet it is still a question to be de- cided between him and Mr. Osborn whether these instructions so given ought not to have been obeyed with alacrity. ADVENT OF THE FRENCH COMPANY. The State Department was evidently at a loss what to do. Then it was that the French Societe Generale Industriel et Commercial was brought to the notice of Mr. Evarts. On the 20th of January, 1881, the plan was laid before the State Department. This plan required im- mense resources, but it was not resources which were in question. It was the active intervention of our Government, without which nothing could be done, and in the face of the refusal of Chili at that moment to accept our intervention it is difficult to understand the official recom- mendation which was given by Mr. Evarts to the propositions of this company. The Credit Industriel offered to assume, for a term of years, the Peruvian debt of two hundred and fifty millions, to assume a war indemnity of twenty millions, and to pay an annuity sufficient to meet all the national obligations both of Chili and Peru; and in return it required that Chili should surrender to Peru the conquered territory, subject to a protectorate of the Uni' ed States guaranteeing to the Credit Industriel the free and unobstructed shipment of guano and the nitrates for the same term of years. The proposition was equivalent to erecting this French company into a mediating power between Chili and Peru. It involved a protectorate and guarantee by the United States of Peru, as regards Chili, should Peru ask it. The agent of the company was informed that the United States could not use compulsion to enforce its decision; yet that the instructions to our Ministers at Lima, Santiago and La Paz would be renewed, and that they would be directed to proceed most earnestly to convince the bel- ligerents of the necessity of terminating the fratricidal war; that the EECOED IN COXGRESS. 31 plan of the Credit Industriel would be commended to their consideration; that this plan was regarded as a means which might aid considerably in settling financial difficulties; and that, though they would not seek the position of international trustee, as was proposed by the company, yet the United States would willingly accept it if the belligerents should agree on that point. The Secretary of State entered so fully into the plans of the company that he thought it important for it to have some American status to bring it more directly within the range of American interests. To this suggestion, made by our own State Department, we owe the subsequent tender of an American agency made by this company to the American house of Morton, Bliss & Co. One point, and one point only, needed to be settled with perfect clear- ness, and this was whether Chili should or should not be allowed to annex the nitrate district of Tarapaca. Upon the decision of the United States in this respect all other plans depended, and until the United States decided this point the unfortunate South Americans must con- tinue to destroy each other from sheer inability to agree. Peru would not submit so long as Mr. Evarts and the Credit Industriel were trying to save her from dismemberment, nor would Chili, on the other hand, surrender Tarapaca, Peru was encouraged and Chili was not dis- couraged. On the 17th of February, 1881, Mr. Evarts had sent the "program" of tlie Credit Industriel to Mr. Christiancy, adding, "that as the plan might be calculated to assist in the restoration of peace, it is proper that it should be laid before the representatives of the United States in Peru and Chili, that it might form an element in the calculations of the belligerents in settling the terms of peace; that the agents of the com- pany come under respectable introductions, and the financial bodies and persons whom they represent are well known and of much weight in financial circles." Mr. Evarts admits in the same dispatch that this plan might place the United States under actual obligations, by saying: Any further responsibility of the Government can only be determined by actual negotiations between the belligerents asking the United States Government to assume them. The country has never learned the extent of the responsibility, finan- cial or political, Mr. Evarts so lightly accepted in advance. One of the agents of the company went to Lima with his "pro- gram " and the " moral support of the United States," imparting some 32 EECOED IN CONGKESS. mysterious sanction to liis acts in the eyes of Pern. Thus ended this diplomatic campaign, which certainly did not benefit our position or that of any one concerned. It did not give South America peace or the State Department any visible honor. THE NEW SECEETAEY. Wlien the new Secretary of State took up the threads of our foreign relations one year ago, he found the South American affair in the con- dition I have described. His first act had a martial appearance. He removed Mr. Osborn to send General Kilpatrick to Santiago; and he removed Mr. Christiancy in order to substitute General Hurlbut at Lima. In the meantime the Government of Peru had gone to pieces. On the 5th of May the department received from Mr. Christiancy a dispatch announcing that the people of Peru were divided into two bodies, one of which recognized the military dictator, Pierola, as its head, while the other was trying to set up a provisional government under Mr. Calderon. Each Government — Said Mr. Christiancy — from time to time contrives to get statements of acts of adhesion signed by many citizens, and these often come from the same locality, the population being divided. But, upon the whole, the evidence as yet is quite clear that the overwhelming majority of the people of Peru are opposed to the provisional government. I know not what there was in this statement which decided the Secre- tary's action, but it is certainly a fact that on May 9th, four days after hearing from Mr. Christiancy, that the overwhelming majority of the Peruvians were opposed to Calderon's Government, he paid Mr. Chris- tiancy the compliment of recognizing the Calderon Government. This abrupt disregard of the opinion contained in the dispatch of our Minister to Peru was probably due to the long note of Senor Elmore, at that time the confidential agent at Washington of the Calderon Govern- ment, dated May 4th, containing an earnest plea for the recognition of Calderon as a provisional government. The first and most important act of Senor Garcia Calderon's Government — Says this note — will be to conclude a treaty of peace with Chili, thus securing to Peru its sover- eignty as an independent nation. Now, it is especially for this high and noble purpose that Peru appeals to the United States of America, and it is most par- ticularly to this end that the Provisional Government of Peru (Calderon) has appointed the undersigned as his organ, of communication with your Excellency's Government. EECOED IX CONGRESS. 33 It is evident that without this recognition Calderon was powerless. The recognition was, no doubt, of great assistance to Calderon, but it carried with it grave responsibilities for our Government. Was the sub- ject in all its proportions and its probable consequences laid before the Cabinet? However that may be, the two new Ministers set out for their posts, and on the 15th of June the Secretary of State gave them their instructions. To prevent Chili from annexing the nitrate district was the objective point of the new administration as it was of the old. This is the more evident as Mr. Blaine, having before him Mr. Evarts's instruc- tions to Ministers in Peru and Chili, and his recommendations of the French company's plans, left them in force, and entered immediately into relations with the agents of the Credit Industriel. One of the agents of that company (Suarez) had returned from Peru and advised the Secretary of all negotiations to which he had been a party. The Secretary of State was now acting in concert with the plans of the Credit Industriel and with Mr. Elmore, the Peruvian Envoy, then representing the Calderon Government, upon which these plans depended. The in- structions to General Ilurlbut of June 15th embraced all these parties. A comparison of the instructions given to General Hurlbut with those given to General Kilpatrick plainly shows that General Ealpatrick was expected and directed to co-operate with General Hurlbut in bringing about the establishment in Peru of the Calderon Government, and the adjustment of a peace which should not involve the cession of Tarapaca by Peru to Chili. To rescue the Province of Tarapaca from the grasp of Chili was the purpose for which General Hurlbut toiled, and to ac- complish which he was instructed to recognize and uphold the Calderon Government. Calderon, as provisional President, had completely adopted the plan of the Credit Industriel under its continuing contracts with the Peruvian Government, and Mr, Elmore's instructions were to en- deavor to have the plan adopted here in Washington. General Kilpatrick was instructed by the Department of State, under date of June 15, 1881 — First. That it is evident, from the protocols of the conference at Arica, that Chili was prepared to dictate and not discuss terms of peace, and that the arbi- tration of the United States upon any questions of difference with Peru and Bolivia was not acceptable, and would not be acceptable, to Chili, Second. That, therefore, this Government can not anticipate that the offer of intervention would be agreeable to Chili. Third. That it would scarcely comport with self-respect that such an offer should be refused. Fourth. That nevertheless Chili should also know that if at any time the in- terposition of the good offices of this Government can contribute to the restora- tion of peace, they will, on proper intimation, be promptly offered. 5 34 EECOKD IN CONGRESS. Fifth. That Mr. Kilpatrick must not give advice officially which is not sought. Sixth. That this Government does not wish to discuss the security for the future which Chili's interest may seem to require. Seventh. That if Chili seek only a guarantee of future peace, Peru and Bolivia should be allowed to offer such indemnity and guarantee before the annexation of territory is insisted upon. Eighth. That if those powers fail to offer what is a reasonably sufficient in- demnity and guarantee, that it becomes a fair subject for consideration whether such territory may not be exacted as the price of peace. Ninth. That at the conclusion of a war avowedly not of conquest, to make the acquisition of territory a sine qua non of peace is calculated to cast suspicion on the professions with which war was declared. Tenth. That the forced transfer of territory is not a case in which a power desiring the territory can be accepted as a safe and impartial judge. Eleventh. That the United States Government does not pretend to express an opinion whether or not such an annexation of territory is a necessary consequence of this war, and it believes that it would be better that such territoi-ial changes should be avoided as far as possible. Twelfth. That they should never be the result of mere force, but should be decided and tempered by discussion. Thirteenth. That at present such a discussion is impossible. Fourteenth. That for a provisional government to succeed in obtaining the confidence either of its own people or of foreign powers it must be allowed a freedom and force of action which can not be exercised while Chili holds absolute possession and governs by military authority. Fifteenth. That the Department of State would be gratified if Chili is induced to postpone settlement of all questions of territorial acquisition to diplomatic negotiations. Sixteenth. That the United States hope that the peace negotiations shall be conducted and the final settlement determined without either side invoking the aid or intervention of any European power, and that this Government will regret to be compelled to consider how far that feeling might be affected and a more active interposition forced upon it by any attempted complication of this question with European politics. The same day the Secretary instructed General Hurlbut: It is to be hoped that you will be able, in your necessary association with the Chilian authorities, to impress upon them that the more liberal and considerate their policy, the surer it will be to obtain a lasting and satisfactory settlement. The Peruvians are certainly aware of the sympathy and interest of the people of the United States, and will, I feel confident, be prepared to give to your repre- sentations the consideration to which the friendly anxiety of this Government entitles them. The United States can not refuse to recognize the rights which the Chilian Government has acquired by the successes of the war, and it may be that a cession of territory will be the necessary price to be paid for peace. It would seem ^ TO BE INJUDICIOUS FOR PERU to declare that under no circumstances could the loss of territory be accepted as the result of negotiation. The great objects of the provisional authorities of Peru would seem to be to secure the establishment of a constitutional government, and EECOKD IN CONGEESS. 35 next to succeed iu the openiug of negotiatious for peace without the doclarations of preliminary condition as an ultimatum on either side. It will be dillicult, per- haps, to obtain this from Chili, but as the Chilian Government has distinctly repudiated the idea that this was a war of conquest, the Government of Fern may fairly claim the opportunity to make propositions of indemnity and guarantee before submitting to a cession of territory. As far as the influence of the United States will go in Chili, it will be exerted TO INDUCE THE CHILIAN GOVERNMENT to consent that the question of the cession of territory should be the subject of negotiation, and not the condition precedent upon which alone negotiations shall commence. If you can aid the Government of Peru in securing such a result you will have rendered the service which seems most pressing. Whether it is in the power of the Peruvian Government to make any arrangements at home or abroad, singly or with assistance of friendly powers, which will furnish the necessary indemnity or supply the required guarantee, you will be better able to advise me after you have reached your post. As you are aware, more than one proposition has been submitted to the consideration of this Government looking to a friendly Intervention by which Peru might be enabled to meet the conditions which would probably be imposed. Circumstances do not seem at present opportune for such action, but if, upon full knowledge of THE CONDITION OF PERU, you can inform this Government that Peru can devise and carry into practical •'ffect a plan by which all the reasonable conditions of Chili can be met without sacrificing the integrity of the Peruvian territory, the Government of the United States would be willing to tender its good offices toward the execution of such a project. These two docuinonts, taken together, prove that the Secretary of State recognized in tlicor}^ Chili's right by conquest to annexation, but that he was searching for means of avoiding it in practice. This posi- tion may partly be understood from the relations which the Secretary thought fit to establish with the representatives in this country of the contending States. While the Peruvian Envoy, Mr. Elmore, was encour- aged, as he himself says, to believe that the United States Government meant actively to intervene in behalf of the territorial integrity of Peru, the Chilian Envoy, Mr. Martinez, was assured, as he himself says, on more than one occasion, that the United States Government regarded the annexation of Tarapaca by Chili as a legitimate result of the war. There can be no doubt that it was expected and intended eventually to accom- plish whatever objects might have been involved, through a pressure to be put by the United States Government upon Chili whenever the nego- tiations for peace took a practical form. It is impossible not to be struck by the contradictory character of the dispatches, except so far as they refer to an indemnity to be furnished 30 EECOED IN CONGRESS. by the Credit Industriel. While they concede that the United States can not refuse to recognize the rights which the Chilian Grovernment have acquired by conquest, and admit that the annexation may be the necessary price to be paid for peace, at the same time the cause of Peru is openly advocated. Chili is taxed with bad faith, a suspicion of the motives actuating that Government is expressed, and finally a more active interposition threatened. The mission of General Kilpatrick to Chili was intended to be subordinated to the mission of General Hurlbut to Peru, and for the success of the mission of General Hurlbut the Secre- tary relied upon the financial intervention of the Credit Industriel in the affairs of Peru. If Chili would accept the intervention amicably, so much the better. If she would not so accept it, she was to be exposed to the danger of putting herself in an attitude not only of unfriendliness but of provocation toward the United States, the central point aimed at in the whole policy, as outlined to the Ministers at Lima and Santiago, being the retention by Peru of the territory of Tarapaca. This was es- sential to enable the Peruvian Government, in the Secretary's words, to make any arrangements at home or abroad, singly or with the assistance of friendly powers, which will furnish the necessary indemnity or supply the required guarantee to Chili. THE POSITION OP KILPATRICK. The relations established between the Minister at Lima and the Minister at Santiago by the State Department can not be fully understood or appreciated without considering for a moment the relations of both these Ministers to the Secretary himself. General Hurlbut was a per- sonal friend and a close political ally. General Kilpatrick had no such relations. He had previously served as United States Minister to Chili under President Grant. From the beginning the Secretary took pains to make it clear that he relied mainly upon the legation at Lima and not upon the legation at Santiago to bring about the success of his program in Soutli America. The whole of the program, therefore, was not con- fided to General Kilpatrick. This appears from the dispatches to both Ministers. As to the recognition of Calderon, Mr. Christiancy had written on the 21st and 28th of June, first, that the Calderon Government is not a government de facto; secondly, that the Calderon Government is not yet worthy of recognition; and even on the 9th of July, after the recognition of Calderon, he wrote that this act was premature, and that he Justified EECOED IJq^ CONGEESS. 3Y his own formal act of recognition only on the ground that it was in obedi- ence to State Department orders. Mr. Suarez, the agent of the Credit Industriel, after full conferences with the Secretary, accompanied General Hurlhut to Peru, and about the same time, on the 9th of July, Mr. Elmore, the agent of the Calderon Government, went to Paris with Mr. R. E. Eandall, the counsel of the company. The conduct of General Hurlbut during the next four months has been severely criticised. It must be said, however, that he at least stated his opinions openly, and acted upon them without hesitation. In his earliest dispatch, dated August 10, 1881, he laid down the rules which were to guide him, and these rules were precisely such as were required by the principles on which the department had acted. Said he — It is my deliberate and carefully-cousidered judgment the proper time for the United States to act as a friend to both parties, and to say very liiudly but very firmly to Chili that war has fulfilled all its legitimate purposes; that longer con- tinuance of the state of war would be disastrous to both countries and an unneces- sary invasion of the rights of neutrals engaged in commerce or owning, as they do, large properties in Peru; and that a peace, honorable to both countries, should be concluded as soon as possible on fair terms as to indemnity. Inasmuch as Peru offers to pay and can pay a money indemnity, the forcible annexation of teiritory ought not to be pemiitted. By such action on the part of our Govern- ment we would gain the highest influence in South America; we should subserve the purposes of a truer civilization and inaugurate a higher style of national and international law on this continent. There can be no doubt that General Hurlbut understood what his Government wanted, especially since his view fully accords with the sub- sequent expressions and the previous acts of the Secretary of State. He went on to ask for an explicit approbation by telegraph, because circum- stances would probably oblige him to act very speedily, and he warned the Secretary that if the emergency should arise before he heard from the department he would not hesitate to interpose a protest against the de- mands of Chili. Before this dispatch had reached the department the expected emergency arose, at least in General Ilurlbnt's opinion. On the 24th of August, Admiral Lynch, the Chilian commander, called upon General Hurlbut and requested an explanation in regard to riimors afloat as to the attitude of the United States, and General Hurlbut not only told him with the utmost frankness what his own views were, but he stated them as the views of the United States Government, and that there might be no doubt as to this he embodied them in a formal memorandum which he sent to Admiral Lynch next day, and which Admiral Lynch caused to be published. It is perfectly clear that General Hurlbut's theory of intervention de- pended on the co-operation of the Credit Industriel. He looked upon 38 RECOED IX COXGRESS. Pern and tlie Credit Indiistriel as allied, and his instructions authorized him in doing so. Mr. Elmore, the Peruvian Minister, has made no secret of this alliance, and of the fact that the State Department, as well as the Chilian Government, was aware of it. It does not appear that Peru could, through any other financial com- bination, find the capital necessary to pay an indemnity of $40,000,000, upon which its territorial integrity then depended. The machinery which was to liberate Peru was the same which had been approved by Mr. Evarts. General Hurlbut's dispatch, containing a copy of this memorandum to Admiral Lynch, was received at the department on September 37, 1881. It lay there unacknowledged and unanswered for nearly two months. As a matter of fact General Hurlbut's action was not disavowed, and he evi- dently believed it was approved. When the news reached Washington of the disagreement between General Hurlbut and General Kilpatrick, the Secretary of State, in writ- ing to the former on the 22d of November, 1881, made some curious re- marks about the " construction " put upon his language and conduct. He said: I must consider the interpretation of your words and acts as tlie result of some strange and perhaps prejudicial misconception. I would have preferred that you should hold no communication with Admiral Lynch on questions of a diplomatic character. Now, this is not in accord with the instructions to General Hurlbut of June 15, 1881, in which such diplomatic communications were ex- pressly authorized, nor had this authorization been in any manner revoked. On the contrary, in those instructions the Secretary says: It is to be hoped that you will be able in your necessary association with the Chilian authorities [Admiral Lynch was the supreme Chilian authority in Lima] to impress upon them that the more liberal and considerate their policy the surer it will be to obtain a lasting and satisfactory settlement. It should also be remembered that Mr. Christiancy had already ex- changed diplomatic communications with the Chilian authorities, and General Hurlbut simply followed this precedent. In the same dispatch of November 22d to General Hurlbut criticism is also made upon Admiral Lynch : I do not conceive that he had any right to ask or receive any assurances as to the opinion of your Government. If the Secretary had authorized General Hurlbut to give the opinions of his Government to Chilian authorities, Admiral Lynch had at least EECOKD IN CONGRESS. 39 the right to receive them. He makes a further criticism on the Chilian Government for having questioned General Kilpatrick as to what General Hurlhut had done, and then he adds: Having said tliis, I must add that the language of the [Lynch] memorandum was capable of not unnatural misconstruction. While you said nothing that may not fairly be considered warranted by your instructions, you omitted to say with equal emphasis some things which your instructions supplied, and which would, perhaps, have relieved the sensitive apprehensions of the Chilian authorities. For while the United States would unquestionably "regard with disfavor" the im- perious annexation of Teruvian territory as the right of conquest, you were dis- tinctly informed that this Government could not refuse to recognize that such annexation might become a necessary condition as a final treaty of peace. The main purpose of your effort was expected to be not so much a protest against any possible annexation as an attempt by friendly or unofficial communications with the Chilian authorities (with whom you were duly associated) to induce them to support the policy of giving to Peru, without the imposition of harsh and absolute conditions precedent, the opportunity to show that the right and interests of Chili could be satisfied without such annexation. There is enough in your memorandum, if carefully considered, to indicate this purpose, and I only regret that you did not state it with a distinctness and, if necessary, with a repetition which would have made impossible anything but the most willful misconception. So far as General Ilurlbut is concerned, the Secretary criticises the form and approves the substance of his memorandum to Admiral Lynch. This is the more remarkable in view of the official note addressed pre- viously to our Government by Mr. IMartinez, then Chilian Minister in Washington, on the 27th of October, 1881, in which the unfriendly atti- tude of General Hurlbut toward Chili is commented on, and in which was inclosed a note from the Chilian Government instructing its Minister to ascertain if the views of the United States Government were in accord with those of General Ilurlbut. BAY OF CniilBOTE. In regard to the convention relating to the Bay of Chimbote, the prop- osition of its cession to the United States was declined by the Secretary, though he stated that " it is a desirable arrangement." On the 20th of September, 1881, at the moment we were insisting that Chili should not anuex Peruvian territory, this convention was concluded with the Cal- deron Government, which granted to us a Peruvian port. This was not disavowed by telegraph and without reservation, as it might have been, but the Secretary waited until November 22d to write by mail that we reserved to ourselves the right of taking advantage eventually of this " innocent convenience." 40 KECORD IN COXGEESS. The fact that the Peruvians kne^y or believed that we intended to ask this concession from them may be considered as justifying them in count- ing on our support and assistance. At the same time General Hurlbut accepted from President Calderon the grant of the Chimbote Railroad, on which Peru had already spent $9,000,000, and which General Hurlbut received as trustee, meaning to transfer it to some American company, to be finished at a cost of $10,000,000 more. These acts, whatever we may say as to their propriety, implied, and were of course intended to proclaim, that Peru and the Calderon Government were under the pro- tection of the United States. A few days later Admiral Lynch responded by suppressing the Calderon Government. Calderon then convened Con- gress in order to choose a Vice-President to carry on the Government in case the Chilians should seize him, and accordingly Admiral Montero was elected, mainly because he was then outside the Chilian military lines. The documents and papers of the Calderon Government were taken to the United States legation. Every Peruvian was then convinced that the United States were re- sponsible for the integrity of Calderon's Government, and every Chilian must have known that it was not Calderon, but the United States Minister, who stood in their path, and that if the Minister was acting under instruc- tions any further attack upon Calderon must produce a rupture of diplo- matic relations. The United States then stood on the brink of war. THE PEEUVIAN COMPANY. Leaving General Hurlbut for a time in this dramatic situation, let us go back for a moment to see by Avhat steps he had reached it. On the 15th of June Mr. Blaine had instructed General Hurlbut: Whether it is in the power of the Peruvian GoTernmeut to make any arrange- ments at liome or abroad, singly or with the assistance of friendly powers, which will furnish the necessary indemnity or supply the I'equired guarantee, you will be better able to advise me after you have reached your post. As you are aware, more than one proposition has been submitted to the consideration of this Govern- ment looking to a friendly intervention by vs'hich Peru might be enabled to meet the conditions which would probably be imposed. It is perfectly clear from this dispatch that important verbal instruc- tions had been given to General Hurlbut. What were these instructions? The unfortunate death of General Hurlbut, at the moment when he was preparing to leave his post in order to lay before Congress and the country the histoiy of this extraordinary episode in our diplomatic annals, has deprived us of the only direct and trustworthy testimony as to this point upon which we could have relied. But it was testified before the EECOED IX CONGEESS. 41 committee that General Hiirlbut, in a private letter, commenting, not without bitterness, upon the Secretary's dispatch of November 23d, said: My conversations with President Garfield and Mr. Blaine can not appear, but they were the real motive of my course. In these " conversations " the question of the ability of Peru, either " singly or with the assistance of friendly powers," to supply an indemnity or guarantee must, of course, have been fully considered. In the in- structions of June loth General Hurlbut is expressly reminded of this, and ]\Ir. Trescot, who no doubt drafted these instructions, has testified that the Credit Industriel was the agency then intended. "As you are aware that more than one proposition has been submitted to the consideration of this Government looking to a friendly intervention by which Peru might be enabled to meet the conditions which would probably be im- posed." " More than one proposition " ? What proposition had been submit- ted? A proposition called the Cabrera proposition was submitted by the representative of Bolivia. The terms of this proposition were published in the Mercurio newspaper at Valparaiso by the Chilian Government, and an English statement of the proposition was made public at Washing- ton, February 18, 1881. It involved the " formation of a company in the United States of capitalists to work and manage the guano and nitrate deposits of Peru and Bolivia," under a " guarantee " to be given by the United States Government to the company of " the undistiu-bed posses- sion and control of the guano and nitrate business in the territories now claimed and occupied by Chili." Another proposition has been already alluded to and described as made by the Credit Industriel of Paris. Mr. Elmore, the Peruvian Minister, says of this proposition in a letter to the press: Valid and solemn contracts exist between the Government of Peru and a most honorable and powerful financial society of Paris called the Societe de Crgdit Industriel et Commercial. Among these contracts are those of January 7, ISSU, and February 1, ISSl, which are intended to secure the payment of the foreign creditors of Peru and other national debts by placing in the hands of the Credit Industriel the management and working of the Peruvian guano and nitrate de- posits. Now, in consequence of these legal national contracts, negotiations between the said Credit Industriel and Peru were begun more than a year ago (of which Secretary Evarts and Secretary Blaine as well as the Chilian Govern- ment were advised), with the object of affording Peru means of satisfying the rightful claims of Chili in respect to a war indemnity, without sacrificing the integrity of Peruvian territory. A third proposition was that of Mr. Shipherd, submitted in behalf of his then inchoate Peruvian Company, in a series of communications to 6 42 EECOED IN CONGRESS. the Executive during April and May, 1881. Of this proposition, though it occupied the time and the attention of the State Department to the exclusion of niueli practical business and to the great scandal of the Government and its officers, it is difficult to speak seriously. It was based on two alleged claims against Peru, vast and indefinite in amount, originating with citizens of France, and bought in part or in whole by American citizens as a matter of speculation. It invited the United States Government to perform a grand financial operation. The Secretary of State was asked to give Peru to understand that if Peru would recognize these claims in whole or in part a colossal and speculative company would be founded in the United States upon that recognition, and, being so founded, would take all the guano and nitrate territories of Peru under the protection of the United States, and administer the same, paying to Chili the ransom of those territories, defraying the public ex- penses of Peru, and dividing the rest of the revenues derivable from the guanos and nitrates among Mr. Shipherd and -his associates. The United States Government apparently was to be content with the obstetrical honors of this truly brilliant and remarkable operation. As we have seen, Mr. Shipherd had made approaches to the Executive in April and May. Mr. Shipherd and Senator Blair made their first joint appearance in the story only at the end of July, 1881. Up to the moment they came upon the scene, our diplomacy, as to South America, is com- paratively intelligible. The department had received the propositions of the Credit Industriel as the only serious financial propositions available for the purpose of effecting a peace between Chili and the allies on the basis of an indemnity under the auspices of the United States Govern- ment. Instructions had been given to our Ministers, based on these propositions, which, so far as they relate to them, may pass as consistent enough. But from the moment Shipherd and Senator Blair appear, all logic and consistency vanish. These persons represented a claim against Peru of Alexander Cochet, a French citizen, who said he had discovered the commercial value of the guano deposits in Peru, and, therefore, accord- ing to Peruvian law, was entitled to one-third of the value of the guano, in round numbers, $900,000,000. A French and Spanish Commission had decided against the claim in 1861, and the claimant died in Paris in the year 1864, in an almshouse. The French Government had declined to support his claim, which had finally fallen into the hands of Mr. Shipherd, and was estimated by that gentleman as amounting, " within safe limits," including principal and interest, to $880,000,000, the right EECOED IX CONGEESS. 43 to which Shipherd appears to have bought for the consideration of $1 in currency from a certain Dr. Stewart, in Philadelphia. Together with this claim, which constituted all the available capital of Mr. Shipherd's Peruvian Company, Mr. Blaine brings into the business by a dispatch to General Hurlbut, dated August 4, 1881, another claim, alleged to be derived from J. T. Landreau, also a French citizen, who, in the year 1856, seems to have informed the Peruvian Government that he had discovered some guano deposits, and who, in the year 1865, ob- tained from the Peruvian Government a decree on the subject of his claim, the third article of which bound him and his representatives never to agitate any question growing out of the concession except in the Peruvian tribunals, and to renounce expressly all diplomatic intervention under penalty of the absolute forfeiture of his whole claim. On this basis a contract was made. In 1868, however, the Peruvian Government an- nulled its contract. The French Government investigated that affair but thus far has not interfered, although it is said that even now Mr. J. T. Landreau is in Paris trying to interest his Government in the matter. A part of this claim, it is alleged, belonged to J. C. Landreau, a brother of J. T. Landreau, who claims to have been a partner in the affair. As this person is represented as a minor, under eighteen years of age, in 1857, Bome years after the alleged discoveries were made, his partnership in law may be questioned. Not until ten years afterward, on June 3, 1867, did he become, as he alleges, a citizen of the United States, at New Orleans, although a search in that city has thus far failed to bring to light the record of his naturalization. In 1871, however, J. C. Landreau wrote to the State Department, com- plaining of the Peruvian Government for not fulfilling the contract which it had made with him. After repeated rebuffs from Mr. Fish, he at length got a favorable report from Mr. O'Connor, the examiner of claims in the State Department. On the strength of this report, Mr. Fish, in 1874, called the attention of :Mr. Thomas, then United States Minister in Peru, to Landreau's claim, expressly stating, however, to Mr. Thomas that he must move in the matter, if at all, " unofficially." The Peruvian foreign office took express notice of this reservation, and nothing was done by Peru to advance Landreau's claim. At the close of the second administration of President Grant, in February, 1877, Mr. J. C. Landreau was appointed United States Consul at Santiago de Cuba, which office he still holds; and this House, on the 20th of February, 1880, adopted a resolution requesting the President to "take such steps as in his opinion may be proper and in accordance with international law to secure to the said John C. Landreau a final settlement and adjustment 44 EECOED IN CONGRESS. of his claim." This resolution Avas sent to the Senate, and has slept in committee ever since. It never reached the President at all. In the first interviews with Mr. Blaine at the end of July Mr. Shipherd and Senator Blair seem to have suggested the probability of some arrange- ment under which the Cochet and Landreau claims might be thrown to- gether as the basis of a vast " Peruvian company," representing a capital " within safe limits " of some $1,200,000,000. In fact, it has been proved that Shipherd had the audacity to send General Hurlbut, the new Minister to Peru, before he left for that country, a memorandum offering to re- serve, " say, $250,000 of the pool stock " of this prospective company, subject to the Minister's " advice." Within a week after his first interviews with Shipherd and Senator Blair, the Secretary of State sent to the Minister at Lima a dispatch, dated August 4, 1881 (the only dispatch sent for months to that Minister), in which, after a brief allusion to the Cochet claim, the merits of the Landreau claim are assumed and urged, and the Minister is thus explicitly instructed: t You will take especial care to notify both the Chilian and Peruvian authorities of the character and status of the claim, in order that no definitive treaty of peace shall be made in disregard of the rights which Landreau may be found to possess. Mr. Shipherd's conduct has been explained on the theory that he is not morally responsible; that he labored under an " indefinable hallucina- tion." Lunatic he may be, but, if so, he was a lunatic introduced, sup- ported, and advised by persons of such influence and position and in such a manner that he met with nothing at first but cordiality and con- fidence, whatever may be said about his subsequent treatment. To take up Mr. Shipherd and his Peruvian Company was to throw over the Credit Industriel, on whose capital and connections the scheme for rescuing Peru had up to that time rested, and which, as Mr. Trescot testified, was " unquestionably " the only one referred to in the instruc- tions of the State Department of June 15, 1881. Nothing yet made public on this subject adequately explains this sudden and violent change of policy, which in a few hours altered the whole scheme of action and threw all parties connected with the afl'air into a state of embarrassment and confusion from which they never again escaped. On the 19tli of November the Secretary wrote to General Hurlbut that " agents of the Credit Industriel had visited the Department of State and ineffectually endeavored to enlist the interest of this Government in their behalf. However trustworthy the Credit Industriel may be, I did not consider it proper for the department to have anything whatever to KECOED IN COXGEESS, 45 do with it. It is a foreign corporation, responsible to French law, and must seek its patronage and protection from France." This is incon- sistent Tvdth the facts in regard to the past relations of the Credit In- dustriel with the State Department, but it proves Mr. Shipherd's asser- tion that the Credit Industriel was thrown over. This is the more inexplicable, because this company was in the closest connection with the Calderon Government, and was the only agency which our Government had hitherto endeavored to employ to carry out its fixed idea of ransoming Tarapaca. To say that any real friend of Peru would, at such a time, have thrown Mr. Shipherd and his vicious schemes in the path of a settlement, even were it that proposed by the Credit Industriel, is absurd. The truth is that this unaccountable dispatch of August 4th produced the wildest confusion among the subordinates of the department. It led to their massacre in detail in every direction. The first and most con- spicuous victim was an unexpected one — no less a person than our Minister in Paris. The firm of Morton, Bliss & Co., of which he is a member, entered into an agency for the sale of nitrates in the United States by a contract with the Credit Industriel, and it was agreed that the continuation of this agency should depend on the success of the United States Government in carrying out the program of the Credit Industriel. I will say nothing of the propriety of the contract, but 1 will say that, in my belief, if this transaction was known to our Minister, he must have supposed that he was rendering essential service to the Government. This contract was dated August 27th, just one month after Mr. Shipherd had taken possession of the State Department. It is clear that our Minister at Paris had received no warning of that event; he still may have supposed the Credit Industriel to be the essential agency, the central pivot, of our South American poHcy. Our Minister in Paris and his commercial house were, however, only the victims of this sudden and violent change of policy, but our IVIinister in Peru was in a worse case; he was almost a martyr. The dispatch of the Secretary of State of August 4th reached General Hurlbut in the middle of September and disturbed him very much, as his reply shows (page 553 of the correspondence), but he promised to obey orders. Then came a shower of letters from Shipherd, announcing that the State Department at Washington had been put under Mr. Shipherd's control, and that the fate of Chili and Peru depended on a settlement of the Cochet and Lan- dreau claims. ' Eumors began to circulate that General Hurlbut, after all, represented nothing but a speculative entei-prise. These suspicions were fatal to his moral influence; they undermined his position. The Chilians 46 EECOKD IN CONGRESS. clamored about these claims, in -which they charged that Calderon and Hurlbut were partners. Had the country been at peace these suspicions would have been hard enough to bear, but the country was terribly racked by war, and General Hurlbut, single-handed, had undertaken to establish a government, put down internal faction, and eject thirty thousand Chili- ans. Against such odds, to load the American Minister with Mr. Ship- herd and the Peruvian Company was the crowning stroke of this so-called vigorous diplomacy ! The Chilians at last, on November 2d, seized upon Senor Calderon and sent him to Chili. MR. BLAINE REPUDIATES GENERAL HURLBUT. Meanwhile the Secretary, on the 27th of October, had sent a curious telegram to General Hurlbut. Mark that although the Lynch memoran- dum and the Garcia letter had long since been received at the depart- ment, neither then nor for six weeks thereafter was there expressed the smallest disapproval of those documents, which had no other object than to carry out the policy of aiding Peru by saving Tarapaca, thus enabling the Credit IiKlustriel to pay the Chilian indemnity. This telegram of October 27th was on another subject; it ran thus: "Influence of your position must not be used in aiding the Credit Industriel or any other financial or speculative association." Whatever else this meant, it at least meant that the Secretary had found out his mistake in patronizing Shipherd, and was trying to get rid of him. If we turn to the explanatory letter of November 19th, we find the Credit Industriel and the Peruvian Company for the first time yoked together, in order to cover them both in the same gentle oblivion for a time. Finally, if we turn to the Secretary's letter of November 17th, in which there is no reference whatever to the Credit Industriel, it is only too clear that the Secretary's mind was greatly harassed by the conduct of Mr. Jacob E. Shipherd. In fact, between August 4th and November 22, 1881, except for a brief order to continiTS the recognition of Calderon's Govern- ment after it had been suppressed, Shipherd and the Landreau claim were the burden of Mr. Blaine's instructions. On the 22d of November he wrote to General Hurlbut disapproving for the first time and in a very qualified manner all his acts — the Lynch memorandum, the Garcia letter, the Chimbote cession. On the 3d of December the disapproval was made more emphatic. It is noticeable that this dispatch to General Hurlbut was written on the same day that the Secretary also sent a letter to Ship- herd, by which the latter was at last discarded by the Department of State, EECORD IX CONGRESS. 47 and in which it is stated that only Shipherd's apparent mental irresponsi- bility saved him from prosecution. Finally he announced that the Presi- dent would send a special mission to cover General Hmibut's withdrawal. The instructions to Mr. Trescot, the special commissioner, required a disavowal by Chili of tlie " impression " that Calderon's arrest was due to his continued recognition by the United States; they forbade any disa- vowal of General Hurlbut, in spite of the Secretary's pretended disap- proval of that ]ilinister, and on the crucial point, the cession of Tarapaca, they used the following language: This Government holds that between two independent nations hostilities do not, from the mere existence of war, confer the right of conquest until the failure to furnish the indemnity and guarantee which can be rightfully demanded. The annexation of Tarapaca, which under proper administration would produce an- nually a sum sufficient to pay large indemnity, seems to us to be not consistent with the execution of justice. Thus it appears, then, after six months of confusion, after reciprocal insults, after the buffoonery of Shipherd, we come back to the exact point we started from: should Chili have Tarapaca? Throughout the whole period neither Peru or Chili had asked for our mediation or intervention in any form, but on the other hand, the Credit Industriel did ask that Tarapaca bo retained, so that the contracts with Peru might be carried out; and so, also, did the Landreau claimants ask to be secured in their pretended rights over the same territory, whether that territory was to go to Chili or remain in the possession of Peru. On the 22d of November the Secretary formally tells General Hurlbut that he is all wrong in saying that the President would not consent to the cession of Tarapaca, and one week later, on December 1st, he still more formally tells Mr. Trescot that the President does not consent to it. All these dispatches bear the marks only of the struggles between the rival interests of the Credit Industriel and the Landreau claimants. The Landreau claim survived the last word of the Secretary on the IGth of December, being an intervention in behalf of that claim: With the mission of Mr. Trescot, ]\Ir. Blaine's official share in these transactions draws near to its close. That mission was of his devising. Mr. Trescot, under Mr. Blaine's direction, drew up the instructions of June 15, 1881, given to General Hurlbut and General Kilpatrick. Mr. I'rescot, still under Mr. Blaine's direction, drew up that fatal dispatch of August 4, 1881, to General Hurlbut, in which the United States Government formally extended its shield over the Landreau claim, and thrust upon Chili and Peru the necessity of recognizing that claim as a condition precedent to any negotiation of peace on the west coast. 48 EECOED IN CONQEESS. Wliat was the object in sending Mr. Trescot to South America? In the answer to this question surely we ought to find, if we are to find it anywhere, a thread of purpose throughout this deplorable story. From the instructions given to Mr. Trescot by Mr. Blaine on the 1st of December, 1881, it appears that the special commissioners sent to South America were instructed to insist on two points mainly. One of these was to exact from Chili, on pain of a rupture of diplomatic relations with that country, a formal disavowal of any intent to offend the United States Government in the seizure and removal from Peru of the pro- visional President of that Eepublic, Senor Calderon, together with the manifestation of a sincere purpose on the part of Chili to aid Peru either "in restoring the present provisional government" (note this curious turn of expression!) " or in establishing in its place one which will be allowed the proper freedom of action necessary to restore internal order, and to conduct real negotiations to some substantial result." The other was " to impress upon Chili " the strong objection of the United States to any attempt on her part at exacting from Peru a cession of territory, and the strong desire of the United States that Chili should allow Peru the opportunity of ransoming her territory by a reasonable, not " an ex- travagant," indemnity. CHILI MUST NOT HAVE TAEAPACA. Was this really the last word of the Secretary's official diplomacy m regard to the conflicts in South America? If so, what explanation can be given of the previous dispatch sent by cable October 27, 1881, to General Hurlbut at Lima: " Influence of your position must not be used in aid of the Credit Industriel or any other financial or speculative associa- tion? " How was Tarapaca under this policy to be rescued from the grasp of Chili otherwise than through the plan of the "Credit Industriel?" Was there any other possible way in which Tarapaca could be redeemed from the power of Chili save the payment by Peru of an indemnity to Chili? Had not Mr. Evarts admitted this when he first entertained the propositions of the Credit Industriel as a great body of the foreign creditors of Peru? If the United States meant to save Tarapaca in June, why was the Minister of the United States at Lima peremptorily ordered in October not to " use the influence of his position " in aid of the com- pany which was to be the instrument of saving Tarapaca? Whatever may be said of the plan of the Credit Industriel, it can not be said that it sought the " aid " of the United States as a " financial and speculative association." Its contracts with the Government of Peru EECOED IX COXGKESS. 49 arose out of the debts of Peru in Europe, and long antedated the negotia- tions conducted by the Secretary. If this cable dispatch of October 27th was not intended to cover some unacknowledged scheme still hidden in the general terms " any other financial or speculative association/' it must have been intended to check and thwart any negotiations then going on at Lima for a peace to be based on the plans of the Credit IndustrieT, or, in other words, to check and thwart the ostensible object itself of all this '• brilliant policy " — the settlement, namely, of the troubles on the west coast with indemnity to Chili, without loss of territory to Peru, and under the disinterested influence of the United States ! Mr. Blaine surrendered the portfolio of State to Mr. Frelinghuysen on the 17th of December, 1881, and on the very day before doing so he sent a dispatch to Mr. Trescot, which, with the permission of the House, I will read from the volume of correspondence, as follows: Department of State, ) Washington, December 16, 1881. f Sir. — Some ei-roncous statcmouts now being circulated in a portion of the Ameri- can press may reach Santiago and create an injurious impression in the mind of the Chilian Government; and I -write you this instruction from excess of cau- tion, in order that no enduring harm may result. The erroneous statements in the press to Avhich I especially refer are those which represent this Government as in some way giving encouragement to the Cochet claim against Peru, which, being acknowledged, should enable the United States to pay an indemnity to Chili and then practically own Peru, either directly or through an association of American citizens. This is the extreme statement, and it has many shadings and variations. You will take prompt and special care to anticipate any evil that might result from these rumors being circulated by a disavowal and denial of them in whole and in any part. The only claim for which this Department has instructed our Minister at Lima to use his good offices is that known as the Landreau claim, and this to the ex- tent only of insisting that Mr. Landreau should be parmitted to have an authorita- tive investigation of his claim by the Peruvian Government, and that if found to be good and valid it should be provided for in any treaty with Chili which might affect the property to which it attaches. The law officer of the Department of State, as long ago as 1874, made an ex- haustive report on this claim, and recommended that this Government should interpose its good offices in behalf thereof. On the 20th of July, 1874, my predecessor, Mr. Secretary Fish, instructed our Minister at Lima to use his good offices with the Peruvian authorities in behalf of Mr. John C. Landreau, " with a view of securing from that Government a speedy investigation and adjustment of this claim." On the 20th day of February, 1880, the House of Representatives of the last Congress unanimously passed the following resolution: " That the petition of John C. Landreau, the report made thereon by the Com- mittee on Foreign Affairs, and the accompanying papers be transmitted to the Executive Department, with the request that the President take such steps as, 7 50 EECOKD IN CONGRESS. in his opinion, may be proper and in accordance with international law to secure to the said John C. Landreau a final settlement and adjustment of his claim against the Government of Peru; and that, if in his opinion it is proper to do so, the President invite the Government of France to co-operate with the United States in this behalf." I inclose herewith, for your further information, copies of my instructions to Mr. Hurlbut on this subject. It gives me pleasure to say in this connection that Mr. Hurlbut's action in regard to both the Landreau and Cochet claims has been marked by entire prudence and discretion. While disabusing the mind of the Chilian Government of any impression that the United States meditates intervention on behalf of private claims, beyond the use of its good offices, you will say that justice seems to demand that Landreau should have an opportunity to be heard in support of his claim before a tribunal in Peru competent to decide it, and that, if decided in his favor, a treaty of peace which might cede territory to Chili should not be made in disregard of any rights which Mr. Landreau may be found, after an impartial judicial investigation, to possess. Further than this the Department of State has not felt authorized to go, and I must express the hope that the Governments of Peru and Chili, to both of which you are accredited, will recognize the moderation and justice of the request made by this Government. What is the plain meaning of this extraordinary, and, as we may per- haps call it, this testamentary dispatch? "We do not want its meaning by construction. We want its true meaning in connection with the whole course of the diplomatic correspondence of which it is the culmination and the close. To reach this let us consider — That oil the 13th of June General Hurlbut, then going out as United States Minister to Peru, was instructed that " the most pressing service " incumbent upon him was to aid the Government of Peru in securing from " friendly powers " assistance which should enable her to escape a cession of territory by enabling her to pay a reasonable war indemnity to Chili; that is to say, by the agency of the Credit Industriel. That on the 4th of August General Hurlbut, then at Lima, was in- structed to make both Peru and Chili understand that no definitive treaty of peace would be permitted by the United States to be made "in dis- regard of the rights " which an alleged American citizen, Landreau, " might be found to possess " under a contract made by his brother, a French citizen, with the Government of Peru. That on the 27th of October General Hurlbut was instructed by cable that he must not use the influence of his position in aid of the Credit In- dustriel, which had proposed to enable Peru to pay a reasonable war indemnity to Chili. That on the 1st of December Mr. Trescot was instructed to " express the dissatisfaction of the United States " should Chili refuse to permit KECOKD IX COXGEESS. 51 the formation of any government in Peru not pledged to consent to a cession of Peruvian territory; and to threaten an appeal to the other republics of the continent should Chili refuse the good offices toward peace of the United States based on the right of Peru to demand an op- portunity to find indemnity and guarantee without any cession of her territory. And that on the 16th of December, finally, the Secretary instructs Mr, Trescot that " justice seems to demand " a hearing for Landreau before a competent Peruvian tribunal, and that no treaty of peace ceding terri- tory to Chili must be made in disregard of any rights which Landreau might be declared by such a tribunal to possess. Why this haste to press such claims before the restoration of self- government in Peru? If the Secretary on the 4th of August had really sought, as he seemed to do on the 15th of June, the success of a "policy" in South America, would he at that date have interposed an alleged American claim of vast proportions between the prostrate Eepublic of Peru and the victorious Republic of Chili, insisting that the one should entertain this claim be- fore tribunals not then in existence, and that the other should agree to accept this claim as a " lien " in advance upon any settlements to be made of the questions at issue between herself and her defeated antagonist? The Landreau claim, as urged on the 4th of August, 1881, became a very awkward obstacle in the way of peace between the warring republics. It belittled and degraded the position of the United States in these negotiations. Instead of an impartial arbiter, to whose action the Euro- pean powers looked for the adjustment of the claims of their subjects, and the warring American states for the effectual assertion of an Ameri- can system of international justice, the American Government, in the light of these dispatches of August 4th and December 16, 1881, became a speculative operator upon the helplessness of Peru, the claims of Euro- pean creditors, and the fears of Chili; and this in behalf of pretensions to which in no circumstances has the American Government any right or authority whatever to lend the weight of its official intervention. It is possible to explain this extraordinary incoherence, not in terms alone but in aims and in object, between the South American diplomacy of the State Department in March, 1881, and in December, 1881? On the 2d of July, 1881, the tenure of office of the Secretary of State was suddenly challenged by a national calamity. From that dark day to the day in September on which the long agony of President Garfield ended at Long Branch, the question whether the administration of the State Department should remain in the hands of the Secretary hung daily on a single wavering life. Between the 19th of September, when Presi- 52 EECOED IN roXGEESS. dent Garfield died, and the ITtli of December, Avlien Mr. Frelingliuysen entered the State Department, the position of Mr. Blaine grew daily more and more nncertain, and he seems to have been willing to leave to his successor a legacy not only of complicated and unsettled public business, but of confusion worse confounded in all the foreign relations of the United States. Illustrations of this will readily occur to the House in connection with other questions. I need only turn this light to-day upon the dispatches touching the Credit Industriel, and upon the dispatch of December 16, 1881, touching the Landreau claim, which was sent to Mr. Trescot at Santiago. What does it recall to us? To answer this final question fairly and fully, we must ask ourselves what would have been the consequences if Mr. Trescot had been permitted by Mr. Frelinghuysen to exact of the Chilian Government a full compliance with the demands whicli he was authorized by the ex-Secretary in his instructions to make upon that Government? As the Landreau claims were urged upon him by the ex- Secretary on the 16th of December, he must have required the Chilian Government to agree, before proceeding to negotiate any terms of peace at all with Peru, that the settlement of the Landreau claim should be adequately guaranteed, the amount of it being, of course, uncertain and dependent as an ultimate Peruvian adjudication. Need I take up the time of the House in showing that to make such a demand as this upon Chili was to insure its rejection by that republic? The cession of Tarapaca, that is, the dismemberment of Peru, was to be debated after such a basis of negotiations had been reached. But the Governments both of Chili and Peru were to be notified from the outset that provision for the settlement of the Landreau claim must be made before any effectual negotiations for peace could be undertaken. To in- sist upon this was to make such a negotiation impossible, and to make such a negotiation impossible was to leave the administration of Presi- dent Arthur face to face with the alternative of surrendering all the pretensions of the United States to influence in South America, or of imposing the will of the United States upon the victorious Eepublic of Chili by war. It is not difficult, therefore, to conceive the circumstances in which a necessity might be created for building a large navy, when this House might be absolutely compelled to vote appropriations which would dwarf the sums asked for in this bill. But the diplomacy of this Government EECOED IX CONGEESS. 53 from March to December, 1881, went quite far enough in the interest of claimants and speculators upon Peruvian territory. This course pre- vented the proper and legitimate influence of the United States from being felt, and more than an3"thing else brought about the final dis- memberment of Peru. I will not ask the House to listen to the reading of dispatches from Avhich these conclusions are drawn, but I ask leave to print them in the Eecord. A hundred iron-clads in the harbor of Callao could not prevent the unfortunate position in which this Government was placed by its State Department. I do not say that there was a deliberate purpose to bring things to such a pass in our relations with the bellig- erent states on the Pacific, but I have stated and have endeavored to sum up the results of this diplomacy, and I leave it to this House and to the country to decide what verdict shall be rendered upon such steward- ship of such a trust. I withdraw the pro forma amendment. [see report august 1, 188-,'.] 54 EECORD IN CONGEESS. A PRIME MERIDIAl^. July 6, 1882. [continued from JUNE 24, 1882.] Mr. BELMONT. — I rise to a privileged motion. I now call np the motion to reconsider the vote by which the House refused to order the engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution, H. R. No, 209. The SPEAKER. — The question is on the motion of the gentleman from New York to reconsider the vote by which the House refused to order the engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution. Mr. BELMONT. — I have called this joint resolution up, Mr. Speaker, for the second time, and I now make this motion to reconsider the former action of the House wdth reference to it, for the reason that I believe there was some misapprehension on the former occasion when I introduced it, possibly owing to my own fault. When the gentleman from Kentucky made some suggestions about the possible result of this commission, that their action might require the reconstruction of all our present maps and charts, I was under the impression that the gentleman was objecting to the consideration at that time and that the House had refused unanimous consent, which I had asked. Instead of that, however, the objection was of the character I have just stated, and the House proceeded to a vote upon the joint resolution, as I beheve, under a misapprehension, nothing having been said in favor of it. I do not know that there is anything that I can now say that will have much effect in influencing the judgment of the House. The SPEAKER. — Unanimous consent was given by the House for the consideration of the joint resolution, but the House refused to order its engrossment and third reading. It is now the motion to reconsider that vote which is pending. Mr. BELMONT. — I only desire to say that the joint resolution had the unanimous recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and some such statement in reference to it was due to the House on the former occasion; but, as I have just said, I was under a misapprehension as to the point made by the gentleman from Kentucky. Mr. KASSON. — I hope the motion to reconsider will be adopted. The motion to reconsider was adopted, and the Speaker put the ques- tion upon the passage of the resolution. Debate ensued in which Messrs. Carlisle, Kasson and Flower partici- pated. The joint resolution as amended was finally passed. EECOED IX COXGRESS. 55 FOE THE EELIEF OF OYSTERMEN. July 17, 1SS2. Mr. BELMOXT introduced the following bill for the relief of oyster- planters in the county of Richmond and State of New York. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled: That the sum of sixty-five thousand dollars, or so much thereof as may be necessary, be, and is hereby, appropriated, for the purpose of compensating the oyster-planters in the county of Richmond and State of New York, or any one thereof, who have sustained loss and damage to oysters planted in Prince's bay or Raritau bay, on the south shore of Staten Island, in said county, by reason of dredging in or about said waters for the purposes of widening and deepening the channel therein, during the years eighteen hundred and eighty-one and eighteen hundred and eighty-two, by the United States Govern- ment. That the county judge of said county be, and he is hereby, authorized and empowered to appoint three commissioners, residing in said county, who shall have the power and whose duty it shall be forthwith to take proof of such losses, and to make a report thereof under oath, which shall be filed with the Treasurer of the United States, and a duplicate thereof with the clerk of the county of Rich- mond; and the said commissioners, or a majority of them, shall issue certificates of the amount so awarded by them to each claimant, and also of the costs and expenses of said investigation. And the said Treasurer be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the several amounts of said certificates, not exceeding in all the sum hereby appropriated. STATEN ISLAND OYSTER PLANTERS' RESOLUTIONS. (Hichrnoiid County Democrat, September 2.3, 1882.) In the fall of 1882, the oyster-planters met in Westfield, Staten Island, and adopted the following preamble and resolution: Whereas, The oyster-planters of Richmond county have sustained great losses by reason of dredging by direction of the United States Government in the waters of Prince's bay, of said county; and Whereas, Hon. Perry Belmont has used his best endeavors to secure said oyster-planters the relief justly due them by reason thereof, in the presentation of a bill for such damages to the Forty-seventh Congress, Resolved, That we tender to the Hon. Perry Belmont our thanks for his past endeavors' in our bclialf. and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Mr. Belmont. 56 EECOED IN CONGEESS. DECLINE OF MEECHANT MAEINE. July 22, 1882. Mr. BELMONT. — I ask imanimoTis consent to submit a petition which I ask to have printed in the Eecorcl and referred to the Committee on Commerce. Mr. BUEEOWS, of Michigan.— Printed Avithont the names? Mr. BELMONT.— Certainly. Mr. ALDEICIL— Let it be read. The petition was read as follows: To the Honorable, the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Ameriea, in Congress assembled: The undersigned, who are interested in the shipping of the United States, believe such shipping to be of itself an important factor in the welfare of the nation, and entertain the full conviction that the foreign trade of the country is closely related to the industries of agriculture and manufacture, and that the present decline of United States tonnage has a depressing influence upon all interests of the country, besides the depriving of employment a large class of citizens who would seek the sea for a livelihood. They also believe that a revival of the interest can be facilitated by wise changes in existing laws. They, therefore, ask that a committee of Congress may be appointed to con- sider the subject, with authority to sit during the recess and report at the next session. The petition was accordingly referred to the Committee on Commerce. ****** * Mr. BELMONT. — I ask unanimous consent to submit a resolution for consideration at this time. The resolution was read as follows: Resolved, That a special committee of seven members of this House be ap- pointed with authority to report upon the cause of the decline of the American Merchant Marine, and to recommend to the House, at its next session, what changes in existing laws are needed to secure a revival of this interest.* * The introduction of this resolution resulted in the appointment of a joint select committee of three Senators and six Representatives to inquire into the conditions and wants of American shipbuilding and shipowning interests, and to investigate the causes of the decline of the American foreign carrying trade, and to suggest any remedies which might be applied by legislation. Out of the investigation and report of the committee grew the establishment of the standing committee of the House on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. EECOKD IX CONGRESS. 57 There was objection to the consideration of the resolution at that time. The resolution was accordin^lv referred to the Committee on Commerce. resolutions of the maritime association of new york. The Maritime Association of the Port op New York, ) 66 AND 68 Beaver, and 113 and 115 Pearl Streets, >• New York, August 14, 1882. ) Hon. Perry Belmont, Member of Congress, Efe.: Eespectcd Sir.— I take pleasure in transmitting to you the following preamble and resolution, which were unanimously adopted at the stated meeting of tlie board of directors of this association, held this day, viz.: Whereas, This association has viewed with great- satisfaction the adoption by Congress of Hon. Perry Belmont's resolution for a Con.itressional inquiry into the needs of the American mercantile marine, as indicative of a disposition to legislate for its revival; therefore. Resolved, That the Hon. I'crry Belmont deserves the especial commendation of all interested in American shipping and that the thanks of this association be conveyed to him for the effective exercise of his inflnence on behalf of commerce. [SEAL.] CHARLES F. ELWELL, President. Attest: E. W. HOUGHTON, Secretary. LETTER to AMERICAN SHIPMASTERS' ASSOCIATION. Babylon, L. I., Sept. IS, 1882. Dear ^h\ Parker. — It was very kind of you to send me a copy of your letter, which I received yesterday, addressed to the joint committee of Congress appointed to incjuire into the condition and the wants of American shipbuilding and shipowning interests. The answers which you gave to the questions propounded by the committee at its last session seem to be clear and convincing, and will, I think, greatly assist all who are interested in the important subject under consideration. It is expected tliat an impartial and nonpartisan Congressional in- quiry will be made as to whether or not ways and means can be devised 58 EECOED IN CONGRESS. ,' to restore to our flag that fair proportion of the ocean-carrying trade of the world which it lost a qiiarter of a century ago. The navigation laws enacted during the last century by excluding foreign flags from the coast- wise commerce between the several States prevented that portion of the carrying trade from falling into foreign hands, and enabled it to endure the severe taxes levied in 1861 and afterward. But, although our coast- wise commerce has been thus able to maintain itself under the heavy burdens of war taxation, there certainly ought now to be a straightfor- ward inquiry respecting the removal of those taxes. I have heard of no rival and competing interest openly resisting such removal, although there are ugly rumors of the action of railway companies in California. As to the ocean-carrying trade, one would suppose that it has been a matter of little consequence, in the opinion of a very large portion of our people, whether the United States have or have not an ocean com- mercial marine as flourishing as that of Spain or Italy, to say nothing of England, France or Germany. Something of this apparent indiffer- ence can be readily accounted for, since causes which I need not now enumerate have so effectually driven American capital and enterprise out of the business of ocean shipbuilding and navigation that this interest has not had adequate representation in Congress and in the Press. Be- sides, the great demands upon the energies of the country which have of late years been made, in order to provide for the enormous internal carrying trade by railways, and especially by railways between the At- lantic and the Pacific, have produced but little inclination to solve the question of ocean transportation from the point of view of national in- terests. But is not the problem of internal transportation so far ad- vanced that the problem of external transportation may now receive a candid hearing? Three questions, it seems to me, stand at the threshold of an inquiry respecting the possible reappearance of the American flag on the ocean: Will it be useful in an industrial as well as in a military sense to the national welfare to promote the re-establishment of an American com- mercial marine? Can Congress do anything to hasten or bring about that result, either by the enactment of wise laws, or by the repeal of bad ones, or in any other way? Is it not worth while for Congress to make an effort now in that direction? The rapid disappearance of the American flag from the ocean and the great harbors of the world is a matter of mortification to the national instincts and pride of a large majority of our countiymen whose atten- tion is called to the fact. Those national instincts and that pride are EECOED IN CONGRESS. 59 not in conflict with the best and highest political and material interests of the nation. A wise and far-seeing national policy suggests that we of the United States shall not content ourselves with delivering our surplus products and receiving our imports at the water's edge, and so surrender to foreigners their transportation over the ocean. These are matters that now concern not merely the States on the Atlantic coast, but also those on that other shore which looks toward Japan and China. I see that your letter mentions the Japanese Company as owning sixty ocean steamers, and that they are thinking of starting a new line in competition with the American line on the Pacific. However that may be, the people on the Pacific coast can not be indifferent to the present conditions. The political power of the United States, as mani- fested in Congress and in the Executive Departments, is principally in the hands of what we recognize as the " Great West " and the " South- west," where are the richest cereal and grazing lands and mineral de- posits of the world, wdthin easy access of railways and navigable rivers. The producing and manufacturing West and Southwest surely can not rest content to see the ocean transportation of its surplus products and manufacture solely in the control of foreign interests. I have recently heard it said in Congress that the existing national system of taxation of imports — which is in effect a payment of bounties and subsidies to American manufacturers by the American consumers of those imports — is to be vindicated as a war measure, in time of peace, for the following reason: That, by the encouragement given through such taxation to the establishment and perfection of certain manufactur- ing industries, the nation would be better enabled to live within itself should complications with foreign powers ever arise to make that necessary. But may it not be well for the West and Southwest to reflect in good time, and prepare for a possible condition of things when in a general war between the great commercial powers of Europe the American flag may bo respected by all the combatants, and American vessels may be the only vehicles for the safe ocean transportation of American merchan- dise, under the immunity of international law, which would give security to a neutral cargo — not contraband of war — under a neutral flag? Or in case we are not to be neutral bystanders, but aggressive or defensive combatants on the ocean, whence will come the material to man the armed cruisers of the Union if we are to abandon the commercial caiTying trade of America to Englishmen, Frenchmen, Germans, Scandi- navians, Spaniards and Italians? Can trained and experienced seamen be suddenly extemporized when the emergency arrives? 60 RECORD IN^ CONGRESS. The action of Great Britain in connection ^vith the military expedi- tion to Egypt may contain useful lessons and warnings for us. In our eyes, the expeditionary force which England was able at the outset to send to Egypt was a very small one; but Avhat shall we say of the mar- velous facility and completeness of British power in the way of ocean transportation to the scene of conflict in the Mediterranean? The State of New York alone could, in less time than was consumed by England, have raised a force of thirty thousand men fully equipped; but would we not be obliged to charter English vessels for transportation across the ocean? You have very clearly pointed out the bearing, of the tariff legislation upon the cost of building ships. I have had a little opportunity in Congress to see and feel how unfortunately complicated with what may be termed tariff interests are those of the shipbuilder. In dealing with questions of the tariff, great and enduring national interests should not be unjustly or harshly assailed, or even vexed by mere partisan legis- lation; but the time must soon come when the abuses of the tariff are to be corrected. Have we not already arrived at the point where the "shipping question" is to be carefully explored — not in the interest of this or that special school of political economy, but solely for the ascer- tainment of truth and of facts? I sincerely hope that the inquiry to be set on foot in obedience to the resolutions of Congress, which it hap- pened to be my good fortune to present at the close of the last session, may be so impartial and thorough that voters of all sections — Demo- crats and Eepublicans, Freetraders and Monopolists — may feel that the country has before it the needed facts on which it can safely base an opinion respecting the questions suggested. Sincerely yours, PEEEY BELMONT. James Parker, Esq., Secretary of American Shipmasters^ Association.. LETTER FROM STEAMSHIP COMPANIES, NEW YORK. " Neav York, 1st March, 1881. "Hon. Perry Belmont, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C: " Dear Sir. — The undersigned, representing the steamship companies interested in the passage of Senate bill No. 839, desire to express hereby their sense of obligation for your valuable assistance. EECOED IK COXGKESS. 61 " They feel assured that your connection witli an act of such manifest justice as putting an end to the seizure of the vessels of innocent owners under the arbitrary revenue laws of the United States, will always be a pleasant memory, as it will be a recollection of an act of simple justice well performed. " Yours trulv, " F. W. J. HUEST, National Line, "WILLIAM GUIOX. Liverpool & G. W. S. Co., " HENDEESON BEOS., Anchor Line, "JOHN G. DALE. Inman SS. Co., " AUSTIN BALDWIN & CO., State Line, •■ E. J. COETIS, White Star Line, "LOUIS DE BEBIAN. Ciegie Transatlantique, '• YEENON H. BEOWN & CO., Cunard Line, " KUNHAEDT & CO., Hamburg-American Line. " JAMES E. WAED & CO., N. Y. & Cuba M. SS. Line, " F. ALEXANDEE & SONS, N. Y., Havana & Mexican Line, '•OELIMCIIS & CO., Bremen Line." 62 KECORD IN CONGRESS. EEPOETS UPON THE CHILI-PERUVIAN INVESTIGATION. MINORITY REPORT BY MR. BELMONT. August 1, 1882. [see continued, from May 3, 1883.] The Committee on Foreign Affairs, to whom was referred a resolution of the House of Eepresentatives, relative to certain missing papers from the files of the Department of State, and also directing inquiries to be made as to the connection of one or more Ministers Plenipotentiary of the United States with business transactions in which the intervention of the United States was requested between Chili and Peru, have had the same under consideration, and submit the following: REPORT: On the 24th of February, 1882, the following preamble and resolution were adopted by the House of Representatives: Whereas it is alleged iu the Chili-Peruvian correspondence recently and offi- cially published, upon the call of the two Houses of Congress, that one or more Ministers Plenipotentiary of the United States were either personally interested or improperly connected with business transactions in which the intervention of this Government was requested or expected; and Whereas it is further alleged that certain papers in relation to the same sub- jects have been improperly lost or removed from the files of the State Depart- ment; therefore, Rcsok'cd, That the Committee on Foreign Affairs be, and they are hereby, in- structed to inquire into the said allegations, and ascertain the facts relating thereto, and report the same, with such recommendations as they may deem proper; and they shall have power to send for persons and papers. On the 16th day of March, 1882, the following supplementary reso- lution was also adopted by the House: Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Affairs be directed to demand from Jacob R. Shipherd, of New York, copies of all correspondence between himself and any person or persons, whatsoever, and all papers and other evidence in his possession tending to show what said Shipherd did or attempted to do to enforce the claim of the Peruvian Company or to induce the United States to enforce this claim against Peru. These two resolutions constitute the authority under which the com- mittee have prosecuted the investigation. The nature and extent of the autliority conferred by the latter resolution will be considered hereafter. KECORD IN CONGEESS. 63 MISSING PAPERS. The missing papers have not been found. They consisted of eight letters, indexed at the Department of State, as follows: Mr. Shipherd to Mr. Blaiue, May 21, ISSl: " Peruvian Company, organized for the purpose of paying the claims of Ameri- can citizens against Peru for violation of guano contracts, foreign bondholders, Chilian war indemnity, etc., providing Peru will give it the right to work guano- beds, etc.; prospectus of company with other papers inclosed; requests protection of the United States." Mr. Shipherd to Mr. Blaine, May 25, ISSl: " Peruvian Company, prospectus of, with other papers inclosed; asks that the documents be presented to Mr. Hurlbut, and that he be granted an interview be- fore Ministers Kilpatrick and Hurlbut go to their posts." Mr. Shipherd to Mr. Blaine, May 31, 1881: " Peruvian Company, refers to conversation had with the United States Minister to Peru, and states that they are ready to advance money to Chili, etc., providing the United States will support them in their legal and equitable rights, etc.; desires a personal discussion with President and Secretary of State relative to." Mr. Shipherd to Mr. Blaine, June 4, 1881: " Peruvian Company, transmit letter of 2d instant, addressed to S. A. Hurl- but, United States Minister to Peru, giving his observations concerning the plans, intentions, and wishes of the company in their claim to the ownership of the guano deposits discovered by Cochet, etc., and requesting Minister's comments thereon." Mr. Shipherd to Mr. Blaine, June 21, 1881: " Peruvian Company, submits a translated reprint of an old Peruvian pamph- let relative to Cochet guano claim." Mr. Fisher to Mr. Evarts, July 13, 1879: " Neutrality of the United States in the Chili and Peru-Bolivian war; torpedo boat shipped from the United States to Peru was seized by request of Chilian Consul at Panama; other shipments of similar nature are expected; suggests that the United States Consul at Aspinwall be instructed to examine suspicious-looking packages." Same to same, July 14, 1879: " War between Chili and Peru-Bolivia, progress of; recent engagements; general review of the position of the belligerents." Same to same, November 7, 1879. "War between Chili and Peru-Bolivia; reports progress of." Mr. Shipherd has furnished the committee with copies of the various letters written by him, and after examining him with reference to their contents, the committee believe them to be accurate copies of the orig- inals, and the same are now on file in the Department of State. What are believed to ])e correct copies of the original Fisher letters have also been supplied, with the exception of a letter of the 13tli of July, 1879. These copies are also on file at the department. The officers and em- ployes having these papers especially in charge, have been examined by the committee as to their knowledge of the same, in the manner in which such papers are received and indexed in the department, in whose cus- 64 EECOED IN COXGEESS. tody tliey are placed, and how and by whom they may be withdrawn from such custody; and after such examination, and also the examination of all other persons who Avould be likely to have knowledge of such papers, by having them in their possession, or otherwise, the committee are of the opinion that none of these papers were surreptitiously taken from the files of the depai'tment, or carried away or destroyed or sup- pressed for any improper purpose, but have been lost or mislaid in the ordinary routine of the department. They are further of the opinion that the papers were not of such character or importance as to furnish a motive for purloining them from the files, or for destroying them. Their loss will doubtless suggest the propriety of greater caution in the future, on the part of those having such papers in charge, and also those into whose possession they may come for the purpose of examination. HON. LEVI p. IMOETON, Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States to France, as a member of the firm of Morton, Bliss & Co., after his appointment as Minister to France, became interested in a contract with the Credit Industriel for the sale of Peruvian products in the United States. Upon this point Mr. George Bliss, the business partner of the firm, and Mr. Eobert E. Kandall, counsel for the Credit Industriel, gave explanations and uncon- tradicted testimony. From this testimony it appears that a contract was entered into between Morton, Bliss & Co., and Messrs. Gautreau & Co., of Paris, representatives of the Credit Industriel, dated in August, 1881, with a memorandum annexed to the original contract, which contract and memorandum are as follows: Memorandum of an agreement entered into this ■ day of August, A. D. one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, between Morton, Bliss & Co., of New Yorlc, United States of America, and Messrs. Pedro, Louis, & Henri Gautreau, of Paris, France. Whereas, the said Messrs. Gautreau did on the 20th day of .January. 1880, enter into an agreement or contract with the " Societe Generale de Credit In- dustriel & Commercial," by which they were appointed the general agents of said Societe Generale de Credit Industriel & Commercial, or its assigns, for the sale of the guano and nitrates, which rights, concessions, and authority had been granted and ceded to and conferred upon the Societe Generale de Credit Industriel & Commercial by the Peruvian Government, under agreements or contracts en- tered into on the 7th day of January, 1880, and the first and eighth days of Febru- ary, 1881, and which said rights, concessions, and authority were subsequently assigned, transferred, and set over to the " Compagnie Financiere & Commerciale de Pacifique," on the 11th day of February, 1881, by the said Societe Generale de Credit Industriel & Commercial. ' Now, therefore, it is agreed by the said Messrs. Morton, Bliss & Co., and Messrs. Gautreau, First. That the said Messi-s. Gautreau, under the powers and authority granted to and vested in them by the agreements and contracts hereinbefore men- tioned, by these presents do appoint and constitute Messrs. Morton, Bliss & Co. the sole agents in the United States of America, for the sale of guano and nitrates, EECOED IX COXGKESS. 65 which constitute the objects of the contracts aforesaid of the " Soclete Generale de Credit Industrie! &, Commerciale " and the " Compagnie Financiere & Com- merciale de Pacifique." And, in consideration of the services to be rendered by said agents as aforesaid, Messrs. Gautreau, for themselves, and as the representa- tives of the " Societe Generale de Credit Industrie! and Commerciale " and the " Compagnie Financiere & Commerciale du Pacifique," agree to allow pay, or cause to be paid, to Messrs. Morton, Bliss & Co. a commission of 5 per cent, on the gross sales of the guano and nitrates, the same to be chargeable against each allowed sale. Second. In case, for any cause whatsoever, the contracts aforesaid between Messrs. Gautreau and the " Societe Generale de Credit Financiel & Commerciale" shall cease to exist, then and in such case, this agreement or contract will be- come void. Third. The guano and nitrates will be shipped direct to Messrs. Morton, Bliss & Co. by Messrs. Gautreau at such times and to such ports of delivery as Messrs. Morton, Bliss & Co. shall require and direct, and in such quantities as the mar- kets shall demand, the same to be a matter of mutual understanding between the same. But said Messrs. Morton, Bliss & Co. shall always be able to require Messrs. Gautreau to deliver an equal quantity to the amount sold the preceding year; provided that there shall not be in store the said quantity unsold. And the directions for the delivery shall be made so that the shipments shall not arrive in the United States over six months in advance of the period of sale, Messrs. Gautreau, however, not being responsible to Messrs. :Morton, Bliss tfc Co. in case of nondelivery, unless the same shall be due to laches on the part of Messrs. Gautreau. The guano and nitrates will be delivered to Messrs. Morton, Bliss & Co. alongside of the vessels at the designated port of delivery, free from all charge and expense, including cost of. bags, the same in every instance being defrayed by Messrs. Gautreau, and all subsequent charges, and expenses of handling and warehousing, if Messrs. Gautreau shall so require, shall bo advanced by Messrs. Morton, Bliss & Co., who shall reimburse themselves such advances with interest at the rate of 5 per cent, per annum out of the proceeds of the sales, when made, of each distinct account sale. Fourth. Messrs. Morton, Bliss & Co. will act under the directions and in- structions of Messrs. Gautreau, who shall specially have the authority to fix and name the prices, wholesale and retail, at which Messrs. Morton, Bliss & Co. shall have power or authority to sell the guano and nitrates. It is understood, how- ever, in case no instructions are given and received, then Messrs. Morton, Bliss & Co. are authorized to act on their own judgment for the best interests of all concerned. All sales are to be for cash, at least so far as Messrs. Gautreau are interested; but if Messrs Morton, Bliss & Co., for any cause whatsoever, should prefer to sell on time credit, they are at liberty to do so; such sales, however, will be at the sole risk of Messrs. Morton, Bliss & Co., and the consideration previously agreed and fixed shall, in every instance, be credited to and accounted for to Messrs. Gautreau, but not to be payable until the time shall have matured for the payment of such time sales; provided, however, that no sales on time shall be at a longer credit than ninety days. Fifth. Messrs. Morton, Bliss & Co. will make out and forward to Messrs. Gautreau, every three months, a quarterly statement and account of all transac- tions They shall remit, upon sales being effected, all moneys collected, payable to Messrs. Gautreau, by virtue of this contract, by first-class bills or drafts on Paris and London. The discounts, charges, or benefits that may accrue m the 6Q EECOKD IN CONGRESS. negotiations of these bills or drafts shall be for the account of Messrs. Gautreau. Messrs. Morton, Bliss & Co. \\U\ further furnish to Messrs. Gautreau, every fort- night, the necessary data to enable them to make a fortnight statement of the guano and nitrate received, sold, or in store during such period, together with the name of the purchaser or purchasers, and of the amount purchased, as they are bound to make to the Societe Generale de Credit Industriel & Commercial, or its assigns, by their contract of the 20th day of January, ISSO. Sixth. Messrs. Morton, Bliss & Co. agree to use their best efforts to prevent the guano and nitrates being manipulated, and that during the existence of this contract and agreement they will not become interested in any article or articles that may in any manner compete with the guano or nitrates that shall be con- signed to them. Seventh. Messrs. Morton, Bliss & Co. will account to Messrs. Gautreau for one-half of all moneys that may be realized or received under charter parties on outward cargoes from the vessels which have brought the guano and nitrates to the United States. Eighth. Messrs. Morton. Bliss & Co. will collect, free of charge, for account of whom it may concern, all other commissions or sums of money stipulated in the charter parties or otherwise due by the vessels. Ninth. It is further understood and agreed that if it should be deemed ad- vant.'igcuus by the Compngnie Financicre and Connnerciale du Pacifique to mix and manipulate, or in any manner prepare the guano and nitrate for sale, then Messrs. Morton, Bliss & Co. shall be the only parties who may be authorized to so mix and manipulate or prepare the guano and nitrates for sale. Done in duplicate, in I'aris, on the twenty-seventh day of August, one thou- sand eight hundred and eighty-one, and in New York, on the . The following is the memorandum: Memorandum to the contract for the sale of the guano and nitrates, entered into on the day of August, A. D. one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, between Messrs. T. L. and H. Gautreau, of Paris, and Messrs. Morton, Bliss & Co., of New York. It is further declared and stipulated that the said contract shall continue in full force and effect for the period of the existence of the contracts entered into on the seventh of January, 1880, and the first and eighth of February, 1881, between the Peruvian Government and the Societe Generale de Credit Industriel and Com- mercial, but in case that the said contracts should fail to become operative and effective in consequence of the failure of the United States to mediate between Chili, Peru, and Bolivia, and thus to secure peace and the recognition of the concessions, rights, and privileges granted to and secured by the contract above mentioned, then the said contract between Messrs. Gautreau and Messrs. Morton, Bliss & Co. shall cease and terminate at the expiration of six years from the date of said contract. It is understood that in case the contracts aforesaid of the 7th of January, 1880, and the 1st and 8th of February, 1881, shall be modified or altered with the consent of the Compagnie Financial et Commerciale du Pacifique, now substituted in the place and state of the Societe Generale du Credit Industriel et Commercial, such modifications and alterations shall in no manner affect or invalidate the contract between the parties, dated the . It is furthermore expressly and formally declared that the present agreements signed and executed simultaneously with the aforesaid contract dated this day, EECOED IN COXGKESS. 67 for the consignment and sale in the United States of the guano and nitrates, shall be held to form an integral part of said contract, and that all stipulations con- tained in both contracts or agreements shall be considered in their totality as belonging to one single contract. Done in duplicate, in Paris, on the twenty-seventh day of August, one thou- sand eight hundred and eighty-one, and in New York on the . So far as the house of Morton, Bliss & Co. was concerned, it was repre- sented in the making of tliis contract by Mr. Bliss. Mr. Morton had a general knowdedge of the subject-matter of the contract, but took no active part in its arrangement or consideration. When Mr. Eandall, the active agent of the Credit ludustriel, called upon Mr. Morton, in Paris, and referred to the negotiations preceding the contract, in Mr. Eandall's language — Mr. Morton very politely, but very positively, said, " Mr. Randall, that is a matter which you have conducted through Mr. Bliss so far as my firm is con- cerned, and I prefer, for many reasons, that it should so continue. I do not know anything, and, in fact, I do not want to know anything of the matter whatever." In saying this, Mr. Morton indicated the position, in which this com- mittee earnestly concurs, that a Minister of the United States should have nothing to do with contracts of an international character and with which his official position may be affected or have an influence in any way whatsoever. In all our diplomatic relations with other nations we should have most scrupulous regard for honorable dealing, and should guard with jealous care against anything which can give even suspicion of a selfish or improper motive. Tlie contract of Morton, Bliss & Co. was with a company which was well known in the State Department as an important factor in matters of great international consequence, affect- ing tlie policy of the Government in a most important direction. The company was chartered by the Government to which ]\Ir. Morton was accredited, and there were many ways in which he might be called upon to act officially regarding the subject-matter of the contract. He was at one time desired to exercise his " good offices " in France in favor of the Calderon Government, the recognition and upholding of which was regarded as of much imywrtance to the interests of the company with which his firm had made this contract. The committee are clearly of the opinion that Mr. Morton has done nothing, and at no time had he the remotest intention of doing any- thing which could com])romise the honorable discharge of his official duties, yet they can not l)ut believe that the scrupulousness manifested in his interview with Mr. Eandall w^ould have been sustained beyond possible contingency by his prohibition to his firm to have anything to do with this contract upon his first knowledge of the negotiations in regard thereto. Under the circumstances, the committee do not feel called upon to say more upon this point than to express the opinion that all ^Ministers of the United States should carefully avoid all complications which can by any possibility justify a suspicion of personal interest or bias in their official relations. 68 EECORD IN COXGEESS. REFUSAL OF SHIPIIERD TO ANSWER QUESTIONS PROPOUNDED TO HIM. The committee, under some circumstances, might have been seriously embarrassed by the refusal of the witness (Shipherd) to answer certain questions propounded to him, and to produce certain letters covered by the supplemental resolution of the House, hereinbefore referred to. The committee, however, reached the conclusion that the character of the testimony of this witness was such, and the information to be .derived from it of so little importance, as not to justify making an issue with him upon so doubtful a question of jurisdiction. It, therefore, dismissed the Avitness after his refusal to answer certain questions and to produce certain papers, without attempting further compulsion or re- porting his conduct to the House, excepting as it now does, and without recommending further action in the premises. The committee herewith report the testimony taken to the House and their conclusions as follows: 1. That the missing papers have been replaced by correct copies of the same, with the exception mentioned. 2. That no Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States was either personally interested or improperly connected with business transactions in which the intervention of this Government was requested or expected in the affairs of Chili and Peru in such manner as to call for action on the part of the House of Eepresentatives. They, therefore, report the following resolution and ask its adoption: Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Affairs, to zvhom was re- ferred certain House resolutions, adopted on the 2-^th day of February and the 16th day of March, 1883. relating to certain missing papers and the connection of one or more Aliiiisters Plenipotentiary of the United States with business transactions relating to the affairs of Chili and Peru in zi'hich the intervention of this Government zvas requested, be and the same hereby is discharged from the further consideration thereof. MINORITY REPORT BY MR. BELMONT. The undersigned concurs in the general conclusions of the foregoing report of the committee, excepting so far as they are qualified by his statement in a speech delivered by him in the House, July 5, 1882. He also submits the following statement in regard to the Landreau claim: The claim is for services alleged to have been rendered by Theophile Landreau, a Frenchman, and amounts to a sum variously stated from $7,300,000 to $125,000,000. Precisely what those services were, or what amount of time, trouble and money were expended in giving them, is not shown. The claimant and his friends confine themselves to vague and general allegations that they were very costly to him and important to the Government of Peru. They consisted in searching for deposits of guano. He did not begin his search nor prosecute it at the special request of the Peruvian Government, nor in pursuance of any contract RECORD IX COXGRESS. 69 or employment. He alleges that he undertook it bccanse he was at- tracted by certain decrees and proclamations offering a reward of thirty- three per cent, for discovering property previously unknown and belong- ing to the Government. He professed to believe and to have the private opinion of some distinguished Peruvian, whom he did not name, that lie could, under these decrees and proclamations, entitle himself to the reward of thirty-three per cent, if he ascertained that any particular part of the public land contained guano. This was not a true construction of the decree, and he was probably conscious of it. He conducted his searches clandestinely, and whatever discoveries he made he kept to him- self. Having made a "list" of the lands on which he said that he had found guano, and sealed it up, he offered to sell his secret to the Govern- ment. Tt was bought, or at least a bargain was made for it, upon terms which Avould give the claimant an enormous fortune if his list was a true one. He alleged that the property on Avhieh he had found guano was worth $400,000,000. The Government refused to pay on the basis of this list until it Avas verified by an examination of the lands, and declared that Landreau's demand was so large that it could never be ])aid; but tliey were willing to pay him what he might reasonably deserve to liave. They insisted, however, that they must be allowed time to examine the whole subject, with a view to the making of a new contract. This proposition was resented as a denial of justice. Much dispute followed, and a solemn declaration was made by the executive branch of the Government that tlie contract was void. It does not ap- pear that there was any absolute refusal to pay for the services which Landreau rendered, but the parties did not agree on the terms of a new bargain. This action of Peru gave rise to much harsh denunciation. Landreau and his supporters in tliat count it and elsewhere loudly asserted that the Government had contracted the guilt and infamy of a repudiating State. To the undersigned it does not appear so. AVhat they refused to pay was not an ascertained and honest debt. The fact that Landj-eau thrust his services upon the Peruvian Govern- ment; that he gave tlie pul)lic authorities no notice of his intentions; that he made no report to them of his progress; that when the bargain was made the Government was utterly ignorant of the subject-matter it embraced; that the olliccrs consenting to it had no means of knowing what Landreau would claim under it except by reference to papers which were then close imder seal and which Landreau would not permit them to open — these facts show it to have been at best a catching bargain, not sanctioned by any princii)le of public law or commercial morality. But, apart from all this, the enormous disparity between the services ren- 70 EECOED IN COXGRESS. dered and the compensation claimed for tliem under the contract is per se evidence of frand so stronc; that no chancellor in the world wonld enforce it in a suit betweeii private ]iarties. The proper authorities were, there- fore, perfectly justified in pronouncing the contract void. This decision upon the contract was made by the executive branch of the PeruAnan Government; the Legislature, being appealed to, refused to say it was wrong; and when the judicial courts were called upon by the claimant to enforce the contract, they decided that they had no juris- diction of such a cause. Undoubtedly, the courts were right. No law of Peru gave the judiciary power to cite the Executive before it and rejudge its decision in such a case. In that country, as in this and every other, the decision of the Executive is final in matters of contract between the sovereign and an individual, except where some special pro- vision submits it to the cognizance of a jiulicial trilmnal. The claimant got a decision from the Executive. It was a right and true determination of the cause, and he falsely complained that justice was denied him. Justice was not denied him; it was given him by the only organ of the Government which had jurisdiction of the parties or the subject-matter in the controversy. After the decision of the Executive against him and the refusal of the Legislature to interfere, and his failure in the courts, he applied to his own Government — that of France — to aid him in getting his claim acknowledged and paid. But here he was met by his own express agree- ment that he should forfeit his claim if he proceeded or attempted to procure the diplomatic intervention of any foreign Government in its favor. It Avill not be denied that this was a perfectly lawful provision, which could not be violated Avithout incurring the stipulated penalty. It was a dependent covenant, and. therefore, an essential ^lart of the contract. It was wise, necessary and just to insert it. Peru was willing to make contracts with foreigners who would consent to put themselves on a level with her own citizens, but she would not embroil herself with foreign Governments about the execution of contracts which concerned her OAvn domestic affairs exclusively. The conclusion from this is that Landreau forfeited and completely lost whatever rights he might pre- viously have had under the contract when he violated it by seeking the aid of France. But the Government of France refused to interfere, either because its authorities saw that intervention would be ipso facto the legal destruction of the claim, or else because it was, in their opinion, originally dishonest and unjust. Yet Landreau pressed it upon them so persist- ently that it became necessary for the foreign office to instruct its diplo- matic agents in Peru to have no communication with him. Being thus silenced by the adverse judgment of both Peru and France, the device was adopted of getting American influence to carry it. It Ki::COKD IN CONGRESS. 71 might "be supposed that the ITnited States would he very slow to give its protection to a French claim of such character and witli such a history. The pretenses upon M'hich tliis was effected were very shallow. It seems that John C. Landreau, a younger hrother of J. Theophile Landreau, had come to America when ahout eighteen years of age, and was living in Louisiana. Our authorities helieved him to have hecome an American citizen. Imt that fact is douhtful: hut though he had a certificate of naturalization and was appointed to a consulate in the West Indies, which a foreigner conld not hold, the records of the court in which he was said to have heen naturalized contain no trace of such an act. However that may he, John C. Landreau was alleged, Ijoth hy him- self and his hrother, to have an interest in the claim which made it the duty of the American Government to prosecute it. What connection had John C. Landreau with the claim of Theophile? None whatever which could jnstify or even excuse us for intervening. Certain letters hetween the hrothers are produced which, if authentic and written at the time of their date, show that Theophile told John, Avhile he was prosecuting his searches for guano, wluit he was engaged in and how largely he hoped to ])ro(it l)y it. ""' For my ])art," he adds, " I take you for my partner and wait with anxiety for the $5,000 you promised to send me." Suhsefjuently lie acknowledges the recei[)t of $(),250 previously promised. On wliat account this remittance was made is not shown, hut it was manifestly not a conti-ibuiion of John to tlie capital of any partner- ship in Theophile's Peruvian advejiture. There was never any agreement between them whicli- bound John to share losses, or which entitled him to profits. Theopliik' prosecuted the Ijusiness alone; there was no privity of contract between John and Peru; Jolm was wholly unknown to that Government, and his name was never mentioned in any of its dealings with Theophile. If we assume tliat John was an American citizen and that he had a secret interest in Theo])]iile's contract hy virtue of some unknown arrange- ment hetween themselves, is it not still preposterous to say that these facts would metamorphose the Frenchman's case into an American claim? At the beginning it was a French claim, if anything. France pronounced it unwortliy of support. Did the claimant change his civic relations or the nationality of his demand by simply revealing the fact that a natural- ized citizen of the United States had a secret interest in the success of the speculation? But notwithstanding the obvious impropriety of our intermeddling with this bad claim of a French adventurer, its supporters were ingenious enough to convince the State Department that we ought to do so. ]\Ir. Fish, who at first wouhl have nothing to do with it, was induced to say at a later period that it appeared to deserve examination; the officer whose 72 EECORD IN CONGEESS. duty it was to report upon its merits expressed an opinion, strongly in its favor; a committee of this House went the length of instructing the Presi- dent to prosecute it, l:)y a joint resolution, which, however, failed to pass the Senate. Mr. Blaiue, regarding the judgment of his predecessors as conclusively binding on him, and believing he could not go behind what he called the adjudication of this House, went in fact a long step beyond that. In all the discussions of the subject, American officers conducting them have ignored the fraudulent character of the original contract; the mani- fest justice of the decision made against it by the executive branch of the Peruvian Government; the finality of that decision under the laws of Peru; the absolute renunciation expressed in the contract itself of all right to call in the aid of any foreign Government; the refusal of the claimant's own Government to sujiport him in his demands; the absurdity of calling this an American claim merely because an American citizen was supposed to have a secret interest, not in the claim itself, but in the successful prosecution of it by a foreigner, and the total absence of all proof to show the existence even of that indirect interest. Overlooking these facts, and listening only to accusations against Peru, as false as^ they were vague, the authorities of this Government became worked up to the point of asserting in solemn diplomatic form that Peru was bound in duty and honor either " to supply an impartial tribunal, extend the juris- diction of the present courts, or else submit the case of Landreau to arbitration." Peru was addressed in this decisive style upon the subject of Theophile Landreau's false claim, after it was adjudicated against him by the only Peruvian tribunal which had any right to decide it, and after the Government of France had resolutely and most emphatically refused to give it the slightest countenance. In the same dispatch the Secretary of State instructs the Minister at Lima .not only to call the attention of the Peruvian Government to " this injustice," but directs the Minister to say " that the United States will expect some adequate and proper means to be provided by which Landreau can obtain a judicial de- cision upon his rights." The Minister is further instructed as follows: "As it may be presumed that you will be fully informed as to the prog- ress of negotiations between Chili and Peru for a treaty of peace, you will make such efforts as you judiciously can to secure for Landreau a fair settlement of his claim." But this is not all. Anticipating that in a treaty of peace between Chili and Peru the latter might be compelled to surrender a portion of her territory, including possibly the guano deposits of which Landreau claimed to be the discoverer, he declared that the treaty should stipulate " for the preservation and payment to Landreau of the amount due under the contract." KECOED IX COXGllESS. 73 The Secretary, speaking for and in the name of the President, goes further. He declares that if a transfer of territory l)e made to Chili it shall be understood that Landreau's claim must he treated as a prior lien. and that Chili accepts the cession with that condition annexed. We do not suppose that the word lien is used here in its proper legal sense. The author of the dispatch meant to say that Chili must he made to take an estate in the territory subject to a paramount title in Landreau for such part as his claim covered; that the treaty must recognize Landreau's rights as being superior to tliose of the high contracting parties and prior to all others; and that Chili must not satisfy her own claim for expenses of the war without first indemnifying Landreau for the failure of his speculation upon Peru. This was certainly taking very high ground, and the Secretary of State expresses the determination of this Government to hold it firmly; for he instructs the Minister in conclusion: "You will fake espeeial eare to notify both the Chilian and Peruvian authorities of the character and status of the claim, in order that no definitive treaty of peace shall be made in disregard of the rights which Landreau may be found to possess." These acts of the State Department and of the Minister are said in some quarters to be unofficial. When a ]\Iinister Plenipotentiaiy, in pursu- ance of express instructions from the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, comes between the authorities of two belligerent nations negotiating for peace with a notification addressed to both for the avowed purpose of preventing a treaty to wliicli otherwise they might consent, it is impossible to say that the proceeding is unoihcial. If the Minister had violated his instructions by neglecting or refusing to give the notification, would he not have been justly chargeable with a breach of his official duty? Ju the case of a contract between a citizen of one country and the sovereign of another, the Government of the private party has no right to do more than communicate the facts and express its opinion upon their eU'ect. This is the exercise of good offices. Did we confine ourselves to good offices when we threw Landreau's claim between Peru and her victorious enemy, " so that no definitive treaty of peace should be made " without a provision for its ultimate satisfaction? Peru was engaged in a disastrous war, and we notified her that she should make no peace with- out settling Landreau's claim. Would we have proposed terms more harsh than these if we had threatened her with a war of our own? Tliese were not good offices, not the impartial advice of a friendly mediator, but the urgency of a power intent upon forcing from her distress what her sense of justice had denied. ' Chili was as much averse to this proposed American basis of a treaty as Peru. Neither of them was willing to have anything to do with Landreau or his exploded fraud. It could not be expected that the successful 10 74 EECOKD IN CONGRESS. belligerent would share the fruits of victory with him, nor would the con- quered country voluntarily diminish its means of buying off the invaders of its soil. It was perfectly natural, therefore, that both parties to the war should reject the proposition Avith indignation. The dispatches of August 4th and December 16, 1881, say, in words too plain to be misunderstood, that no treaty could or should be made with the approbation of the United States unless it contained a stipula- tion in favor of Landreau. The words admit of no other construction. In the dispatch of August 4th the belligerents are to be notified that no definitive treaty shall be made in disregard of Landreau's rights. Did these words signify nothing? If they had a meaning, what was it? It is not possible to understand them except as an expression of our determina- tion to look with extreme disfavor upon any adjustment of the troubles between Peru and Chili which would not promote the interests of Lan- dreau. It was a palpable effort to make Landreau a party to the treaty. Wliatever concessions might be made by one of the belligerents to the other, our influence was to be so used that both would yield to Landreau. The disgrace brought upon our Government by producing this unjust demand at such a juncture of affairs was wholly without a shadow of ex- cuse, even if the claimant had been entitled to our protection. But he was a French citizen, for whose fortunes, good or bad, we were in no way responsible. We volunteered to take up the case of this extravagant stranger after his own Government had cast it off. The Secretary did not see this im- portant point correctly — most likely did not advert to it at all — there- fore, he called it "this claim of an American citizen," which is a very confusing mode of speech. It was exclusively the claim of Theophile Landreau, who is not, and does not pretend to be, an American citizen. If it be said that John C. Landreau is an American citizen, the answer is obvious that it was no claim of John's, for it is not founded on any contract or agreement with him, express or implied, and had not its origin in any transaction to which he was a party. The United States had a deep interest in bringing about a j^eace be- tween Peru and Chili. As the leading power on this continent, our Government was naturally looked to with the respect which national power always inspires, and it might easily have maintained the ascend- ency to Avhich it was entitled. But when the belligerents perceived that^ instead of counseling moderation and justice, our authorities were to use their influence to import false and foreign elements into the negotiations, all confidence in our friendly intervention was destroyed. PEERY BELMONT. RECORD IX CONGRESS. 75 JAPANESE IXDEMNITY FUND. (New York Herald.) Mr. Perry Belmont, as junior member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the House of EepresentatiA'es, last week [January 31, 1883] joined in its report upon the Japanese indemnity fund, an outcome of the commercial intercourse which was opened between the United States and Japan by his grandfather, whose name he bears, the late Commodore Perr}'. The report recites the relations between the two countries from the time of the Perry expedition until the payment of the indemnity by Japan, for sundry alleged injuries inflicted by Japanese subjects upon American commerce and American ships and crews, and it ends by recom- mending the passage of an annexed bill providing first, that a portion of the fund wliich now amounts to $1,770,364 through accumulations of interest and through investments, being a little more than double the amount paid to the United States by Japan in ISG-i, shall be paid over to certain American officers and crews named in the report, and then that the residue shall be returned to the Japanese CTOvernment. A committee of the Senate joins in the report, and there seems little doubt that the bill will pass. It is to be hoped that the Mahones in either branch of Congress will not attempt '" to readjust " into the Federal Treasury this residue which clearly belongs to Japan, and ought never to have been exacted from her. The report says: ''We are unqualifiedly of the opinion that the lionor of the nation as well as the sentiments of com- mon justice demand speedy action on the part of Congress and a prompt return of this money to Japan." The '" honor of the nation " has been so deplorably compromised on the South American shores of the Pacific by the weak and wavering foreign policy of successive Kepublican ad- ministrations, that it is a pity it should not be vindicated on the eastern shores of that great ocean. There have been symptoms of late of a dis- position on the part of the State Department under Mr. Frelinghuysen to engage the United States in the diplomatic difficulties between Japan and China, and the New York Herald, which has counseled a complete abdication by the United States of the national dignity and a complete surrender by the United States of American interests in our relations with Chili and Peru, has manifested a disposition to thrust the national flag somewhat vehemently forward in these Asiatic disputes. Suppose we should content ourselves with doing simple justice to Asiatic states, and turn our attention to seeing that simple justice is also done in the affairs of American States, nearer home. 76 RECORD IN CONGRESS. THE BEEWING INTERESTS. COMMUNICATION FROM BREWERS. We, the "undersigned brewers, established and resident in and near the city of New York, cordially unite with the residents of the First Congres- sional District, of New York, in their just and earnest tribute to the services of Mr. Perry Belmont, as a friend of sound economic principles, against the attempt to fasten a dangerous monopoly upon the brewing interest of the United States. DAVID G. YUENGLING, Jr., New York, JOSEPH BURGER, Brooklyn, PETER DOELGER, New York, ELIAS N. BETZ, New York, JOSEPH DOELGER, New York, TEYCOB HOFFMAN, New York, J. M. HAFFEN, New York, KERR & SMITH, New York, DE LA VERGNE & BURR, New York, J. REILLY, KELLY & FOGARTY, New York, HENRY FERRIS & SONS, New York, JOHN RABE, Brooklyn, OTTO HUBER, Brooklyn, OCHS & LEHNERT, Brooklyn, GLAUS LIPSIUS, Brooklyn, J. & L. F. KUNTZ, Brooklyn, HENRY KIEFER, Brooklyn, DAHLBENLER & TREINE, Brooklyn. EECOKD TX COXGKESS. 77 DEMOCEATIC STATE CONVENTION, 1882. (From report in New York Herald, September 33.) Charles W. Brooke, of New York, nominated Congressman Perry Bel- mont, of Suffolk county. He stated that he did so on his own authority and without ha%ang obtained Mr. Belmont's consent thereto. * * * At the urgent request of Mr. Belmont, Mr. Brooke withdrew his nom- ination. The resiilt of the first ballot was announced as follows: Slocum, 98; Cleveland, 66; Flower, 97; Nelson, 2G; Corning, 35; Belmont, 12; Camp- bell, 37; Ilutchins, 13. SECOND NOMINATION FOR CONGRESS. (Summary of a report in the Flushing Journal, October 23, 1882.) The First Congressional District Democratic Convention assembled Saturday, at noon, in Long Island City, to nominate a candidate for Congress. Solomon Noble, Chairman of the last Democratic Congressional Convention, called the delegates to order. Ex-State Senator James M. Oakley, of Queens county, was elected chairman of the Convention. Dr. Preston, on behalf of Suffolk county, presented the name of Mr. Belmont for renomination. * * * Judge Armstrong, of Queens county, and Captain Ellis, of Richmond county, seconded the nomination. Mr. Belmont was nominated by acclamation. * * * Henry C. Piatt, of Suffolk county, Delancey Nicoll, of Queens county, and Captain Ellis, of Richmond count.v, were appointed a committee to notify Mr. Belmont of his renomination, by acclamation. Mr. Belmont was brought to the Convention by the committee. * * * In accepting the reuominatioji for Congress, Mr. Belmont spoke as follows: SPEECH ACCEPTIXG THE NOMINATION, " Mr. Cliainnan and Gentlemen of the Convention. — " During the time that I have been intrusted with the representation of this district in Congress yon have, on many occasions, shown me marks of 3'oiir confidence, although I was as yet comparatively untried in your ser- vice. To this generous action on your part I have endeavored to respond by devoting myself to the interest of the people of the district without re- gard to party in matters in which party considerations do not enter, while it has been my earnest purpose to represent you, my Democratic friends, honorably in the councils of the nation. This assemblage suggests to me the names of many in the district who might more fitly than I undertake the duties of this office, yet you have thought it well to name me once more to this responsible place, and I accept the nomination, valuing above all things the approval of this constituency; and my official acts in the future in your behalf must be the best expression I can give you of my lasting gratitude for your action to-day. " Of course, I appreciate the fact that we have not met for the purpose of discussing public questions, the substantial accord among us here, in reference to them, rendering such discussion unnecessary, if not untimely; yet I can not refrain from at least calling your attention to what now SECOXD CAMPAIGN. 79 seems to me to be the principal issues in our politics, as well as to an- nounce my purpose of making known at an early clay to the voters of this district the opinions on these issues of one whom you have presented to them as a candidate for a seat in Congress as their representative. " Experience has shown that no great political party can, without re- buke and possible overthrow, permit itself, through the weakness of its leaders, to continue to vield to the selfish demands of individuals and of corporations in matters of Federal and State legislation. At present there has grown up a protest against this special and class legislation so general that it has become known as the anti-monopoly sentiment of the coun- tr}' — ■ variously organized, but generally presenting to the people and their representatives questions of the gravest import to our institiitions. The excellent platform adopted at Syracuse, and the high character of the candidates selected by the Convention and placed upon the ticket headed by ^Ir. Cleveland, leave no room for doubt as to the attitude and policy of the Democratic party on that important matter. " iV spirit of progress is demanded in public affairs, a spirit which, in our civil service, shall insist that fitness and strict accountability shall be the tests and standard of official life, and which, in the administration of the Government, shall speedily and effectually check and curb the now too lavish expenditures of tlie Federal Government. The question of the restoration of x\merican commerce and our now ruined merchant marine should be no longer delayed nor trifled with. Taxation must be reduced, direct and indirect, internal revenue and Custom House taxation, the lat- ter especially long recognized as Inirdensome and unequal in its effects. There should be a readjiistment of our system now perverting our tariff legislation from public to private uses. "This reduction and equalization of taxes should be gradual, and no investments in business that were made in good faith on the solicitation or encouragement of the Government should be unjustly or recklessly put in peril by the Government. Whenever it is proposed, in the future, to give a Government l)ounty or subsidy to any trading, or transporting, or agricultural, or manufacturing business or enterprise, let it not be made secretly or indirectly; let it be proposed in the shape of appropria- tion of money by Congress, in order that the people may have a fair opportunity to discuss it and deal with the proposition on its merits, and also decide upon this method of legislation. ' " Upon the first opportunity that may be granted me, during the cam- paign now opened, I shall meet these issues in as direct manner as I can, so as to leave no doubts or uncertainties in the minds of the people of this district as to my own position or the purposes I entertain in their interest. AVe have a State ticket of great strength and of unquestioned 80 SECOND CAMPAIGN, nierit — one Avorthy of the best efforts of all who interest themselves in public affairs, and of good citizens generally. Let us, therefore, continue to work to increase the weight of the popiilar verdict to be given on the day of election/' (New York Sun, Editorial.) Mr. Townseiid, the so-called " Independent " candidate for Congress in the first district, is set up by Mr. James G. Blaine as that artful politician's expedient for beating Mr. Belmont, against whom INIr. Blaine bears a well-earned grudge for showing up his crooked South American diplomacy. That is all the candidacy of Mr. Townsend means. As there is a Democratic majority in the district, the Republican managers, knowing that in an ordinary party fight any regular Republican candidate would be surely defeated, have cleared the way for Mr. Blaine's experiment by making no nomination of their own, and he has selected for his instrument a man who heretofore has called himself a Democrat, but now runs as an " Independent " with the expectation of getting the solid Republi- can support and gaining some Democratic votes from Mr. Belmont. It is an ingenious trick and is backed by a large campaign " fund." HON. EOSCOE CONKLING. (New York World. October, 1882 ) Ex-Senator Conkling having been importuned to aid the independent candidate in the It'irst Congressional District contest, in an interview with a representative of the New York World, said: " Some time ago Mr. Townsend came to my office saying that he wanted me to help him in an effort to be elected to Congress from the First Congressional District of New York. He recited with some fervor his feelings of warmth and long friendship for me, and wanted my advice and help. He stated that he proposed to get a nomination from certain Democrats who would style them- selves Independents, and then if the Republicans would indorse him, he, if elected, would act with the Republican party. I stated to Mr. Townsend first, that I was and for nearly two years had been entirely out of political life; that I had had nothing whatever to do with the political canvass at any stage or in any way, and that I should have nothing whatever to do with it in any event; further," that not being a resident of the First Congressional District, I especially could have nothing to do with that - and still further, that to run as a Dem- ocrat, nominated by Democrats, however few they might be, with a secret pur- pose or secret pledges to seek Republican support on condition of acting with the Republicans if elected, seemed to be unjustifiable and wrong. I also said to Mr. Townsend that the record of Mr. Belmont was such that were^I a voter in his district I would vote for him against any Democrat whatever." ANTI-MONOPOLY EESOLUTION. (From Justice, the organ of the Anti-Monopoly League, November 4, 1882.) Mr Belmont has thus far made an excellent record and has favorably sur- prised the Anti-Monopolists, who, from his associations, had anticipated that his vote would always be found in favor of monopoly and against the masses. SECOND CAMPAIGN. 81 The Record shoAvs, however, that on the question of restoring the forfeited land grant of the Northern Pacific Railroad to the national domain, he voted right, notwithstanding his father, Mr. August Belmont, is a director in the Northern Pacific Road. He was also right on the River and Harbor Bill, and now he conies to the front in his speech accepting his renomination, with a recognition of anti-monopoly principles which some of our older statesmen would do well to heed. Mr. Belmont's opponent in the first district is ex-Congressman Dwight Townsend. He is understood to be put forward by Mr. Blaine in order that Mr. Blaine may " get even " with Mr. Belmont. We hope that this scheme will not prevail, and that Mr. Belmont will receive the entire support of the anti-monopoly sentiment in his district. RESOLUTIONS OF THE NATIONAL ANTI-MONOPOLY LEAGUE. '• WHEREAS, THE RECORD OF PERRY BELMONT IN CONGRESS UPON THE BILL TO RESTORE TO THE NATIONAL DOMAIN THE FORFEITED RAILROAD LAND GRANTS, THP RIVER AND HARBOR BILL, AND OTHER MEASURES, HAS BEEN SUCH AS TO COMMEND HIM TO ALL ANTI-MONOPOLISTS; AND " WHEREAS, MR. BELMONT IS A CANDIDATE FOR RE-ELECTION, " RESOLVED, THAT THE NATIONAL ANTI-MONOPOLY LEAGUE FAVORS THE RE-ELEC- TION OF MR. BELMONT AND RECOMMENDS THE ANTI-MONOPOLISTS OF THE FIRST NEW YORK CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT TO GIVE HIM THEIR UNITED SUPPORT." "THE FENIAN" FUNDS." (Irish American, October 28, 1883.) Mr. Perry Belmont, who so efficiently represents the Queens county, or First district of fho State of Now York in the pi-esent Congress, is a candidate for re-election by the Dcmoc-rats of his district. Of course, the Republicans, who found him one of the sturdiest opponents of their schemes in the House of Repre- sentatives, are moving heaven and eartJi, and all other agencies, to defeat him; and most active in this work is Mr. Blaine, whose tergiversation and prostitution of the State Department to his own aggrandizement, Mr. Belmont so thoroughly exposed in the Committee of Investigation into our South American relations. It is stated tliat the Maine statesman expressed himself as willing to spend $50,000 to defeat Mr. Belmont; and, outside of party considerations, a bonanza of that kind would naturally tempt the venal element to put forward their most strenuous efforts. For the opposite reason it should impel the honest and consistent Dem- ocrats of the First district to stand by and elect the representative who has honestly discharged his duty to them and to the nation at large, as Mr. Belmont has done in every word he has spoken, and every vote he has given in Congress. The First district contains a large Irish population; and as they naturally adhere to the Democratic party, the Republicans are cunningly endeavoring to alienate their sympathies from Mr. Belmont by dishonest appeals to their patriotic feelings. Not being able to urge anything against Mr. Belmont himself, they attack him through his father, August Belmont, the well-known banker, whom 11 82 .SECOND CAMPAIGN. they accuse of having " closed " on the " Fenian Funds," in 1865, and assert that he still retains in his hands some $G5,U00 of the money of the Irish people, sub- scribed for patriotic purposes. The Republican organs, and their political heelers, suggest that the Irish in the First district should punish the father by voting against the sou! If this campaign falsehood were confined to the circle in which the local politicians move, we should content ourselves with giving it a bhmt contradiction, satisfied that our people, out of their own good sense would recognize the motive of the attempt made to deceive and prejudice them against a candidate in every way worthy of their confidence and their suffrages. Mr. August Belmont has always been a friend of the Irish people; and we and hundreds of others here in New York, can bear testimony that, in the terrible days of the past, when every energy of our people was taxed to the utmost to save our kindred at home from the famine-death to which the fiendish policy of Eng- land was consigning them, no aid was more prompt, no generous hand was more warmly extended to us thau that of August Belmont. When, therefore, we find so able and honorable an Irishman as the editor of the Chicago Citizen so misled by this fraudulent cry of a dishonest faction, as to advise our people to prove themselves ungrateful by voting against Mr. Perry Belmont, because he is the son of his father, we deem it due even to our national character, to show how false is the accusation on which this mistaken counsel is given, and to set the truth of the matter before our readers and the world. The history of those intercepted " Fenian Funds " is very simple. They were part of the money remitted from this side, during the year 1865, in drafts drawn through the house of August Belmont & Co., and payable to parties then in Ireland. These drafts the British government — acting on the information given them by the informer Pierce Nagle, and their other spies — intercepted in the post-oflice, through which they were transmitted, and quietly pigeonholed them, felicitating themselves that by so doing they were cutting off the resources of the Fenians. The seizure of the Irish People office, in Dublin, and the arrest of James Stephens and the other leaders, in September, 1865, brought out these facts, and was the first inthnation the men on this side had that the English had laid an embargo on the funds they had sent over. The money so impounded amounted at the time to about f6..500 — which, at the high rate of exchange then prevailing, represented from $65,000 to $70,000 of United States currency. After the great Fenian Convention, at PhUadelphia, in October, 1865, a committee was appointed by the central body of the organization to wait on Mr. Belmont, and see what measures could be taken to recover the funds. Of that committee a majority — Michael Scanlan, Stephen Joseph Meany, and Judge B. B. Daily, of Indiana — are still living and can testify to the facts, which they then placed on the records of the Brotherhood, now in all probability, irrevocably lost since the sack of the " Moffat Mansion." The committee were courteously received by the repre- sentative of the firm, who stated that the bills of exchange had been issued, as all such commercial draft are, in sets of three, for each separate sum remitted. The payment of any one of these bills would render the other two valueless, except as records of the transaction. The committee had with them one of the triplicate bills for each remittance, with the exception of one of a £1,000 ($10,000, then), all three of the drafts of which were missing and were supposed to have been forwarded and to be in the hands of the English government. It was explained to the committee that as these drafts were made payable to the order of parties on the other side, the firm was bound by them as long as any one of the sets of three were outstanding, as it might come back to them at any moment indorsed by the payee, in which case they would have to make good the money to the SECOND CAMPAIGX. 83 bankers who might have cashed it on the other side. The represoutntive of Bel- mont & Co., offered to refund the full amount of any of the drafts of which the complete sets could be returned; or even if the committee could bring any one of each set, with the identified indorsement of the party to whom it was payable, they would refund the amount of it, and take the risk of defending a second demand for it. The committee explained tJaat, according to their information, one at least, of each set of the drafts was in the hands of the English government, which also held as prisoners the men to whose order they were payable; so that it would be impossible for them to procure either the complete sots o'l drafts or an authenticated indorsement of any of them. Mr. Belmont's representative at once said: " You see how we are placed, gentlemen, without any action of our own. The English government may allow any of these men, any day, to indorse and draw one or all of those drafts. On such indorsement they will be paid on the other side, and we wUl have to make that payment good, no matter who gets the money. But we will do what we can for you. Give us good, available security, here in America, that these drafts will not be negotiated on the other side, and w^e will at once return to you the full amount paid for them." The committee reported the result of this interview to the central body of the Fenian Brotherhood, then in session in the Astor House; and they were empowered to take steps to arrange for giving the required security; but the dissensions which broke out in the Brotherhood, a few weeks later, prevented the carrying out of the negotiations. Subsequent events, however, showed that what Mr. Belmont's representative had told the committee was coiTect in a business point of view, and that he had dealt with them in good faith. Of the intercepted drafts, two' had been made payable to the order of .Tohn O'Leary, amounting to something over f2;000. Though O'l^e.'iry was in prison, the drafts had been signed by him, and the representative of Belmont & Co., had paid the money on the third bill of exchange, which was sent over by special messenger; and the money was deposited to his credit in the Bank of Ireland. After O'Leary's arrest the government again impounded the money in the Bank of Ireland, which thereupon i-efused to pay it to O'Leary'a order. The late Mr. Butt, as counsel for the prisoner, thereupon moved in court that the Bank of Ireland be declared bankrupt and its charter forfeited, inasmuch as, in viobilion of the said charter, it had failed to honor a legitimate draft, the funds to meet which had been placed in its hands. The bank resisted the applica- tion, but the judgment of the court given was against it, with the reservation that suspension would not be exacted if the money was paid, with costs of court. Within an hour the £2,000 was in the hands of O'Leary's representative, and was used to defend the State prisoners of that time. A still further illustration of the correctness of Mr. Belmont's position remains. Between £3,000 and £4,000 of the intercepted drafts had been made payable to the order of George Hopper, a merchant tailor in Dublin. He was not a member of the organization, and the remittances were sent through him as a safe medium. The government, however, stopped them, all the same, and arrested Hopper, who was tried and sentenced to two years' imprisonment. "While he was in jail his brother came out to New York, during the regime of Colonel Tom Kelly at the O'Mahony Fenian head- quarters. The duplicates of the intercepted drafts were given to him, and he took them over to Dublin. AVitliin a week of his an-ival thei-e. Hopper's sentence was commuted, and be was released (mainly, it is said, through certain influencee brought to bear on Judge Kcogh); and, on his indorsement, these drafts also were paid. These payments, with other incidentals, reduced the capital sum to some- thing about $20,000, for which a suit was begun by the late John O'Mahony against August Belmont & Co. The case dragged on, as such matters usually do, 84 SECOND CAMPAIGN. for years, " decisions " being giren, from time to time, for one side or the other, on technical points that decided nothing; until, at last, shortly before the release of the Fenian State prisoners, the late Judge John H. McCuun issued an order in the Superior Court, commanding Belmont & Co. to pay into court the amount in litigation, and the order was made returnable in twenty-four hours. The money was accordingly paid into court by Mr. Ernest Lucke, the representative of Messrs. Belmont & Co., on July 20, 1869. Messrs. Belmont wanted to have the money paid over to a ti-ust company, so that it could be held safely for its real owners, but Judge McCunn at once made a supplemental order appointing the late ex-Alderman Thomas J. Barr, receiver in the matter; and allocating, out of the impounded funds, a very liberal fee to the lawyers and stenographers on both sides, who were, doubtless, well satisfied with their portion of the fight over the " Fenian Funds." Alderman BaiT has passed away, after the usual manner of the tribe of " ofliclal receivers; "' and that iiortion of the " Fenian Funds," of which the newspapers so often make a convenient text to hang a slander on, have not been in the hands of Belmont & Co. for years. In the language of the late lamented Fiske, they have " gone where the woodbine twineth," expedited thither by the peculiar " law " of Judge McCunn. We make this statement not only in justice to Mr. Perry Belmont, who, still a young man, could have no possible connection with a transaction that occurred seventeen years ago; and to his father, over whose shoulders interested parties now strike at him, on a false charge. Mr. P. W. Dunne, of Chicago, 111., and Mr. P. Bannon, of Louisville, Ky., in addition to the gentlemen above named, are cognizant of and can substantiate the first part of this statement; the rest is matter of judicial record; and the whole goes to prove, to anyone who is not pre- determined against acknowledging the truth, that the charge that August Belmont holds or ever improperly withheld a dollar of the money of the Irish people, is entirely baseless and should never have been made, especially by anyone who has the dignity and character of the Irish National cause sincerely at heart. CHARLES O'CONOR TO AUGUST BELMONT. "Nantucket, Mass., October 28, 1882. "My Dear Sir.— The possibility of your deviating for an instant from rectitude will not be credited ; consequently, so far as your reputation is concerned, you might properly disregard the attempted impeachment. But such a course is forbidden by a duty to your country and to the honest fame of your son. " The object of those who have misled the journalist was to cast opprobrium upon Perry Belmont , and thereby to deprive New York's First Congressional District of his valuable services in Congress. His own personal record was both too brief and too brilliant for their purpose; in it no blemish could be discerned. So the wolf's device of assailing his pedigree was resorted to. " If his father had dealt wrongfully with a fund devoted to the service of their native land by exiles in America, it might afford ground to fear that the son was not incapable of doing likewise. This suggested the tale. It was coined, and an honest, well-meaning editor was, by some artifice, induced to give it ciu-rency. If he can not be convinced of his error and induced promptly and effectually to retract his misleading publication, no other remedy exists than a prompt, open, public, judicial refutation of the libel and an ignominious punishment of its publisher for his per- nicious obstinacy. " This should be done with sufficient celerity to undeceive the electors ere their votes are cast. " The libelers were prompted by their own evil genius in selecting this vile device for the attain- ment of their designs. It Is precisely the one most sure of retroacting to their confusion and defeat. "Yours truly, "CHARLES O'CONOR. "Hon August Belmont, New York." SECOND CAMPAIGN'. 85 JOHN" KELLY TO AUGUST BELMONT. " No. 23 Park Row, New York, December 15, 1883. "August Belmont. Esq.: '"My Pear Sir. — I have been informed that an effort is being made to convince Mr. Carlisle that it would be unwise to appoint your son Perry as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, in consequence of the difficulty which has taken place between Mr. Devoy and yourself. Certainly it is to be regretted that any person would resort to such means to prevent your son from being ap- pointed, if it be the intention of Mr. Carlisle to select him, chairman of the committee. I have studiou-ly avoided interfering or attempting to influence Mr. Carlisle in the exercise of his judg- ment in favor or against any member of Congress from this city or State to be appointed on com- mittees of the house I have read nearly all that has been written on the subject relative to the course pursued by Devoy, and came to the conclusion that in view of the liberal and manly course which you extended toward him and his refusal to do you justice that you were justifiable in taking the steps that you did to punish him for his unwarrantable course. I have known you for thirty years and entertain and have the highest respect for you, believing that you area liberal and high-toned gentleman, and that you would not do wrong knowingly to any person, no matter who they were, and I hope that ^r. Carlisle will not consider for one moment the statements that ai'e being made, from appointing your son chairman of the committee, if he be inclined to do so. " Very truly yours, "JOHN KELLY.'' EEMARKS AT A DINNER TO HENRY GEORGE. (October 23, 1882.) A DINNER WAS GIVEN TO HENRY GEORGE, OCTOBER 23. 1S82, BY A NUMBER OF CITIZENS OF NEW YORK. ALGERNON S. SDLLIVAN PRESIDED. TOASTS WERE RE- SPONDED TO BY HENRY WARD BEECHER, THOMAS KINSELLA. ANDREW McLEAN, THOMAS G. SHEARMAN, JUDGE WILLIAM H. ARNOUX AND JUDGE CHARLES H. VAN BRUNT. Mr. BELMONT, TOUCHING UPON THE LAND QUESTION IN IRELAND, TO WHICH PRECEDING SPEAKERS HAD REFERRED. SAID: " Not only the eminent guest of this evening, but ever}^ true American and every thoughtful man indeed must fully sympathize with those Irish- men wlio are seeking to adapt to the conditions of modern society the legislation, the representation and the land ownership of their country. I, for one, heartily join in wishing for Ireland the home rule we ourselves enjoy in the form of the old New England township system. The full- ness of local liberty is in no way incompatible with national power. It is really an essential part of it and it will doubtless in the end become necessary to the strength and permanency of England's own nationality. " We, on our part, have perhaps too much of a certain mistaken kind of home rule. Our legislators have built up a sort of Chinese wall about the country in the shape of commercial restrictions which has caused us too much to neglect our foreign policy and our external relations. To me it seems that among the first duties of our legislators is such a restora- tion of. our foreign carrying trade as shall put our flag once more upon the ocean and with it secure the return of that traditional foreign policy which maintained the honor and the inviolable character of our citizen- ship under all circumstances in all foreign lands." 86 SECOND CAMPAIGN. ADDEESS BEFOEE THE JEFFEESONIAN AND NOETHFIELD DEMOCEATIC CLUBS OF EICHMOND COUNTY, AT NEW BEIGHTON, STATEN ISLAND. November 1, 1882. THE TAEIFF. I thank you heartily for your welcome. Perhaps you will be willing to hear what I may have to say about certain matters directly affecting your interests, and concerning which I may be called upon to act in Congress in your behalf. I can think of nothing more important at this time to the interests of the people than the principles and methods of taxation. I do not see why there should be reluctance to discuss Custom House taxation particularly. On the contrary, it seems to me to be much better to take up these questions now than to put them off, especially if they should be postponed to the exciting times of Presidential elections, when they are not generally treated with fairness or moderation on either side. Let me begin by putting this case. Suppose the Federal Government had a steady income from any source which made unnecessary the raising of money by annual taxation, either direct or indirect, for the ordinary expenditures of the Government, would any large body of impartial Voters be likely to advocate tajtation for the purpose of dra^ving from themselves into the Treasury money, to be distributed by Congress as a bounty or a subsidy to any class or classes of manufacturers, whether infant or adult? The theory of our Government demands that taxes shall be levied for public purposes only; and hence it is that in two or three of the States of the Union there have been judicial decisions to the effect that the Consti- tution of the State contained restrictions, either expressed or implied, preventing State or municipal Legislatures from assisting certain indi- vidual interests, either by granting public money, or pledging the public credit. For instance: to aid in the rebuilding of houses in a city which had been partially destroyed by lire, or to encourage the erection of works for the carrying on of a certain kind of useful manufacture. There may not be any clause in the Federal Constitution which ex- pressly prohibits Congress from making an appropriation as a bounty to encourage individuals to engage in any special industry, similar to the clause to be found in the State Constitutions which compelled the deci- SECOND CAMPAIGX. 87 sions to which I hare referred; vet it may be safely said that no consider- able number of voters could be found to advocate direct Federal taxation in order to obtain money to be paid as a bounty to encourage any form of industry, as for example the growing of tea plants recommended some few years ago, or indeed to aid in the manufacture, by individuals, of the most useful and desirable articles as an affair of purely private business and speculation. If you can not find any considerable body of voters, east or west, who would advocate the raising of money by direct taxation, for such purposes, then how can it be deemed wise or expedient for Con- gress to accomplish the same thing by indirect taxation? It seems to me that at the end of some such considerations as these one must come to the conclusion that it is neither w^ise, nor expedient, nor necessary, and probably an unconstitutional exercise of power, for Congress to levy duties on imported articles for any other purpose than to aid in raising the revenue actually required for the permanent and annual expenditures of the Federal Government. If, by the wise and skillful adjustment, and honest levy of duties demanded by the require- ments of the public service, any American manufacturer is aided and encouraged by this incidental protection so much the better; no one will stand in the way of that. Every one sees and concedes that Congress must, at present, levy duties on imported articles in order to obtain the necessary revenue for the Government. When it is once determined what sum of money is needed each year for that purpose, then what part of that sum shall be obtained by direct internal taxation, and what part by indirect external taxation, becomes a matter of administration which might not seriously divide political parties. And when it has been once ascertained what sura shall be thus raised by a tariff of duties on imports for the purpose of obtaining a revenue with whicli to carry on the Government with economy, then also one would say that the honest adjustment and levy of duties for such a pur- pose should not, in itself, suffice to divide and keep the country divided into two political parties It will, of course, be difficult in tlie practical adjustment of a scale of duties to prescri])e " a hard and fast line " which shall separate and dis- tinguish a rate of duty which is " for revenue,"' from a rate of duty which is secretly urged for the sake of " protection." It is to be anticipated that there will be difficulties and embarrassments; but they need not be serious. In doubtful cases there will probably not be many, in or out of Congress, who would refuse to give the American manufacturer the benefit of the doubt, provided the general rule of fixing a rate for revenue is honestlv adliered to. 88 SECOND CAMPAIGN. Such are my present convictions upon the Constitutional principles and the rules of political economy, which.seem to me to have been originally involved in the tariff question, and upon them I should as- suredly act, and vote, whenever it became my official duty to do so, if the question were now a new one in our pul)lic affairs. But the question is not new. A tariff intentionally and studiously framed in many particu- lars, to operate in a way to bestow bounties, or subsidies, on certain manu- facturers, has been long in operation in the country. Large enterprises have been undertaken and great sums of money have been invested on account of the tariff, and in consequence of the pecuniary advantages that it offered. Many who have, since the tariff laws of 1861 and 1864, embarked their capital and their energies, and given emiDloyment to great numbers of people in the protected manufactures, have been those, it may be, who were adverse to the laws when originally enacted, but who at last came to look upon that system of legislation as likely to be permanent. It would be clearly unjust, and impolitic, to bring needless injury or possible de- struction on such investments, by sudden repeal of such tariff laws, unmse, dishonest, or iniquitous, as they may have been in the beginning. A reduction of taxes should be gradual, and no investments made on the encouragement of the Government should be put in peril by the Govern- ment itself. How many of such investors there may be who did not disingenuously promote, in Congress, this vicious tariff legislation, or who have, since their outlay, had their original investment returned to them many times over I am unable to say. That the existing tariff law is crude, clumsy and unjust is not generally denied. Those familiar with its practical operation do not hesitate to concede that it is as demoralizing to the officials who administer it, as it is vexing and tempting to those who, under it, are compelled to carry on the importing business of the country. The existing tariff, which is substantially the Morrill, or war tariff of 1861 and 1864, needs immediate revision and readjustment as well in the sense of articles to be free of duty, and of rates of duty on the articles to be dutiable at the ports for the purpose of revenue, as in the sense of rules and regulations for the assessment and collection of the duties to be levied. ' The war legislation, which attempted to improve the old tariff, derived or adapted from England, by Wolcott of Connecticut, and Hamilton of New York, was a hasty adoption of the fiscal policy of the Federalists, and has much of it turned out to be anything but an improvement. If a model had to be sought it would have been infinitely better to have adopted the principles of the tariff of Eobert J. Walker, of 1846. SECOND CAMPAIGN". 89 It sliould be made plain that duties are to he hereafter levied on imports for purposes of revenue, and any revision of the tariff should dis- tinctly announce that salutary rule for the future. At present the necessities of providing for the interest on the public debt, and for other great — too great — Federal expenditures, seem to make it imperative that duties be levied at the ports of entry on a por- tion of the articles brought to this country from abroad; but can not the number of these articles be largely and safely reduced, and can not the number of articles to be added to the free list, especially of raw materials used by American manufacturers, be as largely and safely increased, without materially reducing, in the end, the total sum of money to be gathered in from duties on arriving merchandise? I do not fail to appreciate, I hope, the persistence, if not the force, of the cry that a high tariff has given, and will continue to give a per- manently higher rate of remuneration to those American laborers who toil for daily, or weekly, or monthly wages. Certainly, the constantly recurring " strikes " which have been so prevalent throughout the country in spite of twenty years of high tariff have not been of a character to show that even such legislation has been able to bring comfort and con- tentment to all such American laborers. A high tariff in increasing so enormously the price which these laborers must pay for their clothing, food and shelter necessary for themselves and families, compelling them to buy articles they need from dearer instead of cheaper makers, may possibly make a nominally high rate of wages a delusion and a snare for such day laborers. However that may be, the true test of the laborer's condition is not the amount he receives, but the sum he is able to save at the end of the week, or month, or year. I have here, to illustrate this fact, some figures from the official report of statistics of labor in Massachusetts for 1882. Take the industry of manufacturing carpeting, protected in I860, twenty-four per cent., and in 1881, seventy-six per cent. WEEKLY AVAGES. ISfiO. ]881. Wool washers $5 50 $6 60 Dyers and dryers 6 GO 6 60 Weavers 6 50 5 70 Section hands 7 50 10 50 Machinists and carpenters 9 00 10 20 Firemen 6 00 6 60 Watchmen 7 00 8 40 Laborers 5 00 6 60 90 SECOND CAMPAIGN. Now compare this table with another I have here to show the pur- chasing power of a dollar in 1860^ and in 1881, of rice, beef, flour, rent and board: What a dollar What a dollar would purchase would purchase ARTICLES. in I860. in 1881. Rice 13.33 lbs. 10.25 lbs. Beef, roasting 9.18 " 5.85 " Beef, corned 15.38 " 9.75 " Pork, salted 9.09 " 7.54 " Flour, family 27.77 " 19.76 " Rent, four-room tenement 6 3-4 days 3 3-4 days Board for men 2.51 " 1.47 " Now, to illustrate — in 1860 and in 1881 a wool washer would pur- chase for his week's wages, as follows: I860. 1881. ARTICLES. W^ages, S5.50. Wages, $6.60. Rice 73.31 lbs. 67.65 lbs. Beef, roasting 50.49 " 38.61 " Beef, corned 84.59 " 64.35 " Pork, salted 49.99 " 49.76 " Flour, family 152.73 " 130.41 "' Rent, four-room tenement 37.12 days 24.75 days Board for men 13.80 " 9.70 " Illustrating what a week's wages of a laborer would purchase in 1860 and in 1881, respectively, of the following articles, Eoasting beef, corned beef, flour, rent for four-room tenement and men's board. Laborer's wages in 1860 was $5 a week and in 1881 $6.60 a week. What $5 would What J6.60 would ARTICLES. purchase in 1860. purchase in 1881. Beef, roasting 45.90 lbs. 38.61 lbs. Corned beef 76.90 " 64.35 " Flour, family 138.85 " 130.41 " Rent, four-room tenement 33.75 days 24.75 days Men's board 12.55 " 9.70 " "Without pausing to give details it may be shown likewise from the census of 1880 that in the production of iron ore the increase of em- ployes, of products and of capital have each and all kept so far in advance of any increase of wages as to leave the burden of the competition wholly upon the wageworkers; the increase in capital in this line being, since 1870, 247.61 per cent., in employes 110.81 per cent., in products 108 per cent., but in wages only 39.48 per cent. In the iron and steel in- dustries, the relative growths are about the same, while in the coal mines there has been a large decrease in both the relative and actual amount paid as wages since 1870, and yet these industries are among the very pets or chosen favorites of protection. SECOXD CAMPAIGN. 91 A distinguished writer, M. Henry Baiidrillart, has recently given us some important facts on the life of the French peasant laborer. He assures us that wages in France are from 25 cents to 80 cents a day, excepting in harvest, when $2 per day in some sections may be earned by a laborer. He shows us that it is a thing of common occurrence for French agri- cultural laborers, whose yearly wages amount to but $140, to save out of this $40 per year. This is over thirty-five per cent, of his wages. How does he do it? He pays but $25 to $30 for a year's rent of a four-roomed house and a garden. He pays less for a year's clothing than the American, who pays the cost of a tariff subsidy to the manu- facturer, pays for a single suit. He pays less for furnishing his house than the American pays to furnish a bedroom, and in like proportion for every necessity. The result is the French laborer, on one-third the wages of an Ameri- can, lives better and saves more money than our countrymen. It is so rare for an American day or agricultural laborer to save $40 per year that I doubt if any of you who hear me to-night can cite a present in- stance. Certainly, you can not cite me the case of one who saves thirty- five per cent, of his wages, or, say, $142 per year. The tarifl' makes every American pay about forty-nine per cent, more than he should for all he consumes. How then can he save anything? The thing to be accomplished and what we want, it seems to me, is to procure for the American laborer not only higher wages than his European fellow-workman, but also a higher purchasing power for the wages he receives. This we can only accomplish by reducing the burden of his taxation, both internal revenue and Custom House taxes, and the cry that a re- duction of these taxes is to produce a harmful effect upon the laboring man is one of those false ideas which would never have obtained a foot- hold had it not been for the great efforts of the comparatively few in- terested individuals who have put them in circulation. The immense surplus in the Federal Treasury, engendering extrava- gance and corruption, is proof in itself that our present system of taxa- tion is at fault, aside from the fact that it imposes unequal burdens upon the people. The advocates of high duties have been indiscreet enough to recently avow their willingness to advocate a tariff for protection, with revenue as a mere incident. The boldness of this declaration from Messrs. Kelly, of Pennsylvania, and McKinley, of Ohio, indicates a plan of so complete a perversion of the public function of tariff legislation from its only legitimate purpose of providing a revenue to the Government, into a 92 SECOND CAMPAIGN. scheme of taxing the people for the benefit of a certain class of manu- facturers that no more flagrant case of a policy of class legislation could be cited by the Anti-Monopolists. The Democratic party, basing its position upon the public welfare and the constitutional modes and objects of administering the Government, insist upon a tarifE for revenue whenever they speak as a party. Unless the now generally-accepted laws and rules of political economy are impotent fallacies, the United States can not long continue to profit- ably buy foreign merchandise unless the United States sell an equal value of their own products to foreigners. Trade must be an exchange of articles. For us to pay foreigners in money for what we buy of them, or for foreigners to pay us in gold or silver for what they take of us, can not long continue. If then our products and manufactures are to go on increasing in quantity and quality and value, as we hope and expect they are to increase, the United States must find an outside market for their surplus products, and take foreign products in exchange therefor. But how are we to find foreign markets for our surplus manufactures if we aim to exclude surplus foreign articles from our own shores? And how shall our products be carried to foreign markets? And this brings me to the question of our shipping. Our shipping tonnage has in twenty years declined a million and a half tons. We now carry in American ships but six per cent, of the world's commerce. Our own commerce for 1881 was $1,675,024,318. The ocean freights on this, exclusive of mail service, were $167,502,431. If to this we add the amounts paid for the passenger trade, about $24,000,000 a year, we find our ocean commerce worth, in freight and passage money alone, over $191,000,000. Of this but fifteen per cent, goes to Americans. Of 170,000,000 bushels of grain exported last year, it is reported that not a bushel went in an American ship. The sailors required to do our own trade would be over 600,000 men, if we did our own work; but we pay to foreigners over $151,000,000 for doing this work that we might, but for our bad tariff and shipping laws, do ourselves at a great profit. We can build better, fleeter and stronger ships than our foreign rivals, but our tariff laws will not allow our shipbuilders to compete with foreign builders in the purchase of the material for shipbuilding — compelling them by the tariff on the materials to build a one-thousand-ton iron ship to pay over $21,000 in duties. This tax is collected by the Custom House if the materials are imported; but if purchased from American manu- facturers they collect it directly by adding it to the cost of the materials SECOND CAMPAIGN. 93 they sell. The duties would pay the labor hill for building a wooden ship of the same tonnage. Wooden ships can not compete with iron vessels. Hence, the policy which prevents Americans from profitably building iron vessels is one that compels us to abandon that field. In doing this, we destroy many profitable industries, for the construction of a ship of two thousand five hundred tons gives employment to six hundred men of over thirty trades, paying an average of $500 per year to each. This is nearly $100 higher than the average yearly pay of labor in the twenty principal cities of the United States. These are but a few of the evils that grow out of the loss of American shipping interests. I have not time to discuss them all on this occasion ; but I can at least indicate some of the remedies that Congress should apply. There should be such a change in our tariff laws as to enable Americans to obtain the materials at home or abroad for building ships and to build and employ them with the same freedom and profit that marked the days of American success and prestige on the sea. There should be a remission, direct or indirect, of our tonnage dues on American vessels, the abolition of the vexations and costly consular fees that em- barrass our sliips in foreign ports; an abolition of antiquated laws re- quiring tlie payment of three months' extra wages to sailors discharged in foreign ports, the requirements of light money, hospital money, not required of foreign vessels, and other minor annoyances and charges at home and foreign ports that hinder American shipping. The law limit- ing shipmasters who are compelled to bring invalid American sailors to the United States to a fee of $10, should be changed to a charge to he governed by time and distance required in such cases. American ships should by all means be paid for ocean mail service as much as I'ailways receive for performing the same amount of service; and our present laws discriminating against them in this regard should be speedily corrected. But another complication has arisen recently that threatens not only our few remaining ships in the foreign trade, but attacks our coasters as well. Our extensive coasting trade has very properly been always reserved to our own ships, and it is in this field that the bulk of our tonnage to-day finds employment. The well-known cheaper rates of freight by water transportation are such as to make it a matter of great economic im- portance to merchants and shippers to secure the water rates on all goods not required to be shipped more speedily by rail. This has given rise to a rivalry between ship and rail transportation which presents some remarkable features. Last May the Pacific roads in California, then earning over fifteen per cent, on their valuation, announced a new schedule of freights, adding 94 SECOND CAMPAIGN. from fifty per cent, to one hundred and fifty per cent, to through freight charges on a number of articles that were usually shipped and received by rail. Merchants and shippers were then given the option of paying these new rates, which were simply ruinous and amounting to an embargo on trans- portation, or of securing the old rates by a special contract offered by the railway companies. This contract would secure the old rates only on the conditions that the merchant should agree, under penalty, not to ship or receive any mer- chandise by sea, nor to deal with anyone who did ship by sea, to ship wholly by rail, and to allow the agents of the railways to examine the books of the shippers and merchants thus contracting, to see if they shipped at any time any merchandise by sea. The flagrant character of this contract system has been fully shown in the recent political discus- sions in California, in which is shown the ruinous oppression of this scheme upon not only the merchants and the shipping interests, but like- wise upon the farmers and producers of the entire State. This is very remarkable, as in other cases railways have recognized the importance of the shipping interest by promoting the establishment of steamship com- panies as continuations of their own lines. The States have always exercised the right of limiting the rates to be charged by railways for transporting passengers, and why there should not be a similar regulation of freight charges it is difficult to see. Public opinion has been aroused on these matters by the Anti-Monopolists, and a remedy has been proposed in Congress known as the Eeagan Interstate Commerce bill. Although the Eeagan bill is not free from some objec- tionable features, it is to be hoped that it will be so formulated at an early day as to apply a much-needed remedy to a great wrong now afflicting not only our shipping but also our whole commercial and producing interests. Let me illustrate by reading an item recently cut from a leading news- paper: " Steam Service betzvecn Sail Francisco and Liverpool. "A steamship line will shortly ply between San Francisco and Liverpool, and it is fully expected that it will divert some of the traffic of the Southern Paciflc. One iron steamer, of three thousand eight hundred tons, destined for this service, has already been launched at Middlesborough, and another is being built. As adverse winds and calms have injured and delayed sailing vessels, the steamers will have the advantage. Much complaint is made by busi- ness men of the railway tyranny that is practiced, the Central Pacific being especially singled out for animadversion. As a sample of the ex- tortion complained of, it may be stated that the railway claims the right to charge, say, merchant A. $500 for a carload of grindstones, and merchant B. SECOND CAMPAIGN. 95 $600 for another carload coupled behind A.'s car. The merchant five hundred miles on the road nearer to New York is forced to pay for his freight being carried past to San Francisco and returned, although the car may be switched off at his door on its way westward. The tyranny of the company has gone so far that it is alleged one firm has been openly threatened with being crushed unless they ceased shipping part of their goods round the Horn. The Southern Pacific, which is an offshoot of the Central, proposes to transport the wheat by rail to New Orleans, the steamers thence to Liverpool returning with immigrants to be packed in the wheat cars, fitted with temporary seats and berths. But the merchants, for their own protection, have resolved on establishing a steam line, assisted by an English syndicate representing a million sterling." It is from these considerations easy to see how important to the people of this countr}' it is that we preserve and restore our merchant marine; and in this question we discover the importance of securing to the people of this State, and to the great commercial center of the Union the adop- tion of the free canal amendment to our State Constitution now offered to the people in the present election. The situation in San Francisco warns us to guard New York against like dangers. To make our great State canal free, since it has repeatedly repaid the cost of its construction, is a step in this direction. The whole question, to be properly treated, should be taken up by a special committee in Congress; and it was for this purpose I had the honor to ask that a special committee be appointed upon this subject. I am glad to say that the committee was appointed and will meet in New York on the loth of November; and, although I am not a member of it, I can assure you that I shall do all in my power to promote the object for which it was appointed. There is another topic of public concern which is rapidly pushing itself to the front, and earnestly demanding consideration, concerning which I wish, with your kind permission, to say a word or two to-night. I refer to the " Civil Service." How the evil that we deplore shall be remedied, and how the general result that we seek shall be obtained, may be open to a good deal of fair debate, but that something needs to be done, and that right quickly, nobody can well deny. Possibly an aroused and reso- lute public opinion brought to bear on the President, the heads of depart- ments and party leaders would accomplish the result without Congres- sional legislation. In our Country a vigorous public opinion, moving aggressively for the attainment of a definite object, is omnipotent, and no class of public officials, whether high or low, can or will long resist its behests. If you and the like of you all over the land who are the voters, will only make your Kepresentatives and Senators in Congress feel that, in some way, the present system of wholesale removals, for partisan rea- sons, of efficient public servants in the lower grades of administration, 96 SECOND CAMPAIGN'. who have nothing to do with the policy of the Government, shall speedily come to an end, the beneficent result will not be long delayed. It is your money that is wasted, it is your public seiwice thatis weakened and demoralized, by the existing system. It will profit nothing, and it will contribute nothing, to the end desired to inquire whether the evil began when President Jackson felt constrained to remove from office those who had arraigned his personal integrity and resisted his election, or when President Lincoln made, during his administration, " a clean sweep " from office of nearly every Northern Democrat — no matter whether experi- enced or inexperienced, efficient or inefficient, honest or dishonest, loyal or disloyal. And now, what are among the possible suggestions of remedy? The offices, it must be borne in mind, which these men hold have been created by law; the duties of the officers have been defined by law; and their salaries have been provided for out of taxes paid for by you and other taxpayers of the land. They were appointed to be officers of the law, and of the Government, and not personal servants of party leaders. It may be well worth your while to carefully inquire, first of all, and for general reasons of the public good, quite apart from any consideration of the phase of Civil Service Keform which we are now considering, whether or not there are too many of these subordinate officials now sup- ported by taxes levied upon industry. Certainly, the special evil of which we are now speaking would be measurably abated if the number could be reduced from one hundred thousand to seventy-five thousand. That the number has been prodigiously increased since 18C0 is apparent. Somewhat of this increase may have been demanded by the peaceful growth of the country, but more of it came of the necessities or inevitable accompaniments of a great war. There, however, seems to be no reason for this increase since the war. The growth in office-holding is shown by the following table to be rapid and remarkable, since the close of the war: 1861, Officeholders in Civil Service 44,528 1863, 1869, 1873, 1876, 1882, 44.375 54.207 86,660 102.250 aljout 112,000 There is no need that the sphere of duties of the Federal Government at Washington be enlarged. The Government at Washington should not be encouraged to undertake new functions, whether concerning railways, or telegraphs, or banking, or currency, or manufactures, or anything else SECOND CAMPAIGX. 97 which individuals can as well perform if only left to themselves. If that be the rule, then the hundred thousand of Government officials can be largely and safely reduced. The evil to be remedied is, as we have seen, a partisan removal of faithful inferior officers without a cause that touches efficiency, or honesty, or general propriety of official conduct. A majority of those who have con- scientiously and intelligently studied the subject are inclined to think that the direct result can be best accomplished, if legislation is to be had, by measuring the difficulties of obtaining an appointment, and measuring those difficulties either by competitive examination or in some other form. Certainly, it would be a great gain in every way if the standard of qualification crippled the power of outside partisans over the executive business of the nation, and over superior officers, to whom alone, and to whose discretion, the law has committed the selection, appointment and promotion of inferior officers. The kind and attentive manner in which you have been pleased to listen to what I have had to say this evening I take as a proof of your apprecia- tion of the importance of these questions to the country; and if I can do anything to aid in promoting the success of measures for their proper solution, I shall feel that I am acting in accordance with your wishes. As to politics in this county, need I suggest to the club to be mindful of our excellent candidates for the State offices, and that the best efforts of Democrats may properly be given to make old Kichmond county felt among the large majorities for Cleveland. (New York Evening Post.) " In a si)cccli at New Brigliton last Wednesday night, jMr. Perry Belmont, candidate for Congress in the first district, directed tlie attention of his andience to questions of taxation, which he said could be better discussed now than during the exciting times of a Presidential election. It might be said further that, in- asmuch as these questions are continually pressed upon the attention of Congress, it is not impertinent for voters, b<>l"ore they vote, to ask just where Congressional candidates stand in regard to such matters. " Mr. Belmont took the ground that customs duties should be levied for revenue, and not in order to guarantee a bounty to any particular kind of busi- ness; that tliey should be imposed only so far as to yield the amount of revenue needed for the legitimate and economical expenditures of the Government; and that upon these princii)les there should be a revision of the present ' crude, clumsy and unjust tariff.' He showed by interesting statistics that the assumption that this tariff encourages high wages, and so makes the workingman prosperous, is unfounded. For instance, the increase in capital in iron ore production from 1870 to 1880 was 247.61 per cent., in number of persons employed 110.81 per cent., and in quantity of products 108 per cent., while in the aggregate of wages it was only 39.48. Some comparative tables showing the purchasing power of wages are even more suggestive. The wages of a woolwasher, for example, in 13 98 SECOND CAMPAIGN". 1860, before the war tariff, were $5.50 a week. In 1881, with a war tariff in force, they were $(5.60. But twenty-two years ago a doHar would buy 9.18 pounds of roasting beef, while last year it would buy only 5.85 pounds. Then it would pay the rent of a four-room tenement for 6% days, now it pays for 3% days. Then it would pay a man's board for 2.51 days, now it pays for 1.47. Or, to make a weekly comparison, the woolwasher's wages bought 50.49 pounds of beef in 1860 and 38.61 pounds in 1881; paid rent then for 37.12 days and pays now for 24.75 days; paid board for 13.80 days then and pays now for 9.70 days. This comparison is further illustrated by the fact that ' the French laborer, on one- third the wages of an American, lives better and saves more money than our countrymen.' " There is said to be somebody running for Congress somewhere in the first district against Mr. Belmont. He ought to make a speech, telling the voters whether he believes that the high tariff, which makes high prices, really pro- motes the well-being of the workingman. Mr. Belmont's speech is a good example of a discvission of public questions upon their own proper merits, an example which might be followed by candidates in Congressional campaigns greatly to the advantage of the public." SECOND CAMPAIGX. 99 LETTER TO THE YOUNG MEN'S DEMOCRATIC CLUB, ASSEM- BLED IX MASS MEETING IN CHICKERING HALL. "Babtlox, L. L, November 3, 1882. " My Dear Sir. — I have an engagement in Long Island which prevents me from accepting your kind invitation to address the cIuId to-night. I regret it extremely. I have, as you know, been a member of the Young Men's Democratic Club almost since its beginning, and I know how hard it has worked for the accomplishment of the great reforms in State and Federal administration which have been urged by the Democratic party in this State with such clearness since the defeat of 1872. " In the election of that year the Democratic Presidential ticket was beaten by more than fifty thousand votes, but the Democratic State Con- vention having pronounced distinctly for ' revenue reform, honest money and home rule,' put the Republican State ticket on election day in a minority of ten thousand votes. " In 1874, the Democratic party reaffirmed in still stronger terms the principles set forth in 1872, and elected Mr. Tilden to be Governor by an unprecedented majority, but one destined to be surpassed by Mr. Cleve- land on Tuesday next. Again, in 1876, Governor Tilden carried the State by over thirty thousand majority. In that great struggle in which the Democracy of New York has been engaged since 1873, the Young Men's Democratic Club has been vigilant and powerful. And what have been the principles for which the club has labored? They are set forth in the Democratic platform of New York for 187-J:. " ' Gold and silver tlie only legal tender; no currency inconvertible with coin; steady steps toward specie payments, no step backward; the honest payment of the public debt in coin; a sacred preservation of the public faith; revenue reform; a tariff for revenue only; no Government partnership witli protected monopolies; home rvde to limit and localize most zealously the few powers intrusted to public servants, municipal. State and Federal; no centralization; equal and exact justice to all men; no partial legislation, no partial taxation; official accountability enforced by better civil and criminal remedies; no private use of public funds by public officers; corporations chartered by the State always supervisable by the State, in the interest of the people; the party in power responsible 100 SECOND CAMPAIGN. for all legislation while in power; economy in the public expenses, that labor may be lightly burdened.' "The battle 'for honest money' has been fought and won on the lines thus prescribed by the Democracy of New York. Although Gov- ernor Tilden was defrauded of the Presidency in 1877, yet ' home rule ' did triumph, and the mailed hand of the Federal power was removed thenceforth from the Southern States. " But much more of the purposes of the party named in the platform of 1874 remains to be accomplished — ' Eevenue reform; repudiation by the Government of all partnerships Avitli monopolies; civil service; ade- quate State supervision of all corporations chartered by the State, and especially railway corporations; free canals; and, above all, economy in the public expenditure, that labor may be lightly burdened.' It must be that reform in the methods and objects of expenditure and taxation is to be the main issue in the Presidential struggle of 1884. " It can not be that the existing unsatisfactory relations between work- men and employers, caused chiefly by excessive taxation, is to long con- tinue to vex the country. It can not be that the ocean-carrying trade for America is to be forever in foreign hands; that the boundless prosperity in the United States is only to be for those corporations exercising powers granted by the State or for the monopolists subsidized by Federal legis- lation, while the general trade and industry of the land languishes on account of injurious and unnecessary burdens inflicted upon workmen; and, on the other hand, legitimate business may suffer by the general speculation which always comes of excessive and pernicious Federal taxation. " Sincerely yours, "PEREY BELMONT. " John E. Bazley, Esq., Chairman, etc." IN EEPLY TO A LETTEE FEOM THE CIVIL SEEVICE EEFOEM ASSOCIATION. " Babylon, L. I., Nov. 4, 1882. " Gentlemen. — In reply to the inquiries you have addressed to me, I have to say that I sympathize entirely with the opinions respecting civil service reform which were so clearly and tersely expressed by Mayor Cleveland, the Democratic candidate for Governor of New York, in his admirable letter to you of the 28th ultimo. These opinions I have en- SECOXD CAMPAIGN". 101 deavored to force when I had occasion to address mv constituents durino- the pending canvass. ' " It must be borne in mind that Congress, in execution of the second clause of the second section of the second article of the Constitution, has * vested the appointment of the inferior officers,' to whom your inquiries chiefly refer, in the President and the heads of departments. The re- sponsibihty for removals and for fresh appointments has thus been clearly defined and fixed by the law-making power: what is needed, therefore, among other things, is to hold the President and the heads of depart- ments to a faithful execution of that part of the duties of their several offices. " The only way by which the voters can effectively reach the inferior officers who may Ije guilty of reprehensible conduct referred to in your letter is by their ballots for Presidential electors, and by the appointment of a President who will take care that no head of department tolerates the pernicious practice to which you allude. " Eespectfully, your obedient servant, "PEERY BELMONT. " Civil Service Reform Association', Xew York." (From the Congressional Record.) 48th Congress, 1883 to 1885. Perry Belmont, of B;il).vIon, Lfnig Island, wns re-elected to the Forty-eighth Congress, as a Democrat, receiving 18,G88 votes, against 4,957 votes for Town- send. Independent Democrat; 116 for INIarkham, Greenback candidate, and 310 scattering. • FORTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS -SECOND SESSION. December 4, 1882, to March 3, 1883, NICAEAGUA CANAL. December 11, 1882. AFr 15 F I "\rO\T -^^ ^^^^ ^^ '^^^ minority of the committee on foreign AFFAIRS, SUBMITTED TO THE HOISE HIS VIEWS ON THE BILL (H. R. No. 6799) TO INCORPORATE THE MARITIME CANAL COMPANY OF NICARAGUA, IN THE FOLLOWING: MINORITY EEPOET. On February 13, 1883, the House referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs a bill (Xo. 4245) " to incorporate the Maritime Canal Company of Nicaragua." On July 21, 1882, the committee, by a majority of its members, re- ported that bill back to the House with sundry amendments in the form of a substitute (Xo. 6T99), and recommended to the House its adoption. I am unable to concur in that recommendation. The substitute begins Avith the declaration, in the form of a preamble, that " the Republic of Xicaragua has granted to certain citizens of the United States, and to their associates, forming a ' Provisional Inter- oceanic Canal Society,' certain powers, rights and privileges in respect to the construction of a ship canal across its territory, with accessory canal, railways and lines of telegraph, and has given full and exclusive right to a canal company to be organized by said society, to do all things necessary for the construction, completion, maintenance and manage- ment of said canal." The report of a majority of tlie committee asserts that: This concession has been carefully examined by the committee, and they believe the same to furnish the proper authority and conditions for the successful prose- cution and completion of the enterprise. The Provisional Company which ob- 104 EECOKD IN" CONGKESS. tained this concession, after consultation with the leading representatives of great business interests and capital, have agreed upon the means proposed in the bill for the initiation of the company which is to procure the capital and carry on the work to completion. Tlie title of the proposed substitute implies that its only purpose is to create, by law of the United States, a body corporate, having a common seal, and capable of suing and being sued, defending and being defended, in courts of law and equity, and generally possessing and holding only the rights and privileges usually possessed and held by an ordinary cor- poration. But the substitute, if it becomes a law, will commit the United States to a guarantee that the annual net receipts from traffic through a canal to be built in a foreign country shall not be less in amount than the sum speciiied therein. It will compel the Secretary of the Treasury to annually pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- priated, a sum necessary to make good the undertaking to which the faith of the United States has been pledged. It declares that the President of the United States shall, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, aj^point one of the eleven members of the board of directors, whose functions, powers, privileges and emolu- ments are to be no greater than those of any other director. The capital stock of the said company is to consist of not less than five hundred thousand, nor more than one million shares of $100 each. The sixth section of House bill No. 4345, referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, engaged the United States to "guarantee to said company that for the period of twenty years from and after the com- pletion of said canal, and the commencement of the passage of vessels through it from ocean to ocean, the net receipts from this traffic shall not be less in amount than three per centum upon the total capital stock," but the substitute binds the United States to an undertaking " that the annual net receipts from traffic shall not be less in amount than three per centum upon the total cost of said canal," which total cost shall in no event exceed $75,000,000. Another section of the substitute sets forth that — Whenever the net yearlj^ receipts of said company, ascertained to the satisfac- tion of the Secretary of the Treasury as in section sixth provided, shall be less than three per centum upon the total cost of said canal, as aforesaid, a full state- ment, under oath, of the president or secretary of the company, of the entire busi- ness of the canal for that year, the gross receipts derived therefrom, and the expenditures made, shall be transmitted by the board of directors to the Secretary of the Treasury, who, when satisfied of the amount of such deficiency, is hereby authorized and directed thereupon to pay out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the amount necessary to complete said three per centum. EECOPtD IX CONGRESS. 105 and to make good the guarantee to which the faith of the United States is pledged by the act; provided that any deficiency paid by the United States for any year shall be refunded by the company out of any subsequent net earnings of the com- pany in excess of the amount so guaranteed. The Government of the United States, which promises to make good this deficit, is to have only one member of the board of eleven directors of the company. The eleventh section of the substitute ^^rovides: That the United States shall exercise such control over the canal as is now, or may at any time be, prescribed by treaty with Nicaragua, and shall enjoy its free use for the transportation of troops, munitions of war, and mails, and otherwise, in accordance with the stipulations in existing or future treaties. And should the United States see fit, for national reasons, to occupy and manage said canal temporarily or otherwise, the right to do so, subject to any sovereign rights of the Government of Nicaragua and consistently with treaty obligations, is hereby re- served and secured to the Government, upon the payment to the stockholders of said canal at the rate of five per centum annually upon the capital invested, to- gether with the necessary expenses for the maintenance of the work during the time of such occupancy and management. The right of the United States " to occupy and manage such canal, temporarily or otherwise," is expressly limited by what this eleventh sec- tion describes as "the sovereign rights of the Government of Nicaragua, and consistently with treaty obligations." The phrase " consistently with treaty ol)ligations," may possibly be made to include the treaty obligations which the United States may now be under not only to jSTica- ragua, Ijut to any other Government, and also tlie obligations which by treaty Nicaragua may have undertaken, or may hereafter undertake, with any other Government. THE COXCESSIOX GRANTED BY NICARAGUA. A translation into KngHsh of the text of the concession is before me. The translation purj)orts to liave l)oeu revised Ijy the official translator for tlie Department of State in Washington. The document is in the form of a contract, signed l)y Senor Cardenas, on the part of Nicaragua, and l)y A. G. ilenocal, Esq., on the part of the Provisional Interoceanic Canal Society. It was approved by the Government of Nicaragua on April 2, ISSO; was signed in the city of ]\fanagua on April 24, 1880, and was ratified by the Congress of Nicaragua on ]\Iay 22, 1880. The concession or grant can not be transferred to any foreign Government, althougli the people of all nations are to l)e invited to contribute funds for the enterprise. Nicaragua is to liave one memlier of the board of directors, and is to make such regrdations as it may deem advisable '' to maintain peace and good order in the region of the canal." 11 106 RECORD IN CONGRESS. Tlio forty-first article declares that — Having in view the entire freedom of transit of property and persons, and in order to remove all questions ikely to create difficulties of an unpleasant nature, there shall be a free zone upon each bank of the canal of one hundred yards in width, measured from the water's edge, it being understood that the lake shores shall never be considered as the margin of the canal. * * * The two ports to be constructed and to serve for entrances to the canal on each ocean are declared to be free, and shall be recognized as such from the beginning of the work to the end of this concession. The Government, in conjunction with the company, shall mark the limits of the free zone about these ports, and the limit shall not be less than the bounds of a semi-circle having a radius of one thousand six hundred yards, and whose center shall be the mouth of the canal. The forty-third and forty-fourth articles stipulate that — Article 43. By way of compensation for the expense of surveys, and for that of construction, preservation and management of the canal, which the company shall bear throughout the term of this concession, it shall have power to levy and collect for the passage of ships and vessels of every class, for passengers and merchandise entering the canal, or the ports at the entrance of the canal, or other waters adjacent thereto, navigation, tonnage, pilotage and light dues, as well as for towage, storage, anchorage, wharfage and hospital dues, and whatever like charges it may establish in conformity with treaties existing between Nicaragua and other nations. These charges may be modified by the company at any time, provided all changes it may introduce shall be previously communicated to the Government of Nicaragua, which will cause them to be observed as if they were regulations issued by the public administration. The payment of dues shall be enforced in exactly the same degree and manner from all vessels, of whatever nationality and from whatever port, without dis- tinction of any kind, with the restrictions provided in the following article. Article 44. In view of the privileges and grants which Nicaragua concedes in this contract, it is stipulated that whenever the State is free from treaty obliga- tions with other nations that prevent vessels belonging to it and sailing under its flag, they can traverse the canal at a reduction of fifty per cent, from the general tariff while engaged in a coasting trade or reciprocal trade between the neighbor- ing republics of Central America. But in order to avoid claims from this cause, vessels mentioned in the preceding paragraph must be in fact Nicaragua vessels, and not owned in whole or in part by citizens of any other country. There will also be a reduction of fifty per cent, in the charges upon vessels which shall commence their voyage with a foreign destination in any of the ports of the republic, and whose cargo is exclusively composed of products of the country. All the reductions mentioned in this article shall be extended to the other republics of Central America whenever Nicaragua shall find itself in any manner free from international obligations which now present it, or whenever one or more of the said republics shall unite with Nicaragua to form a national Government. The company can not collect any dues whatever upon vessels navigating the Nicaragua and its prolongations without passing the canal locks. Vessels of war of Nicaragua, and, in the event above provided, those of the republics of Central America shall pay no dues on traversing the canal. EECOED IX COXGEESS. 107 The forty-seventh article limits the time within which the company must begin its operations or forfeit the concession. By the forty-ninth article Nicaragua is to receive for the concession five per centum of the paid-up capital stock of the compan}-, which shall not be less than thirty thou- sand shares of $100 each, and the Provisional Interoceanic Canal Society is to receive, in consideration of its expenditures, outlays and doings in obtaining the concession and in other matters " six per centum of the capital stock in shares paid in excess of the capital which must be sub- scribed," and one-fifth thereof shall belong to Nicaragua. The fifty-fourth and fifty-fifth articles are these: Article 54. At the expiration of tlie ninety-nine years herein stipulated, the Republic shall enter upon possession in perpetuity of the canal, the machinery, lights, storehouses, stations, deposits, and all the establishments used in the ad- ministration of the canal, without being called upon to pay any sum whatever to the company. There will be exempted from this condition vessels belonging to the company, its supply of coal and other materials, its workshops, its movable property, float- ing capital and reserve fund, as well as the lands granted to it, excepting those on which exist the establishments and works mentioned in the first part of this article, and which shall become the property of the State, with their surrounding appurtenances, as necessary to the canal service and integral part of the same. But the company shall have the right, at the expiration of the time named, to the full enjoyment of the free use and control of the canal in the capacity of lessee, with all the privileges and advantages conceded in this contract, for a further term of ninety-nine years, u[)on conditions of paying twenty-five per cent, of the net gains annually to the Government of Nicaragua over and above the dividends belonging to its shares of the capital stock. But the company shall have the right to fix, at its discretion, the dues referred to in article 50 of this concession in such manner as shall pay this twenty-five i)er cent, frcmi the net gains and leave suf- ficient to pay dividends to shareholders at not exceeding ten per cent, per year upon the capital shares. At the expiration of this second term of ninety-nine years the Government shall enter into perpetual possession of the canal, and all property referred to in the first part of this article, including, besides, that accepted in said first part, except the reserved capital and sinking fund. Failure to comply with any of the conditions of the lease shall terminate it, and the Government shall enter into possession of the canal and other works belontriiig to it, in accordance with the provisions of the preceding article. Article 55. Any dispute that may arise between the Government of Nicaragua and the company touching the interpretation of those stipulations shall be sub- mitted to arbitrators, to be composed of fdur persons, two selected by the State and two by the company. These arbitrators sliall be designated by each of the parties within the jx-riod of four months from the day on which one of the con- tracting parties shall have informed the other, in writing, of the failure to reach an undeistandiiig on tlic iiolnt under discussion. A majority of the arbitrators shall decide definitely and without recourse. Tii case of a tie vote the arbitrators, by mutual consent, shall name a fiftli i)erson. If unable to agree in naming a party, they shall draw by lot from the names of the diplomatic representatives 108 EECORD IX CONGRESS. accredited to Nicaragua, and the first one drawn shall perform the functions of fifth arbitrator. He shall adopt the opinion of one or the other of the extremes, or one imme- diate bet-ween them, and his decision shall be final. Previous to the initiation of the canal works, the Government, with the con- currence of the company, shall draw the rules and regulations governing the pro- ceedings of the board of arbitration. i In default of this fifth arbitrator, the second one drawn, or failing this one, each succeeding one shall exercise the functions until a decision is reached. Questions between the company and individuals residing in Nicaragua shall be submitted to the regular trilnmals of Nicaragua for adjudication, in accordance with the laws. In matters pertaining to those not residing in Nicaragua rights secured by international law will apply. THE riFTT-FIEST ARTICLE OF THE COXCESSIOX. The financial objections to pledging the credit of the United States, as is proposed by the substitute, seems to me insuperable, but even if those objections did not exist I should even then be deterred by the fifty-first article of the concession from recommending the enactment of the substitute. The article is in these words: Article 51. The contractors reciprocally agree, whenever Nicaragua may think it desirable, to take measures with respect to such of the Governments of Americ and Europe as they desire shall guarantee the neutrality of the canal, with the view to soliciting the necessary conventions based upon the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. a " The contractors," are Nicaragua and the " Provisional Interoceanic Canal Society." That agreement, made by and between those two con- tracting parties respecting a guarantee of the neutrality of the canal by European Governments, will be, I fear, transferred, in substance and effect, to the statute-book of the United States if the substitute be adopted by Congress. Whatever foreign Government these " contract- ors " may desire to have as a guarantor of " the neutrality of the canal " is to be solicited to make " the necessary convention beased upon the Clayton-Bulwer treaty." It is true that the existing treaty between the United States and the Eepublic of Nicaragua, concluded on June 21, 18G7, does bind the United States " to employ their influence with other nations to induce them to guarantee " and protect the " neutrality and innocent use " of the canal. And the eio-hth section of the Clavton- Bulwer treaty, concluded seventeen years earlier, stipulates: The Governments of the United States and Great Britain having not only de- sired, in entering into this convention, to accomplish a particular object, but also to establish a general principle, they hereby agree to extend their protection, by treaty stipulations, to any other practicable communications, whether by canal or railway, across the isthmus which connects North and South America, and EECORD IX COXGEESS. 109 especially to the interoceanic communications, should the same prove to be prac- ticable, whether by canal or railway, which are now proposed to be established by the way of Tehuantepec Panama. In granting, however, their joint protec- tion to any such canals or railways as are by this article specified, it is always understood by the United States and Great Britain that the parties constructing or owning the same shall impose no other charges or conditions of traific there- upon than the aforesaid Governments shall approve of as just and equitable; and that the same canals or railways, being open to the citizens and subjects of the United States and Great Britain on equal terms, shall also be open on like terms to the citizens and subjects of every other State which is willing to grant thereto such protection as the United States and Great Britain engage to afford. If Congress shall adopt the recommendation made by a majority of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and the President shall approve the legis- lation, then what legal relation will thereby be created between the Clay- ton-Bulwer treaty, this concession from Nicaragua to the Provisional Interoceanic Canal Society, and the law of the United States which ac- cepts and is based npon that concession? The concession by Nicaragua, which contains the reference to the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and to a guaranty by European Governments of the neutrality of the canal, was signed, it is to be noticed, on April 24, 1880, but on June 24, 1881, and presumably by the command of Presi- dent Garfield, very positive representations were made by the Department of State to the British Government respecting the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and also to the leading powers of Europe respecting the attitude that the Government of the United States would feel itself bound to assume toward any European Government that either stipulated or expressed a wish to stipulate to guarantee the neutrality and innocent use " of the interoceanic canal now projected across the Isthmus of Panama." Those representations were, on the 19th and 20th of November, 1881, repeated and reinforced by the Department of State after President Arthur came to power. TREATIES RESPECTING THE CANALS. The first diplomatic arrangement made by the United States concern- ing a canal is in one article of the convention with the Republic of New Granada, concluded December 12, 1846, by President Polk, and while Mr. Buchanan was at the head of the Department of State. The next treaty which has a bearing on the neutrality and innocent use of a canal is that concluded between the United States and Her Britannic Majesty on April 19, 1850, during the term of otfice of President Taylor. It was negotiated and signed at Washington by Mr. Clayton, as Secretary of State, and as Plenipotentiary on behalf of the President. The third treaty is that of June 21, 1867, with the Republic of Nicaragua, signed 110 EECOED IX COXGKESS. by the authority of President Johnson, while Mr. Seward was Secretary of State, On several occasions the President has vainly endeavored to obtain modifications of each of these conventions. The Panama treaty — the first diplomatic transaction by which the United States acquired treaty rights and assumed treaty obligations re- specting a canal — is, in its general purport, an ordinary international arrangement of peace and friendship, commerce and navigation. Only one of its thirty-six articles refers to a canal. In it the United States guarantee " positively and efficaciously " to New Granada the perfect neutrality of the Isthmus of Panama, in order that a free transit from the Atlantic to the Pacific may not be interrupted or embarrassed in any future time while the treaty exists. The United States also guar- antee the rights of sovereignty and property which New Granada has and possesses over the territory of the said isthmus. In consideration of and in compensation for this comprehensive and burdensome under- taldng New Granada makes certain stipulations with the United States respecting a right of way across the Isthmus of Panama, upon any modes of communication that then existed or may thereafter exist, and respect- ing transportation and traffic by railway or canal across or through the same. This arrangement was, by its express terms, to remain in force during twenty years (which twenty years expired in June, 1868), and then, if either party gave notice of intended termination, the treaty is to continue in force during a further period terminable by either Govern- ment on twelve months' notice. It does not appear that such a notice has been given by either party. The convention is, therefore, now in force. Any canal at Panama, begun and built in accordance with the stipulations of that treaty, and with the concurrence of the United States, will be under the guaranty and protection of the United States, and Colombia can call for that guaranty and protection, as defined in the thirty-fifth article. The Government of the United States has, on several occasions, been called upon to enforce the guarantee of the treaty, and has enforced it. The relations and obligations of the United States in respect to that guarantee have been considered in an official opinion by the Attorney-General of the United States. Eight years after the ratification of this treaty an unfortunate affair occurred at Panama, wherein crimes and outrages were committed upon citizens of the United States and their property, which constrained the United States to believe that New Granada had not the ability to punish the wrongdoers, nor to afford proper protection in the future to the property and persons of American citizens on the route of the Panama railway. Thereupon, and during the administration of President Pierce, RECORD IX COXGRESS. Ill Mr. Marcy, as Secretary of State, created a commission to open a nego- tiation with ISTew Granada, in order to promote a cordial and good under- standing between the two countries. The State Department furnished the commissioners with a projct of a convention for that purpose, and instructed them to urge upon New Granada its acceptance. Mr. Marcy, in his note of December 3, 1856, said to the commissioners: It is not designed, as you will perceive, to secure any exclusive advantage to the United States. To remove all objections of this sort, an article is proposed securing the common use of the Panama Isthmus to all foreign nations. Should this Government get control of the road, it would at once take measures to satisfy foreign nations that it would be kept open for their common use, on fair terms; and they would be asked to become parties with the United States to a guarantee of the neutrality of that part of the isthmus. The project of a treaty was not satisfactory to the Government of NeAv Granada. In the year 18G8, and while Mr. Johnson was President, Mr. Seward again attempted the negotiation of a convention to define and regulate with more precision the relations between the United States and the Isthmus of Panama. A treaty was signed at Bogota, on January 14, 18G9, but I am not informed whether or not it was transmitted to the Senate of the United States by the President for ratification. In its eigh- teenth article it was stipulated that the two Governments "mutually agree to second the efforts of each other in procuring the friendship and guar- antee of all nations in favor of the stipulations of neutrality mentioned in articles A'll and IX, as well as the sovereignty of the United States of Colombia over the territory of the Isthmus of Panama and Darien." Two years afterward, and while General Grant was President, Mr. Fish authorized the American Minister at Bogota, Mr. Hurlbut, to open an- other negotiation with the United States of Colombia in respect to an interoceanic canal. In a note addressed by Mr. Fish to Mr. Ilurlbut, dated September 1, 18G9, it said: The proposal of a protectorate over the canal, in which other maritime powers should be joined with the United States in equal control, would probably remove many of the obstacles to the attainment of the grant, and might secure the rati- fication of a treaty by the Colombian Government. But in the present state of international law, such joint protectorate would be the source of future trouble, and, while it might facilitate the concession of the Colombian Government, would be viewed by apprehension in the country, and might probably prove an obstacle to the ratification by the United States Senate of a treaty on the subject. Apart, however, from tlie latter consideration of expediency, the President is disinclined to enter into any entanglement in participation of control over the work with other powers. He regards it as an American enterprise, which he desires to be undertaken under auspices, to the benefit of which the whole commercial world should be fully admitted. 112 EECORD IN CONGRESS. In a note from Mr. Hurlbut to Mr. Fish, elated at Bogota, January 5, 1870 the former, in referring to the substance of what had been already agreed upon in the negotiations, made this specification: The canal to be open to all nations at peace with both parties on terms of absolute equality of duties and impost; but to be rigorously closed against the flag of all nations at war with the other. On February 1, 1870, Mr. Hurlbut, in a note acquainting Mr. Fish with a sketch of the principal points in the treaty which had then been signed, mentions that in it the United States had undertaken to guar- antee the sovereignty of Colombia, and- to use their influence " to pro- cure from other nations the same guarantee, and also of neutrality." In the Congress of Colombia, to which the treaty was transmitted for rati- fication, there appears to have been protracted debate thereon; and Mr. Hurlbut said, in a note to the Department of State, of April 17, 1870, that he had finally been compelled to approve a modification "in ac- cordance with the principles of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty." The treaty, as signed by Mr. Hurlbut, was so modified by the Congress of New Granada that it became unacceptable to the United States. In a note to Mr. Fish, dated July 13, 1870, Mr. Hurlbut thus alluded to a European guarantee: The clause in relation to ships of war of guaranteeing nations as limited by section 3 can be considered under several puints of view: 1. Either the United States will adopt the idea of the original treaty that the canal shall be in an American channel, practically controlled by the United States, as against the world, for all but purely commercial transit, as a necessary element of national security and power. In that event the modification referred to will be rejected. Or, 2. The United States may admit the policy of inviting the maritime nations to incur the same responsibility she has assumed, upon the conditions mentioned in the amended article. In such event the amendment will be accepted. Or, 3. The United States may make her own terms with the maritime powers as to this complicated question by a new arrangement. On this point I am perfectly well assured that any agreement made between England, France and North Ger- many, which shall leave this country neutral in case of war with any of them and the United States, will be accepted as a solution of the problem. They fear that in case of such a war they will be unwillingly dragged into it by having conceded to the United States alone the right of transit for ships of war, etc., at all times. They have no objections to the United States having this privilege, except so far as it tends to embroil them with other powers. I think, as I have already written to you, that neither England, France, nor Germany will accept the obligations of defense of the canal, sovereignty of Colom- bia, and immunity of the territory, which are required as conditions precedent to the privileges given in the sections 2 and 3 of the amended article 11. The United States, in my judgment, before acting upon this treaty, should diplo- matically ascertain and determine what will be the course of these nations on EECORD IX COXGRESS. 113 this question, and if a solution satisfactory to tlie great maritime powers can be arrived at, it will be satisfactory to this Government and people. If the European maritime powers shall reject the proposition made, that rejec- tion should be considered final, and both the United States and Colombia at liberty to act without reference to them in any way. My personal opinions are in favor of the ultra-American views of the matter, but I can see that other points in the negotiation will be wonderfully simplified by any accord arrived at by the maritime nations. In such case the influence of those Governments will be strongly given to reduce the heavy burdens imposed on the financial success of the undertaking, both by reduction of the participation of Colombia and by aid in money markets. In the year 188G, the legation of the United States in New Granada was withdrawn, and diplomatic relations were not renewed with that Government by the appointment of a Minister until the summer of 1878. During the period when the Government of the United States liad no diplomatic representative at Bogota, a concession was made, on March 18, 1878, by the United States of Colombia granting to Mr. Lucien N. B. Wyse, in behalf of the International Interoceanic Canal Association, " The exclusive privilege for the construction across its territory, and for the operating of a canal between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans." There is no evidence, accessible to me, that shows when the Government of the United States was first officially informed that negotiations for this concession to j\Ir. "Wyse were on foot in Bogota, or when the State Department in Washington was first informed tliat the contession had been actually signed. On April 19, 1880, however, and wliile :\[r. Hayes was President, Mr. Evarts did, in a note to Mr. Dichman, tlic American Minister at Bogota, express the surprise of the President that — 'I'h.' (Jovernment of Colombia has not deemed it natural and suitable, in view of the treaty regulations between the two countrii-s, to inform the Government of the United States of the concession which has been recently granted to Mr. Wyse, and that the consent of that Government has been transferred to M. De Lesseps. ]\rr. Evarts adds that no other Government has thus far been willing to enter into any sucli treaty relations with C()h)nihia, respecting the canal, as the United States liavo entered upon, and '" to-day, such a canal, by whomsoever completed, would need to rest upon this stipulated pro- tection of the United States; and should the United States recognize their rights under this concession, both its projectors and the Govern- ment of Colombia would Ijc authorized, under certain contingencies, to call upon, and be wholly dependent upon tliis Government for the ful- fillment of this ol)ligation." He complains that the Government of Colombia had not " furnished us timely information of the proposed con- cession, and thus enabled us to judge whether tlie conditions under which 15 \14: RECORD IX CONGRESS. ■our guarantee had been made, had been preserved with due considera- tion." Mr. Dichman is also informed that the Government of the French Eepublic has promptly and emphatically assured us that it "has had, and now has, no connection in any form, directly or indirectly, with this ■enterprise." Nevertheless, Mr. Evarts is distinct in his expression of the opinion that any negotiations by Colombia involving such conse- ■quences to the United States as are implied in the treaty of 1846, " should be a subject of joint consideration bj*, and that its details can scarcely 'be settled without a preliminary agreement between the two Governments ot Colombia and the United States, as to their effect upon existing treaty stipulations." In concluding his note to Mr. Dichman, Mr. Evarts adds: The Goverumeut of Colombia is well aware that its proposition to the great maritime powers to join in the guarantee of the neutrality of the isthmus and the sovereign and proprietary interests of Colombia heretofore made was de- clined, and the reasons of their unwillingness to assume this joint responsibility are, of course, of record in the diplomatic archives of the Colombian Government. About a year afterward there was attempted in "Washington by Mr. Evarts a negotiation with the Colombian Minister to make more specific the obligations undertaken by both nations in the treaty of 1846, and to avoid the dangers which might arise by the construction of a ship-canal across the Isthmus of Panama. A protocol to that effect was finally signed in New York on February 7, 1881, by Mr. Trescot, on the part of the United States, and by General Santo Domingo on the part of Colombia; but on May 7, 1881, the Government of Bogota addressed a note to the Department of State at Washington, saying that the Govern- ment at Bogota regrets to find the declarations made in that protocol by its Colombian negotiator are " at variance with instructions which were transmitted to him." In this last diplomatic transaction the American negotiators insisted that the concession to Mr. Wyse contained provisions which were an infringement of the rights of the United States under the New Granada treaty of 1846; and, therefore, the first article of the protocol, as submit- ted by the United States, declared that any concession heretofore made, or hereafter to be made, by Colombia, was and should be subject to the supervision of the United States, as the guarantor of the neutrality of the isthmus and of the sovereignty of Colombia. But the Colombian negotiator, while recognizing that no rights secured to the United States by the treaty of 1846 could be subordinated to the rights conferred by the more recent concession, was unwilling to assent and did not assent to any declaration in the protocol that Nicaragua, by the concession to Mr. Wyse, had infringed the treaty rights of the United States. KECORD IX COXGEESS. 115 This was the last effort on the part of the United States to negotiate with Colombia on the subject of an interoceanic canal. General Santo Domingo, on his return to Bogota from Xew Yorlc, ex- plained to his Government, by a communication dated April 22, 1881, his view of the negotiations and the result. It may be useful to care- fully note his suggestions respecting a European guarantee, since they may tend to disclose the real purposes of Colombia. He said: No great effort of the imaginatiou is required to discover that the intention of the Colombian Minister in drafting that part of the article of the protocol just copied was to determine the possibility that by treaty other powers might also take part in guaranteeing the neutrality of the interoceanic route and the sover- eignty of Colombia over its own territory, thereby inducing these powers to hasten the celebration of the said treaties with the bait of concessions made to the United States, this up to the present time having been the only nation that had offered her guarantee, and this same constituting the foundation of all the concessions hitherto granted. It may consequently be deduced from the foregoing that article 4 was designed to secure for Colombia a collective guarantee from all the maritime powers, this being the only one that can satisfy the necessities of uni- versal commerce, besides avoiding the conflicts that an isolated guarantee might maintain pending, like the sword of Damocles, on only over the sovereignty of Colombia, but also over the head of the entire commercial world. THE CLAYTOX-BULWER TREATY. The next convention relating to a canal, after that concluded with New Granada, was the arrangement known as " The Clayton-Bulwer treaty." Probably no diplomatic arrangement ever made by the United States has led to more animated and long-continued discussion between the contracting parties over the meaning and intention of the words and phrases used, or excited so much emotion extending over so many years, as has that witli Great Britain concluded on April 19, 1850. But a great part, if not all, of the disputed questions which had grown out of the treaty, and perplexed the two Governments, up to a date which may be generally defined as the outbreak of the sectional war in the United States, were, as it seems to me, satisfactorily adjusted, as de- clared to Congress by President liuchanan in liis annual message to Congress of December 3, 18G0. The negotiations which ended in the Clayton-Bulwer convention were begun by the United States to promote the construction of a canal in Nicaragua under a concession made by Nicaragua on August 27, 1849, to the "American Atlantic and Pacific Ship-Canal Company," composed of Mr. Cornelius Vanderbilt, Mr. White, and their associates. President Taylor sought to remove the obstacles in the way of that canal interposed by the jurisdiction and dominion in IIG EECORD IK CONGRESS. ISTicaragua asserted, or exercised, by Great Britain. Another inducement to the treaty is thus set forth by Mr. Frelinghuysen in his note to Mr. Lowell of May 8, 1882, where he says: The Government and people of the United States, though rich in land and in- dustry, were poor in money and floating capital in 1850. The scheme for a canal, even without the complications of the jNIosquito protectorate, was too vast for the means of tlie Americans of that day, who numbered then considerably less than one-half of their numbers to-day. They went to England, which had what they had not, surrendered their exclusive privileges, offered an equal share of all they had in those regions in order, as expressed in the seventh article of the treaty, " that no time should be unnecessarily lost in commencing and constructing the said canals," Through no fault of theirs time was unnecessarily lost, the work was never begun, and the concession failed. During the American Civil war nothing of an important character was attempted in Nicaragua in the direction of opening a canal, nor was there discussion respecting such a canal between the Governments that were signatories to the Clayton-Bulwer convention. But on April 25, 1866, Mr. Seward addressed a note to the American Minister in London about American coaling stations in Central America, in wliich the Department of State said: It seems obvious that the renunciation by the parties to this instrument of a right to acquire dominion in Central America was intended to prevent either of them from obtaining control of the proposed ship-canal. At the time the treaty was concluded there was every prospect that that work would not only soon be begun, but that it would be carried to a successful conclusion. For reasons, how- ever, which it is not necessary to specify, it never was even commenced, and at present there does not appear to be a likelihood of its being undertaken. It may be a question, therefore, supposing that the canal should never be begun, whether the renunciatory clauses of the treaty are to have perpetual operation. Techni- cally speaking, this question might be decided in the negative. Still, so long as it should remain a question, it would not comport with good faith for either party to do anything which might be deemed conti-ary to even the spirit of the treaty. Under these circumstances, you will sound Lord Clarendon as to the dis- position of his Government to favor us in aciiuiring coaJing stations in Central America, notwithstanding the stipulation contained in the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. In doing this, however, you will use general terms only, and will by no means allow it to be supposed that we particularly covet Tiger Island. You will execute this instruction at such time and in such way as to you may seem best, and inform the department of the result, so that the United States Minister to Hon- duras may be directed to proceed accordingly. On April 26, 1873, Mr. Fish conditionally instructed the American Minister at London to remonstrate Avith the British Government against certain encroachments on the territory of Guatemala which, it had been represented to the Department of State, Great Britain contemplated. Mr. Fish wrote to General Schenck: It is believed that if suc-h encroachments are authorized or countenanced by that Government (Great Britain), it will be tantamount to a breach of its engage- EECOED IX COXGRESS. 117 ment not to occupy any part of Central America. Before, however, officially men- tioning the subject to Earl Granville, it v^ould he advisable to ascertain the correctness of the representation of Mr. Dardon as to the cause of the discon- tinuance of the demarkation of the boundary. If the statement of that gentleman should prove to be correct, you will then formally remonstrate against any trespass by British subjects with the connivance of their Government, upon the territory of Guatemala, as an infringement of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty which will be very unacceptable in this country. In the note addressed by :\Ir. Evarts, on April 17, 1880, to Mr. Dich- man, respecting the " Salgar-AVyse concession," the Chiyton-Bulwer con- vention was alluded to in these terms: If the language of the eighth article of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty of 1850, between the United States and Great Britain, be accepted as indicating the willingness of the United States that other nations should share the rights and obligations of the guarantee of the treaty of 184(j, it is equally clear that such participation could only be obtained by some new diplomatic engagements in which the United States as contracting party both to the treaty of 1846 and the Clayton-Bulwer treaty of 1850, would judge of and define the circumstances and stipulations under which it would accede to such new engagements. The protocol, February IT, 1881, to the treaty with Kew Granada of 1840, signed in Xew York by ]\Ir. Trescot and General Santo Doniingo, having been rejected by the United States of Colombia, the following message was, in October, 1881, addressed by President Arthur to the Senate: To the Senate: I transmit herewith the report of the Secretary of State in answer to the reso- lution of the Senate of October 14th, with accompanying document. CHESTER A. ARTHUR. Department of State, | Washington, October 'i'i, 1881. ) To the President: The following resolution of the Senate has by your order been referred to this department: Ik the Senate of the United States, I October 14. 1»81. f liCfiolved, That the President 1)0 requested, if not in his judgment incompatible with the public interest, to advise the Senate whether any action has been taken by the Government since the adjournment of the last Congress toward protecting the rights and interests of the United States in the projected interoceanic canal at Panama. F. E. SHOBER, Chief Clerk United States Senate. In answer thereto the Secretary of State has the honor to report that having learned since the adjournment of Congress of the rejection by Colombia of the protocol negotiated by the representatives of the United States and that Republic, 118 RECORD IN CONGRESS. which it was hoped would socure a treaty satisfactory to both, and being informed by the Minister of the United States in Colombia that the Government of Colom- bia, by its public acts, was avowing its desire to terminate the treaty of 1840, and appeal to the powers of Europe for a joint guarantee of the neutrality of the isthmus and the sovereignty of Colombia, this department addressed the following letter of instruction to the United States Minister in London. An identic note was sent to each of the American Ministers in Europe. Very respectfully, JAMES G. BLAINE. In the "identic note" sent to each of the American Ministers in Europe, a copy of whicli was left with the British Minister of Foreign AiTairs in London, are these sentences: Department of State, j Washington, June Zi, 1881. f Sir.— It has fallen under the observation of the President, through the current statements of the European press and other usual channels of communication, that the great powers of Europe may possibly be considering the subject of jointly guaranteeing the neutrality of the intcroceanic canal now projected across the Isthmus of Panama. The United States recognizes a proper guarantee of neu- trality as essential to the construction and successful operation of any highway across the Isthmus of Panama, and in the last generation every step was taken bj' this Government that is deemed requisite in the premises. The necessity was foreseen and abundantly provided for long in advance of any possible call for the actual service of power. In 1846 a memorable and important treaty was negotiated and signed between the United States of America and the Republic of New Gran- ada, now the United States of Colombia. By the thirty-fifth article of that treaty, in exchange for certain concessions made to the United States, we guaranteed " positively and efficaciously " the perfect neutrality of the isthmus and of any interoceanic communications that might be constructed upon or over it for the maintenance of free transit from sea to sea; and we also guaranteed the rights of sovereignty and property of the United States of Colombia over the territory of the isthmus as included within the borders of the State of Panama. In the judgment of the President this guarantee given by the United States of America does not require re-enforcement, or accession, or assent from any other power. * * * * if * if * >!• Any attempt to supersede that guarantee by an agreement between European powers, which maintain vast armies and patrol the seal with immense fleets, and whose interest in the canal and its operations can never be so vital and supreme as ours, would partake of the nature of an alliance against the United States, and would be regarded by this Government as an indication of unfriendly feeling. That Avas said during the administration of President Garfield, and by direction of his successor in the ofRce of President those views were repeated and enforced on Xovemher 19 and 29, 1881. To the " identic note/' Lord Granville briefly replied, and concluded with this sentence: ' I should wish, therefore, merely to point out to you that the position of Great Britain and the United States with reference to the canal, irrespective of the mag- nitude of the commercial relations of the former power with countries to and KECOED IX CONGKESS. 119 from which, if completed, it will form the highway, is determined by the engage- ments entered into by them respectively, in the convention which was signed at Washington on the 19th of April, 1850, commonly known as the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and Her Majesty's Government rely with confidence upon the observance of all the engagements of that treaty. The British Government returned to the subject in a more elaborate note of January 14, 1882, to which Mr. Frelinghuysen replied on May 8, 1882, and, among other things, said to Mr. Lowell in respect to a British or European guarantee under the eighth article of the Clayton- Buhver treaty: Article VIII of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty relates only to those projects now [3850] proposed to be established; and expressly contemplates some further " treaty stipulation " on the part of Great Britain with the United States of America and New Granada, now the United States of Colombia, before Great Britain can join the United States in the protectorate of the canal or railway by the Panama route. No such treaty stipulation has been made or has been pro- posed by Great Britain. Since the ratification of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, for thirty years the United States, under the treaty of 184^5 with New Granada, has extended protection to the transit from sea to sea by the Uanama Railway. Should Her Majesty's Government, after obtaining the consent thereto of the United States of Colombia, chiiiu, under the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, the right to join the United States in the protection of the existing Paiiania Kailwny, or any future canal, the United States would submit that experience has shown that no such joint protectorate is requisite; that the Clayton-Bulw(>r treaty is subject to the provisions of the treaty of 184G with New Granada, while it exists, which treaty obliges the United Stales to afford, and secures to it the solo protectorate of any transit by the Panama route; and if Great Britain still claimed the right to join in the protectorate the United States would then delerniine whether the " treaty stipulations" proposed ]>y Great Britain regulating that joint protectorate were just; and, if so, whether the length of time during wliicli Great Britain has con- curred in the protection of the Pananui route under the treaty with New Granada has or has not relieved the United States from any obligation to accept a proposal from the Government to join in the guarantee. * * * * * * * - To the suggestion made by T,oruhver treaty which au- thorizes Great Britain to invite, or obliges the United States to accept, the aid of other nations to protect or to guarantee the neutrality of the Panama route. After sucli com])rehensivo and significant declarations made by the President respecting the treaty referred to in tlio recent concession by Nicaragua, and the European guarantee referred to in the fifty-first 120 RECORD IX CONGRESS. article of the concession, it becomes the House of Eepresentatives to be especially cautions, in its action on the substitute reported by the majority of the Foreign Affairs Committee. It would l)e inconvenient if the law- making power of this Government were to invite a European guarantee of the neutrality of one or both of the canals and the treaty-making power were at the same time to repel such guarantee. THE TREATY WITH NICARAGUA. On June 21, 1849, a convention relating to a canal through Nicaragua was signed in the city of Guatemala, in that State, by Mr. Hise, on the part of the United States, and by Senor Selva, on the part of Nicaragua. It is to be assumed that these negotiations were begun during tlie ad- ministration of President Polk, and while Mr. Buchanan was Secretary of State, for on March 3, 1849, President Taylor was inaugurated, and Mr. Clayton became the head of the State Department. The conven- tion was not accepted by President Taylor's administration and sent to the Senate for consideration. On October 20, 1849, Mr. Clayton ad- dressed a note to the American Minister in London in reference to this Hise treaty, in which the American Minister was directed to inform Lord Palmerstou " that this " (Hise-Selva convention) " was concluded without a power or instruction from this Government; that President Taylor had no knowledge of its existence or of the intention to Corjn it until it was presented to him by Mr. Hise, our late Charge d'aifaircs at Guatemala, about the 1st of September last, and that consequently we are not bound to ratify it, and will take no steps to that purpose if we can, by arranging with the British Government, place our interests vipon a just and satisfactory foundation." The thirteenth article of the Hise- Selva convention declares that " the contracting parties in negotiating this treaty have had in view the contract entered into between the State of iS^iearagua, through their commissioner, Jose Trinidad Munoz, and a certain company, styled Compania de Transito de Nicaragua * * * through the said David W. Jones as their agent, which contract was executed and signed by said commissioner and agent on March 14, 1849, and ratified by the legislative power of the State of Nicaragua on March 16, 1849, and a^jproved by the executive power of said State, on the 17th of March, 1849." This treaty, if it could have been ratified, and a canal could have been constructed under the contract referred to, would have placed the political control thereof exclusively in the hands of Nicaragua and of the United States. There does not appear to have been in the treaty any stipulation requiring or permitting the association of any other Government, either European or American, in the guarantee of the neu- trality or of the innocent use of the proposed canal. The United States HECOKD IX COXGRESS. 121 of America agreed and undertook '' to protect and defend the State of Nicaragua in the possession and exercise of the sovereignty and dominion of all the county, coast, forts, lakes, rivers, and territories that may be rightfully under the jurisdiction and within the Just and true limits and boundaries of the said State." It authorized the United States " to em- ploy their naval and military force to preserve the peace and maintain the neutrality of the said coast, forts, lakes, rivers, and territories, and to hold and keep the same under the dominion and sovereignty of the Government of the State of Xicaragua." This Hise-Selva convention, negotiated during the administration of President Polk, was superseded and set aside by the negotiation opened in Washington by President Taylor's administration, which resulted in the conclusion of the Clayton- Bulwer treaty. I have already referred to the treaty of 1867 between the United States and Nicaragua, and liavc quoted the first clause of the fifteenth article. The fourteenth article grants to tlie United States, their citizens and property, a right of transit through any canal that may ever be con- structed under the authority of Xicaragua. It stipulates tliat this right shall be held and enjoyed in the same manner and to the same extent as it may be held and enjoyed by Xicaragua, her citizens and property. The troops and munitions of war of the United States are, on certain cir- cumstances, to be free from any charges or tolls, and iinder certain circumstances of imminent danger the United States Government can, if the laws of tlie United States authorize such action, protect by force the lives and properties of its citizens in Xicaragua, without awaiting the consent of Xicaragua. Xegotiations to modify some of the provisions of that treaty were, in 1877, and under the instructions of President Grant, opened in Washing- ton between ]\Ir. Fish and Senor Cardenas, who subsequently made, in behalf of Xicaragua, the concession of April, 1880, now under considera- tion, but these negotiations were unsuccessful. The reasons for the failure are alluded to by !Mr. Fish in a note dated Februar}^ 28, 1877, and by him addressed to each of the Ministers of tlie Ignited States. Dr. Aden Cardoiuis was iU'crcditod to tliis coui'.try sdiiie months since in the character of Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, mainly with a view of negotiating a new treaty with reference to this work, and for some time past negotiatiiins to that end have been carried on at "Washington. xV dranght treaty was prepared here, to Avhich it was proposed to obtain the accession of the principal maritime powers, and of snch other Governments as might seem advisable, and nnder which it was hoped capitalists might be induced to obtain a concession and really enter upon the work of building the canal. It has been found, however, to the regret of this Government, that the views entertained hy the Government of Nicaragua would not permit the negotiation of a treaty, either 10 122 EECOED IN CONGRESS. in the form proposed or in any form that would address itself to the approval of this Government, or that seemed at all calculated to obtain the confidence or co- operation of the principal maritime powers iu furthering the scheme. The first article of the proposed convention with Nicaragua contained this substitution: Each of the contraetinj,' parties hereto agrees to propose severally to the principal maritime powers with which it has friendly intercourse, to accede to the terms of this convention, and to enter into the following guarantees and stipulations with reference to an interoceanic canal across the Isthmus by the way of Lake Nicara- gua, viz.: First. That neither will ever obtain or maintain for itself any exclusive control over the said ship-canal, or will ever erect or maintafn any fortifications command- ing the same, or in the vicinity thereof, or in any form attempt to interrupt, con- trol, or exercise exclusive dominion over the said canal, and that neither will at any time make use of any protection which either affords or may afford to any State or Government in Central America or of any alliance or influence with any such State or Government in Central America so to do, or to indirectly effect any of the said things which it agi-ees to refrain from. Second. That neither will at any time use or employ, or take advantage of any influence, intimacy, alliance, or connection with any State or Government through whose territories said canal may pass, or in any other quarter, to obtain for itself or its subjects or citizens any right, advantages, or facilities which shall not be offered on the same terms to each of the other maritime powers acceding to this convention, and entering into the said stipulations and guarantees, and not with- drawing therefrom. * * Iff * * Us * H< * Fifth. That when said canal shall have been completed the same with its prop- erty shall be protected from seizure, confiscation, interruption, or injury, and the neutrality thereof and of the adjacent land and water shall be guaranteed, so that the said canal shall ever be open and free to navigation of the nations of the i earth as herein provided. Sixth. That such guarantee of neutrality so assumed shall comprise the space on the high seas within a radius of one hundred and fifty marine miles from the entrance on each side, and on the land within a line extending along and parallel to the line of the canal for a distance of five marine miles on each side thereof. OPINIONS OF PRESIDENTS HAYES, GARFIELD AND ARTHUR. Having thus, in a general way, ghmced at the diplomatic history of the important question so distinctly presented by the substitute now under consideration, it may be well to inquire what opinions have been expressed thereon by the Executive Department since March, 1880. Under the administration of President Hayes, the Department of State, making a careful survey of the situation at Panama after the Salgar-Wyse conces- sion, thus defined, on March 8, 1880, the line which separates the com- mercial from the political questions growing out of the canal: The recent contract or concession made by the Government of Colombia witli an association of foreign projectors, the text of which is herewith annexed (in- EECOED IX COXGRESS. 123 closure No. 5), brings to attention some considerations of more or less practical importance, according as vi-e may estimate the feasibility of the project and the financial prospects of the projectors. It does, however, present an occasion for a deliberate indication by the Government of the United States of its relations to enterprises of this nature, both in its position as an American power, and under its specific treaty rights and obligations toward the United States of Colombia. In the mere aspect of a contribution of capital, in the motive of profit to the investors, on the one part, and of a proprietary administration by Colombia of the transit through its territory as a source of legitimate revenue and local prosperity, the proposed canal might seem to fall within the ordinary conditions of pecuniary enterprise and internal development which the general interest of commerce favor, and which it has been the policy of this Government to stimulate and assist. But this view of the subject is quite too narrow and too superficial. It over- looks the direct relations of the other American nations to the contemplated change in the route of water-borne commerce, and the indirect but equally weighty con- siderations by which the relations of the American nations to the great powers of Europe will be modified by this change. It does not penetrate the formal character of the contract as between private capital and local administration, and appreciate its real and far-reaching operation upon the commercial and political interests of the American continent. The United States, therefore, as the great commercial and political power of America, becomes, necessarily, a principal party to any project which shall ex- hibit such solidity and proportions as to distinguish it from the unsubstantial and illusory schemes which have from time to time proposed to solve the problem of interoceanic transit. The (luostidn involvt-d presents itself distinctly to this Government as a territorial one, in the administration of which, as such, it must exercise a potential control. While this attitude of the United States to the political and commercial proDlem of an interoceanic canal, at whatever ixiint, would seem to attach to their position on the continent, the particular rights and obligations in reference to any transit across the Isthmus of Panama which grow out of the mutual engagements of the treaty with Coloml)ia, fix more definitely the interest of this Government in any material changes of that Isthmus as the theater of these rights and obligations. It is manifest that so stupendous a change from the natural configuration of this hemisphere as transforms the Isthmus of Panama from being a barrier be- tween the Atlantic and Pacific oceans into a gateway and thoroughfare between them for the navies and merchant ships of the world, bears directly upon the weight and burden of our guarantees under that treaty. It is equally manifest, and only less imi)ortant, that the organization and nationality of an immense capital and the administration of a great and growing force of managers and laborers, and the throng of population likely to attend the prosperity of the enter- prise, affect essentially tlie conditions under which the United States may be called upon to perform the engagements of that treaty. The guarantee of the neutrality of the transit and of the sovereignty and property of Colombia in the Isthmus are one thing wliile the Isthmus remains in its natural and unpeopled state, and quite another when it shall have been opened to the interests, tlie cupidities, and the ambitions of the great commercial nations, and occupied by populations of foreign allegiance and discordant habits. So obvious are these propositions that it may well be assumed that no contract or negotiations could ever be entered into between private projectors and the Government of Colombia, except in contemplation of this position of the United 124 EECORD IN CONGEESS. States uuder the treaty, and of the necessity that both the private interests and the public engagements involved, in reliance upon the power and faith of this GoTcrnment for their protection, must be conformed to its rightful participation and control in any arrangements that may seriously affect the discharge of its stipulated responsibilil ies. While Mr. Garfield Avas President, the Department of State, on June 24:, 1881, dealt with the same question in this language: It is not the Avish or the purpose of the United States to interfere with any commercial enterprise in which the citizens or subjects of any foreign power may see fit to embark under a lawful privilege. The fact of the stock and franchises of the Panama canal or the Panama railway being owned in Europe, either in whole or principally, is no more a subject of complaint on the part of the United States than is the circumstance that the stock of many of its own great lines of railway is largely held abroad. Such ownership, with its attendant rights, is in the United States amply secured by the laws of the land, and on the Isthmus is doubly secured by the local laws of Colombia, under the superior guarantee of the United States. Nor in time of peace does the United States seek to have any exclusive privileges accorded to American ships in respect to precedence or tolls through an interoceanic canal. any more than it has sought like privileges for American goods in transit over the Panama railway, under the exclusive control of an American corporation. The extent of the privileges of American citizens and ships is meas- urable under the treaty of 1846 by those of Colombian citizens and ships. It would be our earnest desire and expectation to see the world's peaceful commerce enjoy the same just, liberal, and rational treatment. It is as regards the political control of such a canal, as distinguished from its merely administrative or com- mercial regulation, that the President feels called upon to speak with directness and with emphasis. Since President Arthur has been in office, and on May 8, 1882, the Department of State has again presented the views of the Executive: There is, however, no necessary conflict between the political claims of the United States in this matter and the material interests of other nations. A canal across the Isthmus can be created, and under the protectorate of the United States and the republic whose territory it may cross can be freely used by all nations; thus, in some degree, would be continued to the United States the benefit of that conformation of the earth which is now an element of security and defense. ***** :):*** The President, therefore, considers it unnecessary and unwise, through an invitation to the nations of the earth, to guarantee the neutrality of the transit of the Isthmus, or to give their navies a pretext for assembling in waters con- tiguous to our shores, and to possibly involve this republic in conflicts from which its natural position entitles it to be relieved. It will doubtless occur to Lord Granville, as it does to us, that international agreements of this kind, calling for interference by force and conferring joint rights upon several independent powers, are calculated to breed dissension and trouble. In times of peace, when there is no call for their exercise, they are harmless though useless. But when wars and trouble come, it too frequently happens that differences arise, and so at the very moment when the agreement should be enforced it is impossible to enforce it; and EECOED IX COXGKESS. 125 such agreements would lead to that political iuterventiou in American affairs which the traditional policy of the United States make it impossible that the President should either consent to or look upon with indifference. What bearing on the fifty-first article of the recent concession by Nicaragua have those opinions, so distinctly proclaimed within the last three years by the command of three Presidents of the United States? THE XEUTKALITT OF THE CAXAL. Besides the fifty-first article of the recent concession by Nicaragua there is another article which bears directly, not only upon the neutraUty of the canal, and of a free zone bordering thereon, but upon the neutrality " of the sea on both oceans." It will be kept in mind that the substititte, proposed by a majority of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, expressly refers to this concession made by Nicaragua, and distinctly intimates that it is intended thereby to organize a company " for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the said canal concession." The text of the sixth article, when translated into English, is as follows:' Article 6. The Government of the Republic declares, during the term of this concession, the ports at each extremity of the canal ami the canal itself from sea to sea to be neutral, and that consequently this transit, in case of war be- tween two powers, or between one or more and Nicaragua, shall not be interrupted; and that the merchant vessels and citizens of all nations may freely enter the ports and pass through the canal without molestation or detentinu. In general all vessels may pass through the canal freely, without distinction, exclusion, or prefer- ence of persons or nationality, provided they pay the dues and observe the regula- tions established by the company for those using the canal and its dependencies. In respect to the transit of foreign troops and vessels of war, their passage through the canal will be subject to the conditions contained in treaties between Nicara- gua and other powers, or those of international law. lint the entrance of the canal will be rigorously prohibited to vessels of war of such powers as may be at war with Nicaragua or with any of the Central American States. Nicaragua will endeavor to procure a guarantee from all powers of the neutrality of the canal and of a zone along it, and of the sea on both oceans, the extent to be fixed in the conventions. Therein the canal, from ocean to ocean, and the port at either extremity of the canal, are declared to be "neutral;" and consequently the transit into, through, and out of the canal shall not be interrupted even in case of war. This declaration is broad enough to include vessels of war, but the last part of the paragraph only speaks of " merchant vessels " as those that may freely enter and pass through the canal without molestation or detention. The next sentence, linwever. ])roclaims that " in general all vessels may pass through the canal freely, provided they pay the prescribed dues and observe the prescribed regulations established hy the company." 126 EECORD IN CONGRESS, But, further on in the same section, it is declared that "vessels of war " in time of peace will be subjected to " the conditions contained in treaties between Nicaragua and other powers, or those of international law," and, in time of war between Nicaragua or any of the Central Ameri- can States, on the one side, and any other power or powers, on the other side, the vessels of war of the latter will be rigorously excluded from the canal. And, finally, the closing sentence of the sixth article sets forth that Nicaragua will endeavor to procure a guarantee of the neutrality of the canal, and of a zone along it, and of the sea on both oceans, from all the powers of the world, the limit and scope of such guarantee to be fixed in the treaties made with such powers respectively. Here, again, the concession appears to be in conflict with the purposes of the Govern- ment of the United States as announced by the Department of Stat-e under President Garfield and under President Arthur. A fair construction of this sixth article would probably be that the commercial vessels of all nations are to freely navigate the canal in time of war and peace, provided they pay the dues, and observe the regulations established by the company; but vessels of war are at all times to be subjected to the conditions prescribed in t;reaties between Nicaragua and the nation whose flag a vessel of war may carry, or, in the absence of a treaty, then to the rules prescribed by international law. But if any Government be at war either with Nicaragua or with any Central Ameri- can State, then the public armed vessels of that Government will be rigorously excluded from the canal. There needs to be careful scrutiny to see whether or not the terms of this concession conflict in any manner with the stipulations of the treaty of 1867 between the United States and Nicaragua. By the fourteenth article of that treaty, Nicaragua, while reserving its sovereignty over the canal, grants to every vessel, lawfully wearing the flag of the United States, the right of transit through any canal which may be constructed under the authority of Nicaragua, which right is to be used and enjoyed in the same manner, and upon equal terms, by both republics and by their respective citizens. There is no distinction made by this article between commercial vessels and vessels of war. In addition to the stipu- lations in the fourteenth article, Nicaragua covenants and agrees, })y the fifteenth article, that the United States shall be at liberty, on giving notice to the Government or authorities of Nicaragua, to carry troops and munitions of war in their own vessels, or otherwise, to either of said free ports, and shall be entitled to their conveyance between them without obstruction by the Government or authorities of Nicaragua, and without EECOED IX COXGRESS. 137 any charges or tolls whatever for their transportation on either of said routes, provided said troops and munitions of war are not intended to be employed against Central American nations friendly to Nicaragua. But, under the recent concession, the passage of the vessels of war belonging to the United States through the proposed canal may be prohibited by stipulations contained in a treaty between Nicaragua and any other power, or may be prohibited if it shall be decided that international law requires such prohibition in the absence of any treaty governing the question. DEFIXITIOX OF NEUTRALITY. WTiat does " neutrality " mean and imply, when the word is applied to an artificial waterway between two oceans, like the proposed canal at Nicaragua — that canal being entirely within the jurisdiction of that State? Many modern writers on international law insist that a neutral Government can not permit an army of a belligerent to pass over its territory for a purpose of war, witliout abandonment of its neutrality. Nor can a neutral Government permit belligerent cruisers to enter its ports except from stress of weather, or some such necessity as the ob- taining of provisions and making the repairs requisite to seaworthiness. No acts of hostility can be permitted within neutral waters; nor can neutral waters be made a base of hostile operations elsewhere. Does the sixth article of the proposed concession refer to such neutrality as that? If, unfortunately, war should be declared between the United States and Brazil, for example, would the public armed vessels of the United States be excluded from transit through the canal? In case of war between Nicaragua and Chili would the war vessels of Nicaragua be excluded from transit through the canal? If not of Nicaragua, then, under the treaty of 18G7, would the war vessels of the United States be excluded, if, un- happily, there should be hostilities between the United States and Chili? It seems to me that these are questions which deserve careful considera- tion before the House shall adopt the proposed substitute. The questions of international law involved in the proposed legisla- tion are some of them as novel as they arc important. What is the status in international law of the Suez canal, which is situated entii'ely within the jurisdiction of one State, but has become an international highway, and is the property of a mercantile association whose domicile is in Paris? What, in the absence of a treaty definition, would be the status in international law, of a canal at Cape Cod, through the territory of Massachusetts, or of a canal through the territory of Florida, uniting the waters of the Atlantic ocean and the Gulf of Mexico? Great Britain, 128 EECOED IN CONGEESS. by a note from Lord Derby to Lord Lyons, on May 16, 1877, intimated that any attempt to blockade or otherwise interfere with the Suez canal, would be regarded by Her Majesty's Government as a menace to India, and as a grave injury to the commerce of the world. " Any such step," said Lord Derby, " would be incompatible with the maintenance by Her Majesty's Government of an attitude of pacific neutrality. * * * Her Majesty's Government will expect that the Porte and the Khedive will, on their side, abstain from impeding the navigation of the canal, or adopting any measures likely to injure the canal or its branches; and they are firmly determined not to permit the canal to be made the scene of any combat or other warlike operations." Without regard to the question whether or not the second article of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty is now in force, it may be interesting to note therein the plan of canal neutralization contained in the stipulation that " vessels of the United States or Great Britain, traversing the canal, shall, in case of war between the contracting parties, be exempted from blockade, detention, or capture, by either of the belligerents; and this provision shall extend to such a distance from the two ends of the said canal as it may hereafter be found expedient to establish." Does that plan, as does the Nicaragua concession, interdict the use of the canal by belligerents, or does it only forbid belligerents to make the canal the seat of war? It has been said that the true rule in respect to all artificial waterways, uniting the waters of the oceans, which are free to all nations, would be to elevate them to the legal status of " arms of the sea," free to the vessels of all nations, at all times, on paying the prescribed tolls, whether they be vessels of war or vessels of peace, sub- ject only to one condition, which is that no act of belligerency shall be permitted within the canal, or its prescribed ports at either end. But if that is to be the rule, what nation is to act as a policeman and main- tain order in the canal and its approaches? During the recent disturb- ance in Egypt, Italy proposed at Constantinople, as the spokesman of the four Eastern powers, to place the Suez canal under the protection of an international maritime police. The suggested arrangement was temporarily adopted, and England and France united in proposing that the conference should designate the power to be charged, in case of need, to take the measures necessary for the protection of the canal. Under such an arrangement the nation that made the canal the place of a bellig- erent action would furnish every other nation with a casus belli. It must be obvious that, when a canal, large enough to float vessels of war, shall have been successfully opened through the territory of the EECOKD IN COJS'GEESS. 129 United States ot Colombia or of Xicaragiia, the obligations of neutrality imposed thereby on each of those States will have been enormously in- creased. At present the neutrality of the coasts of either is not likely to be invaded by war vessels of belligerent powers, but when there shall be such a waterway, that waterway will invite the presence of the armed vessels of warring nations seeking to go from one ocean to the other. If a neutral State claims to be a sovereign State, she must effect- ually restrain a foreign Government and private individuals from using her territory for belligerent purposes. If a belligerent were injured in the canal, he would be justified in calUng on the nation within whose jurisdiction the canal may be to make reparation in an appropriate case. If the belligerent is not permitted to protect himself in the canal he must look to the State controlHng the canal for protection, and a foreign State, undertaking to guarantee the neutrality of the canal, would also be responsible under the guarantee for the injury. AVould the existence in Panama or Xicaragua of a canal made " an arm of the sea," and capable of floating war vessels, relieve, in the absence of a treaty con- trolling the question, cither State from the accepted, and oftentimes very burdensome, obligations of neutrality? Responsibility for acts of injury to a State committed in the canal, no matter by whom, must be a neces- sary consequence of the sovereignty upon which Colombia and Nicaragua so tenaciously insist. It may be that it is at the end of considerations like these that European Governments have so many of them declined, as Mr. Evarts said, to enter into treaties of guarantee either with Colombia or Nicaragua. The responsibility of guaranteeing the neutrality of a canal, either at Panama or at Nicaragua, is certainly American. It may be that such responsibility is not exclusively "American" in the sense of repelling all other States on this continent other than the United States of Amer- ica, but it manifestly is " American " in a sense that includes the United States of America, Mexico, the States of Central America, the United States of Colombia, and the States of South America. If in the growth of the United States of America the dominion of the Union were to ex- tend southward from California, New Mexico, and Texas to the Isthmus of Darien, there would not be any serious question as to whose would be the right, duty, and obligation to police a canal at Panama or Nicar- agua, to protect all vessels and citizens thereon, and to guarantee the neutrality thereof whenever the United States saw fit to be neutral between other belligerent powers unhappily engaged in war. 17 130 RECORD IN CONGRESS. FIDELITY TO TREATIES. I do not fail to keep in mind that, by the Constitution, the House of Representatives has primarily nothing to do with the making of treat- ies, the appointment of foreign Ministers, the abrogation of treaties, and the general conduct of the diplomatic business of the United States, unless and until those treaties, or those appointments, or that business shall demand an appropriation of the public money or a pledge of the public credit. If there is any doubt whether or not the first seven articles of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty are now in force, or whether the eighth ar- ticle of that treaty applies to the proposed Nicaragua canal, it is primarily the duty of the President and the treaty-making powers to deal with and dispose of that question. It is believed, and it is to be hoped, that the President will not fail to appreciate how important to the maintenance of the peace of the world and to the prosperity of the United States is a perfect and unshrinking fidelity to all the obligations imposed or im- plied by treaty stipulations made by the United States, so long as those stipulations are in force. The people of the United States have not heretofore been especially reticent and reserved in denunciation of the conduct of other nations when any of those nations have seemed to be disposed to rupture and tear up binding treaties without the consent of the other contracting parties. The general responsibility, however, of deciding whether a treaty is in force, in whole or in part, is upon the Executive and the Senate, and not upon the House of Representatives. And yet how can a member of Congress form a correct opinion whether the proposed substitute ought to be adopted without carefully considering the condition of the treaty relations of the United States with Great Britain as well as with Nicaragua? Does the President intend to use the diplomatic pressure of this Government in order to prevent any European Government from entering into treaty stipulations with Nicaragua to guarantee the proposed canal, as is suggested in the recent concession made by Nicaragua? ' JUSTICE TO THE SPANISH-SPEAKING REPUBLICS. The proposed canal is to be built entirely within the jurisdiction of Nicaragua, just as the Panama canal is to be built entirely within the jurisdiction of the United States of Colombia. The Spanish-speaking republics and governments to the south of us are deeply interested in a canal across the Isthmus, and their wishes in respect to the political control of such a canal are entitled to kind and even generous considera- tion by the Government of the United States. It certainly becomes the EECOKD IN' CONGRESS. 131 Government of the United States, as the most powerful, in its present strength and in its future possibilities, of any Government on this con- tinent, to treat its neighbors to the south of it in conformity with a standard of justir^e so absolute and perfect as to defy reasonable criticism. For all of the foregoing reasons, and especially on account of the con- fusion and uncertainty which now exists in the treaty relations between this Government and other Governments respecting the guarantee of the neutrality and innocent use of the proposed canal. I am constrained to withhold my assent from the recommendation made by a majority of the Foreign Affairs Committee that the substitute be adopted by the House. [bee speech on this subject FEBRUARY 5, 1883.] 133 RECORD IN COXGRESS. A DINNEK TO MR. BELMONT. (Summary of report in New York World, December 31, 1883.) Hon. Perry Belmont: Dear Sir. — We share in the pleasure which your course in Congress has given to your fellow Democrats. It has aided in producing the great uprising of the people which has resulted in a signal victory for the nominess of the Democratic party and in great benefit to the cause of good government. In common with all the younger Democracy of New York, we have been especially gratified by your success because you are one of our number. It is one of the most hopeful features of the recent triumph that it was largely produced l)y the revolt of young men against the abuses and corruption which were signally rebuked by it. As a token of the approbation Avith which we regard your action, and in the belief that such an expression would increase the present tendency of young men who have not been involved in the political contentions of the past to range themselves on the side of Democratic principles and the Constitution, we invite you to meet us and other friends at dinner at as early a day as your Congressional duties will permit. IVe are, sincerely, your friends and fellow-Democrats, Edward S. Eapallo, Albert Weber, A. Wright Sanford, Nelson J. Waterbury, Jr., LeA\ds H. Sayre, M. D., John Hone, Jr., Ham- ilton B. Tompkins, Robert B. Lawrence, Edward Bell, D. Henry Knowlton, Arthur T. Hendricks, F. K. Pendleton, George A. Gunther, G. H. Wynkoop, M. D., J. Marion Sims, M. D., J. Ered Kernochan, Charles N. Harris, Thomas Newbold, Lloyd S. Bryce, Heniy Stanton, Robert Berry, Jr., H. I. Nicholas, E. Potter, John Jeroloman, William McClure, De Lancey Nicoll, Gren- ville Kane, G. S. Rives, Charles E. Lewis, John Brady Jarvis, Franklin Bartlett, Willis S. Paine, Archibald M. Maclay, Henry Cachard, E. C. La Montagne, A. Butler Duncan, J. F. O'Shaughnessy, M. A. Kellogg, E. N. Dickerson, Jr., Alfred Youngs, Douglas Hilger, Lucien Oudin, F. M. Johnson, Edward W. Perry. Arthur Ingraham, Center Hitchcock, J. D. Cheever, F. Neilson, J. E. Roosevelt. J. D. Prince, Cyrus Edson, M. D., Herman Oelrichs, Robert Townsend, Henry Marquand, William Lummis, Edwaxd H. Schell, Wilmot T. Cox, Charies W. Dayton, H. EECOED IX CONGRESS. 133 Duncan Wood, R. Percy Alden, A. Gebhard, J. G. K. Lawrence, George G. DeWitt, Jr., Eichard O'Gorman, Jr., W. C. Floyd-Jones, Charles W. Cass, John Gilmer Speed, G. H. Eedmond, Paul Dana, P. Lorillard, Jr., E. Maclay Bull, Charles L. Ingersoll, W. L. Curtis, John Travers, H. H. Honore, Jr., W. L. Stow, Joseph D. Bryant, M. D., John D. Crimmins, John M. Bowers, Augustus H. Vanderpoel, T. A. Maitland, G. M. Speir, Jr., Eugene Kelly, Jr., Fordham Morris, J. A. Montant, P. C. Hewitt, James B. Livingston, ^\^alter Kobbe, Lucius K. Wilmerding, Charles W. Clinton, Frank Lawrence, Arthur M. Hunter, John F. Adam, W. IST. Jackson. To this letter Mr. Belmont made the following reply: House of Eepresentatiyes, Washington, D. C, December 21, 1882. [ Gentlemen. — I accept with pleasure the kind invitation with which you have honored me, and I hope to meet you on Saturday evening, December 30th. Believe me, most gratefully. Your obedient servant, PEEEY BELMONT. To Frederic Neilson, Edward S. Rapallo, and others. At 7:20 p. ra. the doors of the large dining-room were thrown open, and Mr. Belmont, leaning upon the arm of Mr. J. D. Prince, entered the room, followed by the rest of the guests. The room was tastefully hung with Hags and shields, while over the Chairman's head there was a picture of Jelferson, copied from that in the City Hall. There were four tables. At the head of the room there were on the right of Mr. J. D. Prince, the Chairman, Mr. Belmont, the Eev. Edward Clark, Lieutenant-Governor David B. Hill and ]\Ir. Clarke Bell. On the left of Mr. Prince sat Mr. Nelson J. Waterbury, Jr., Mr. W. W. Hensell, Chairman of the Democratic State Committee of Pennsylvania; Mr. Bayard Stockton, of New Jersey; Mr. Francis H. Woods, of Albany, and IVFr. A. E. Macdonald. About one hundred and forty-five were present. The arrangements for the dinner were in the hands of Messrs. Hermann Oelrichs, Nelson J. Waterbury, Jr., Eobert Townsend, Grenville Kane and Lewis H. Sayre, M. D., who con- stit\ited the cominittoe. Among the invited guests were Mr. Skipwith Gordon, Mr. Archibald AV. Speir; Mr. M. Lewis Clark, of Louisville, Ky.; Charles De Kay Townsend, Surrogate of Queens county; Mr. Jefferson M. Levy, Mr. George W. Campbell, Jr., Mr. Edward P. Doyle, of Eich- mond, Va.; Courtland TT. Smith, ex-Mayor of Alexandria, Va.; Mr. Wil- liam L. Eoyal, Mr. Eandol])h JMorris, Mr. E. Duvivier, and Surgeon- General James B. Bryant and Colonel Eobert Townsend, of Governor- elect Cleveland's Staff. 134 EECOKD IN CONGRESS. The orchestra in the gallery performed a selection of well-chosen airs, during the dinner, at the conclusion of which, Mr. Prince rose and said: "Gentlemen, in asking you to drink the toast which I am about to propose, I think that I may call your attention to what I believe to be the prevailing danger of the age, that of apathy. We are all too apt to take life easily, to rest ourselves. This is, perhaps, because matters are easier for us than for those before us. There is, however, a temptation to do nothing, to let others do the work. There are some, however, among us who are willing to work, and of these we have a conspicuous example with us, one who has shown himself willing to give his time and his ser- vices to his country. [Applause.] We can not value this too highly either for ourselves or our children, and we feel that such services demand recognition. With this sentiment let me ask you to join with me in drinking the health of Mr. Perry Belmont: Our Guest, Perry Belmont. — For his devotion to duty, his fidelity to principle, and the firmness and courage he has shown, we honor him. We hail his success not only as an incentive to young men but as a fresh proof that the great Democratic party unites in its service the vigor of youth with the wisdom of age. [Applause.] Mr. Belmont was received with prolonged applause when he rose to reply. He said: Mr. President and Gentlemen. — I know I shall not be satisfied with anything I may say in trying to thank you as I wish I could for this great kindness to me. Yet believe me, I appreciate the honor you have done me, although I, of course, see in your presence here not so much a com- pliment to me, that I feel would be undeserved, as the evidence of your own interest, the deep and active interest which each and all of you take in political affairs. There is no subject of interest more honorable, and there are few more absorbing, more full of opportunity than American politics. It is true, we have a fashion among us of painting our politics black; printer's ink is black, criticism is wholesome, but we should fall into error did we not read between the lines of partisan controversy, if we desire to form a correct judgment of public questions and of public men especially. Some of you, my friends, are connected with the press; you know how you can turn the magnifying lenses upon mediocrity and produce a giant; how you can reverse the instrument and represent a RECORD IN COXGRESS. 135 pigmy. None should know better than yon how important it is, es- pecially in this period of progress and of reformation, not to be carried from the even balance of justice and fairness. Progress and reformation, after all. are practical matters only to be accomplished by practical men, and there are no more unsafe guides to them than the reformers by trade, the envious drones of society Avho are heard at such times with a great beating of drums and sounding of trumpets, proclaiming that they are the men and that wisdom will die with them. To me, one of the cardinal points of attraction about the Democratic party is its freedom from cant and hvj)ocrisy. Indeed it is this which has enabled our party to survive and triumi)h in the hearts of a people who detest and despise shams. Catholic as the Democratic party is, there is no room within it for these. No: the verdict of the people has been pronounced for honesty and sin- cerity in politics. T.et us see to it that the verdict is heeded. And now, my friends, what are some of the issues of the near political future of our countrv' that are clearly in sight? Not many weeks ago there was given in this very room a splendid farewell to that greatest of the philosopliers of modern times, Avho, passing from summit to summit of all the sciences, has dealt with the phenomena of political organization. Professor Youmans fitly arranged in New York the triumph of one whose elevation has been so single-minded, whose fame has been so unsullied, and whose bearing in success has been so undisturbed. How complete the triumphal procession was! Mr. Evarts and Mr. Schurz as postilions; Professors Fiske, :Marsh and Sumner as the dashing outriders. Among them all Herbert Spencer's flaming chariot was so guided as to shave and yet save the altars and the shrines of the Puritans and exhibit to man- kind the emancipated New Englanders of New York as perfect examples of " the survival of the fittest." The utterances on that occasion of the illustrious man who has done so much to bring the laws and the phenomena of all the sciences into accord suggest one plaintly coming issue in our American politics. In giving a glimpse of the idea which will inspire the completion of his quarter of a century's task, when he crowns the " Data of Ethics " with the Principles of Ethics by exhibiting a better adjustment of labor — individual and political — and a more equitable enjoyment of the results of that labor, Mr. Herbert Spencer, in allusion to this our day of active industrial progress in America, said something like this: "Every one knows that to be a successful warrior was the highest aim among all ancient people of note, as it is still among many barbarous peoples. We have changed all that in modern civilized societies, especially in England, and still more in America. With the decline of 136 RECORD IN CONGRESS. militant activity and the growth of industrial activity, the occupations once disgraceful have become honorable. The duty to work has taken the place of the duty to fight; and in the one case, as in the other, the ideal of life has become so well established that scarcely any dream of questioning it. Practically, business has been substituted for wax as the purpose of existence. The modern ideal is appropriate to ages in which conquest of the earth and subjection of the powers of nature to human use are the predominant need." Therein I think we may, if we will but listen, learn the true key-note of that music of the recent election. The issues of the political future of our America are to be the issues formed and shaped not by passion and by the sword but by economic forces. What shall be the legal relation of the State to labor in all its varied departments? Allien and why shall the Government at Washington in- terfere in matters of individual industry, of production and the distribu- tion of products among consumers? Wlien and why shall the State meddle with manufacturers competing for thesupply of the market? Can the State safely and wisely interfere with the conditions under which citizens of dilfering mental, moral and physical fibre shall compete with one another in the sti-uggles of an industrial type of society? The years of civil year, the methods of war, the systems and quantity of taxation enforced by war, the voting regulations of war, have for us happily passed and gone, and peace has again come to us. Theories of an omniscient and all-prevailing central military government may be beneficent and Ijenevo- lent perhaps — though I don't believe it — in Eussia or Germany or France, or even in England now that England seems bent on going into partnership with the great fighting powers of Europe in the dreary busi- ness of military imperialism. Such theories can bring only ruin and misery to Democratic America. Instead of increasing the scope of the functions of government, it is the duty and aim, as I understand, of the Democratic party to reduce the number of those functions which our civil war created and still keep up. The fireside, town, county and State rule of the voters at large must cease to be overridden at Washington, or at Albany. An industrial type of society such as our own is to be, and as free as ours will be from foreign enemies if our diplomatic affairs are wisely and honestly managed, has little need of the intermeddling of a central government at Washington, excepting so far as it may be necessary to preserve and maintain for each State and for the people of each State the right to labor and to enjoy the fruits of their labor, so long as they do not interfere with the similar rights of the people of every other State of the Union. EECOED IN CONGRESS. 137 Many of you who are here to-night are lawyers, familiar with the doings of the Federal courts. You have seen the projects that are now before Congress to greatly and immediately enlarge the number of the Federal judges in the several Federal circuits. The project is looked upon by many of the wisest lawyers in each political party as dangerous not only to the authority, dignity and welfare of the high and important tribunal at Washington, but very dangerous to the best interests of the judicial systems of the several States. The existing force of Federal judges may be inadequate for the work which the exigencies of civil war thrust upon them. But before there is legislation to increase the number of the Federal judges, may it not be well to have a candid and penetrating in- quiry in the next Congress, by a Democratic Judiciary Committee of the House, to ascertain whether or not such legislation which has so increased the jurisdiction and work of the Federal courts, to the disparagement of the courts of the several States, can not be repealed? Another issue which is just now, thanks to the action of the Senate, in the minds of all of us, is the issue of Civil-Service Eeforin. The only plausible objection offered to the reform of the civil service has its root in the enduring necessity of keeping the policy and conduct of the Execu- tive, at Albany as well as at AYashington, under the control of public opinion. To that end the Executive or the Governor who is chosen by the people must have and preserve the constitutional right and power to remove from office at his pleasure all those high officials who come by the scope of their offices and their aulliority directly into contact, so to speak, with the policy of the Executive. This consideration may seem at first to counter and impede the reform of the civil service. It in fact enforces, as 1 think, the necessity of a true civil service reform. If changes are to be made suddenly and sharply in the course of the ship of State under tlie pressure of the breezes of public opinion, the crew, the boatswains, the petty officers, the seamen must he traiiRMl and experienced men, each man knowing his post, each man familiar witli his duty. This is so true that for years the public business has really not itself done very much by a sort of unrecognized civil service force which you don't hear nmch of in the papers, but the existence and the efficiency of which one soon learns in practical public life to recognize. However, my friends, I did not rise to give you a political lecture. That would be a curious piece of presumption and a poor return for your great kindness and good will. I rose only to thank you for showing me how deep and real your interest is in the work which lies before us all. 38 138 EECORD IN CONGRESS. At the conclusion of Mr. Belmont's speech the Chairman called the attention of those present to the following letters: Buffalo, December 26, 1883. Nelson J. Waterhnry, Jr., and Others, Committee, Etc.: Gentlemen. — I regret to be obliged to decline the invitation to be present on the 30th instant, at a dinner to be given to Hon. Perry Belmont. My engagements consequent upon my early assuming the duties of the office of Governor positively forbid my being present on the occasion re- ferred to in your very complimentary letter. Yours very truly, OEOVER CLEVELAND. Philadelphia, December 23, 1882. Messrs. N. J. Waterbury, H. Oelrichs, Grenville Kane, Robert Townsend and Lewis H. Sayre, M. D., Committee: Gentlemen. — I have the pleasure to acknowledge your friendly com- munication inviting me to join a number of the younger Democrats of your city at a dinner tendered to the Hon. Perry Belmont at Delmonico's, Saturday, the 30th instant, at 7 o'clock, p. m. Eegretting that other en- gagements will prevent me from being present to respond to the pro- posed toast to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and to pay my respects in person to the gifted and popular gentleman you are to honor, I remain, believe me. Yours very respectfully, ROBERT E. PATTISON". York, December 26, 1882. Gentlemen. — Nothing that I can imagine would give me greater pleas- ure than to be with you on the evening of the 30th to do honor to Mr. Belmont. It is not because Mr. Belmont is a young man, nor yet because he is an able man, that I would especially delight to mingle my applause with yours on that pleasant occasion, but because he is indeed a Democrat, holding fast the pure faith, and neither afraid nor ashamed to proclaim it. Mr. Belmont did some rare good work in Congress — work reqiiiring EECORD IN CONGRESS. 139 courage and capacity of a high order — but it was the matter and the manner of his recent canvass which most attracted my admiration. Plant- ing himself upon a body of doctrines as pure as if they had been for- mulated anew by the pen of Jefferson himself, he followed the logic out to legitimate consequences in every direction. This is the way and the Hfe. It is the end of sham and of fraud in American politics. It is high time that we learn again the lesson which our fathers learned so dearly — that it is only in the jealous enforcement of the limitations of the Consti- tution that we are to find relief from the abuses of Federalism, from ex- cessive taxation, from class legislation, from monopoly, from ring rule, from the perversion of the civil service and the manifold corruptions of Federalist Eepublican Government. This old fight, bequeathed from sire to son, Mr. Belmont made again in his district, and that he won it easily, gracefully and overwhelmingly is even less a testimony to his own manU- ness and political integrity than it is to the virtue and intelligence of the people. We may here see the clear evidence that we have only to be right, that is to be Democratic, in the sense that the fathers of the party were Democratic, to be completely successful. When we find a leader who carries a shield as broad as Jefferson's we may gather behind it with a perfect assurance that it will cover us in every emergency. I would like also to have spoken in response to the toast which you have kindly set over against my name. Pennsylvania has borne some reproach among her sister commonwealths. But she will bear it no longer. The Democracy of this State is sound to the core. We may point to the man we have elected Governor and to the stainless record of his previous life with as much confidence in the future as even you can feel when you look up to the pure banner which went before your 190,000 majority. You may be sure from the foregoing that only the most imperative engagements prevent my acceptance of your very kind invitation. I remain, gentlemen, veiy truly yours, CHAUNCEY F. BLACK. To Messrs. IVaterbury, Oelrichs, Kane, Townsend and Sayre, Commit- tee, etc.: At the conclusion of the letters the Chairman rose and proposed the following toast: Pennsylvania. — In former years side by side with New York in the battles and triumphs of the Democratic cause; we compete with her in 140 RECOED IN CONGRESS. honorable rivalry, and rejoice in her redemption from the wrong and thraldom of " boss " rule. Mr. Hensel, the Chairman of the Pennsylvania Democratic State Cen- tral Committee, rose in reply and said: " Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen.^ — ■ I presnme the Democratic State of Pennsylvania is what yon mean. [Laughter and applause.] The morning after the election in our State I met a gentleman who had been associated Avitli me in the State Central Committee. I spoke of our triumphs and asked him if he was not satisfied with the result. He replied that he was, but that the news from New York had dwarfed Pennsylvania's work. [Applause.] And as I Avent home I could not help feeling that he was right. I had ' a feeling of humility when I thought that Texas had sent the Democratic banner to the Empire State. [Applause.] When I got your invitation to attend this dinner I felt that we would all meet here to celebrate the Democratic victory in New York and Pennsylvania and all over the Union; to celebrate what you and I believe to be the end of boss rule. [Applause.] There is a special fitness in our meeting together to honor the guest of the evening — [Applause] — because he more particularly represents the young Democ- racy of the country. To me the fact that he is the guest whom we delight to honor is the pleasanter because my own State is under especial obligations to him; he it was who manifested special interest in our light. And so it was my duty as it was my pleasure to come here to-night. [Applause.] It was the privilege of the Democracy of Pennsylvania to illustrate the force, the power and the influence of the young Democrats in the country. The accusation was freely made against the candidate for Governor that he was young. We did not reply as a great English statesman once did to a similar accusation, that it was a fault which would mend with time. [Laughter.] We were content to answer back that in every stage of the world's history the vigor of youth has been as necessary to the well-being of the body politic as the wisdom of age. We might have said that our candidate was no younger than David when he met the Philistine, no younger than Paul when he preached against the follies and corruptions of the Ephesians. He was older than Alex- ander when he sighed that there were no more worlds to conquer, older than Napoleon when he halted his legions in the shadows of tlie pyra- mids, older than Pitt when he was Prime Minister of England, older than Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration of Independence — [Applause] — older than Alexander Hamilton when he became Secretary of the Treasury, older than Calhoun and Clay when they, like giants. EECOBD IN COXGKESS. 141 bounded into the political arena, older than Perry Belmont when he went down the aisle in Congress and gallantly touched his lance upon the shield of the plumed knight of Maine and lowered his plume to rise no more. [Great applause.] He was six years older than he was when he began his career as reform Comptroller of Philadelphia, and he will be four years older still when he finishes his first term as reform Governor of Pennsylvania. His administration will be like the genial summer rain to the parched earth in the corrupt political Hfe of my State. [Applause.] I do not hold in light esteem the wisdom of those who founded the party to which we all belong. But I have read that a party can only live on its traditions when it lives up to those traditions. [Applause.] If the Democratic party has, under bad leadership, strained the rights of the States, or if it has too far deprived the General Government of power, it has done wrong. Tiiie Democratic doctrine is to keep the proper lial- ance between the two, exalting neither above its proper place. [Ap- plause.] If the Democratic party has been false to the hard-monoy principles of Jackson [Applause], if it has given countenance to a bad system of taxation, it has been false to the principles of the fathers of the Republic. If it has favored corporations above the law, it has gone against the fundamental principle of Democracy that in the people lies all the power [Applause], that the creature can not be greater than the creator. Oliver AVendell Holmes has said that there are only two classes in American society, the men on horseback and the men in their sliiii- sleeves. If this be true, then the Democratic party are always on the side of the men in their sliirt-sleeves. [Applause.] The Democrats of New York, of Pennsylvania, of the whole country, liold in grateful mem- ory the men who have held Democratic principles in the past. Far dis- tant be the day when Democrats will turn a deaf ear to the calm con- servatism of such men as Seymour [xVpplause] or slight the wisdom ot such men as Samuel J. Tilden. [Cheers and applause.] Before such men the young Democracy can well feel that they can sit and learn. But no men know better than these that wlien the time comes wlim they must lay down their weapons, it is to the young men of to-day tlint those weapons must be bequeathed as bright as when the veterans took them up. [A])plausc.] The best hope of tlie Democratic party to-day is illustrated in tlie late elections. I believe with Governor Cleveland [Applause] tliat Democratic principles, honestly applied, will furnish the best and only remedy for political evils. All honest men are lookino- for such a remedy. It seems to me that the Democratic party, which is tlie party of local self-government, is coming into poAver by local victories. In gaining States we can hope to gain control of the General Government. [Applause.] By honest exercise of the control we liave got we can show 142 RECOED IN CONGRESS. that we are worthy of the Presidency in 1884. By carrying out the promises we have made we can show that we will carry out those we make. Our victory won enables us to anticipate the victory we will win. This dinner is a stone which marks our course, an event which we will all recollect as being one of those which points out to us the gains we have made as well as those we have yet to make." [Loud and continued applause.] The next toast read by the Chairman was: New Jersey. — Ever faithful,, we honor the gallantry that conquers in spite of the fact that by iniquitous apportionments two Republicans are made equal in political power to three Democrats. Her people have again illustrated the proverbial vigor of " Jersey justice." It was responded to by Mr. Bayard Stockton, who said that New Jersey had always been faithful to the party and was now more strongly Demo- cratic than ever. The Chairman then proposed: Connecticut. — Once more in the line of Democratic States, if the party which in 1876 stole the executive power of the United States shall repeat the damnable crime within her limits and install in office those whom the people have rejected, the indignant voice of the American people will consign it to an endless exile from power. After reading the toast Mr. Prince said that Governor Waller was to have replied. In his absence a letter just received from him would show why he was not there. " He was holding the fort." This allusion to the attempt to steal Connecticut from her voters was warmly applauded. New London, December 29, 1882. Gentlemen. — I hoped until this morning to be able to enjoy the pleas- ure of meeting you and your guest at the dinner to-morrow, but circum- stances have occurred that render my absence from home impossible. I regret this very much, for I desired in person to pay my respects to Mr. Belmont and to express to him my admiration of the courage and ability he has shown in his public life. I assure you and your friends of my sympathy with every effort in favor of better political methods. Very truly yours, THOS. M. WALLER. Nelson J. Waterbury, Jr., and Others, Committee. EECOED IN CONGRESS. 143 The next toast read was: Xew York. — Our own love and pride. "We rejoice with full hearts in the unparalleled revolution by which her people have shown their inoxtingnishable devotion to honesty and sound principles. Planting herself upon the strong base of an honest government by honest men, she is there to stay and to revive the glories that she garnered under the lead of Clinton, Livingston and Tompldns; of Van Buren, "Wright and Marcy; of Seymour, Tilden and Kobinson. In reply, David B. Hill, Lieutenant-Governor-elect, rose and said: " Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen. — I had hoped that the Chairman would say to me as an Irish judge once said to a prisoner: 'x\l] I want out of you is silence, and mighty little of that.' [Laughter.] I feel something like that young Fourth-of-July orator in a thriving Western town, who got up and began: 'A few years ago this place was part and parcel of the howling wilderness ! ' Then he forgot what came next, and began again. ' ]\Iy friends, a few years ago this town was part and parcel of a howling wilderness ! ' Once more he paused, and then realizing that he had forgotten the rest entirely, lie added: 'And I wish to God it was still ! ' [Laughter.] A few years ago New York was a part and parcel of a howling wilderness, and if all that is said about her is true it would be better if she was still. The original inhabitants were Indians, who were without any visible means of support. Their occupation was scalping every one they could find, and sometimes doing a little hunting. They have all gone to the happy hunting grounds, but we have their successors with us. In New York you have the Wigwam of the great Tammany tribe, with their sachems and sagamores, their scalping-knives and scal})S. There are still, I believe, a few Tuscaroras. And then there are the half-breeds, and I have been told a few months ago the woods were full of them. [Laughter.] The half-breeds are mild as milk, but the Tammanyites are fierce. The style of crops since our fathers' time has somewhat changed; for wheat and corn and potatoes we have tele- graph suits, free canals and blue laws. If there is one peculiarity about a New Yorker it is his reverence for a Massachusetts Puritan. I heard of one once who told a Boston man that when it came liis time to die he should go to Boston because he did not know a place he could leave with less regret. [Laughter.] The growth of the State of New York is a theme which could easily occupy a great orator or writer. She is now entering upon a career of prosperity. I believe with Governor Cleve- land [Applause] that with honest government she will be wonderfully prosperous. The late not very close election [Laughter] was a triumph f 144 EECOED IN CONGRESS. of princii^les and the result has given general satisfaction to all. The victory means that abuses must be remedied, that there must be honesty and fair dealing, that legislation must be in the interests of the tax- payers and the people. [Applause.] New York has always been fore- most in the march of the 'Country and she is not lagging behind now. It was Governor Seymour who proclaimed, in a special message to the Legislature, that the plighted faith of the Empire State must be kept and the interest on her bonds be paid in gold. [Applause.] The platform of the Democratic party in the State has brought forward the young men, and there is no better field for honest, manly work than that given by the great State of ISTew York to-day." The Future of the Democratic Party. — Fidelity to the principles of its fathers; faith in the people; honesty in the discharge of every trust, and a steady step with the progress of mankind, are alike the duty of Democrats, and the sure pledges of their triumph. This toast was responded to by Mr. Francis H. Woods, of Albany. He said that it was peculiarly fit that he, as a man from the country, should respond to such a toast, for so far as Democratic principles were con- cerned the city Democrats had always been at the head and front of all dissensions. But he was sure that the welfare of the country and the welfare of mankind depended upon the perpetuation of JefEersonian doctrines, and he was sure he saw in the selection for Congress of such vigorous and high-minded men as Perry Belmont a new era for the party and a new era for national politics. The next sentiment was thus announced: The delusions of the Eepublican politicians, sure signs of decay and death, that professions are the same as practice; that corruption will pass for honesty; that labor can be deceived by false pretenses while taxed out of all enjoyment; that the people will suffer themselves to be beaten by money extorted from their officers to form a fund to buy votes; that a party can live solely upon its claims of the past after all its unsmirched leaders are in their graves. Dr. MacDonald responded upon the invitation of the chairman, lie said that he was an expert as to delusions, and he recognized that the Republicans had all the delusions enumerated in the toast and many more. This seemed bad on its face, but few delusions were harder to cure than many, and he was sorry to say that so far he had only found two delusions indulged in by Democrats. One was that they had won EECOED IX CONGEESS. 145 unaided the recent great victory, and the other was that they could main- tain power by the force of one success. Both of these he was sure were serious delusions, but not beyond the cure of good ad\4ce. He confessed, however, that he had made his diagnosis of the Eepublican disease in a most unsatisfactory way, for since the election he had failed, among all his acquaintances, even in the lunatic asylums under his charge, to find a single EepubHean bold enough to proclaim his faith. There were many happy hits in Dr. MacDonald's speech which were received with much applause. At its conclusion Mr. Clarke Bell was called upon to respond to a toast to the Bar. His remarks were received with cordiality. The closing speech of the evening was made by Colonel M. Lewis Clarke, of Kentucky, President of the Louisville Jockey Ckib, who spoke most pleasantly and genially of the interest all good Kentucky Democrats felt in the fact that the whole country is rapidly coming to the support of those principles which Kentucky has advocated and maintained through good and evil report. 19 14G IfECOKD IX CONGRESS. EEMARKS ON AMERICAN SHIPPING. House of Representatives, January 11, 1883. [SEE AUGUST 14, 1882.] The House having under consideration bill (H. R. No. 7061) to remove certain burdens on American Merchant INIarino, to amend the laws relating to the ship- ment and discharge of seamen, Mr. BELMONT said: " I do not like to take itp the valuable time of the House, after the ex- haustive arguments already made by members of the Special Committee on Shipping, which was appointed in consequence of a resolution intro- duced by me at the last session of Congress. But my interest in this subject will not permit me to pass it by without a word of comment. " No one will undertake to say whether the provisions of repeal con- tained in the original bill of the committee or in the pending amend- ments will now or speedily be sufficient to bring back under the American flag its proper share of the ocean-carrying trade. That will depend on certain facts and circumstances respecting the relations of the whole present commerce of the world and the whole present ocean-carrying power. If the ocean- carrying trade is now overdone, then, of course, in a mere business sense, there is no room at this moment for more vessels, although they may be profitably transferred from one Hag to another. " There are those who say that between 1850 and 1880 the commerce of all nations by land and sea increased about two hundred and forty per cent., the carrying power on the sea increased about three hundred per cent, and the carrying power on land by railways increased about three hundred and ninety-eight per cent. At any rate it seems clear that the carrying power, whether on sea or land, has grown in a greater ratio than commerce has grown. And there are those who insist that, by reason of the increased efficiency of steamers, the investments in water transportation are even now excessive, as is to be seen in the increase of ballast entries in the several ports of the world during the last fifteen years. " However that may be, I can not doubt about the present duty of Congress regarding the pending measure of repeal. The Government should instantly remove its heavy hand of impediment and restraint from individual enterprise in shipping. Let the sldll and ingenuity of Ameri- EECOED IX COXGKESS. 147 cans in this matter be unhindered by Government restrictions. When- ever the favorable moment presents itself, whether it be this year or next year or ten years from now, let the freedom of our countrymen to build and buy vessels wherever they please be unconstrained by any Federal law, and the time may not be so far off when not only our commercial but our political needs upon the sea will be satisfied. " In the course of this debate, gentlemen on the other side have re- peatedly conjured up the spectre of a general war in Europe. A\liy, Mr, Speaker, if such an event shall really occur the free-ship clause would at once become a necessity, because not only we should be required to do our carrying trade, but the belligerents could transfer their merchant vessels to our flag. AYe shall then enjoy all the benefits of our neutrality." [Here the hammer fell.] PROTECTION. January 15, 18S3. Mr. BELMOXT submitted the following resolution, which was re- ferred to the Committee on "Ways and Means: Resolved, That the Committee on Ways and Means are hereby instructed to forthwith report to this House whether or not any chiss or classes of industries in the United States, infant or aged, and, if so, what class or classes require aid and support from the Federal Government in the form of custom duties levied on imported articles or in any other form of bounty, subsidy, charity or donation; and also to report to this House what class or classes of industries, if any, do not require such aid and support. FllVA'] WORKS OF ART. January 20, 1S83. Mr. BFTvMONT, introduced the following bill, in relation to the im- portation of works of art: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That no duties shall be levied or collected on any works of art, either ancient or modern, or on any objects of classical anti(iuity imported into the United States, but the same shall be wholly exempt from duty; and the term "works of art," as here used, shall be understood to include all painting, drawings, photographs, lithographs, etchings, and engravings of every kind; and all statuary, of whatever material, such as marble, stone, wood, ivory, metal, or plaster; also all plaster casts of objects of artistic or archaeological value: and the term "objects of classical antiquity," as here used, shall be under- stood to include all objects of art or manufacture produced before the beginning of the nineteenth century. 148 EECORD IN CONGRESS. § 2. That section one of this act shall not be understood as exempting from payment of duty modern jewelry, or any objects of trade manufacture attached or to be attached to clocks, gas-fixtures, or to other objects of household furni- ture; neither shall the same be understood as exempting from payment of duty statuary imported for the sake of the material of which the same is composed. § 3. That all provisions of law inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. [subject continued FEBRUARY 26, 1883.] THE HAWAIIAN TEEATY. January 29, 1883. Mr. BELMONT. — I ask unanimous consent at this time to present the views of a minority of the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the subject of the Hawaiian treaty. Mr. BLOUNT. — Permit me to say that my friend unintentionally does me injustice in that connection. I wish to say that I have not seen his report, but, as I understand it, he and I differ materially in reference to the matter. My own individual views have been in favor of the entire abolition of the treaty, and I do not understand that my friend takes that view of the subject. The SPEAKEK. — That is a question to be settled between the gentle- men themselves. Mr. BLOUNT. — But I do not wish this report to appear as the minority report of the committee. The SPEAKER. — If the gentlemen have personal differences, they can settle it themselves. Mr. BLOUNT. — But this is not a matter of personal difference. It is more than that. I say I do not want it to go to the country that I am giving my concurrence to either the majority report or what my friend now claims to present as the minority report. Mr. BELMONT. — • Let me say, Mr. Speaker, in justice to the gentle- man from Georgia, that this report embodies my own individual views upon this question, and I present it simply as a minority report embody- ing those views. The SPEAKER. — The views of the minority will be printed with the report of the majority. Mr. BLOUNT. — I do not want the matter to be misunderstood. My friend does not claim, as I understand, that he presents any other views than his own. The SPEAKER. — Certainly, those would be the views of the minority. Mr. BLOUNT. — But there may be several minority reports. I do not want it to be understood as a report embodying the views of all of those who dissent from the majority report. I do not want to be understood as favoring it. EECOED IN" COXGEESS. 149 Mr. BELMOXT.— I am aware of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the gentle- man from Georgia diifers from me in that matter. As I have said, I present simply my own views as a member of the minority of the committee. . MINORITY REPORT: . Mr. BELMONT, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, submitted the following as his own minority opinion in regard to the joint resolu- tion reported to the House from that committee on January 16, 18S3, " providing conditionally for the termination of the treaty of the United States with the Hawaiian Government, signed June 3, 1875: " \ On January 16, 1882, the House referred to the committee a bill, No. 2924, introduced by Mr. Darrall, and a joint resolution, No. 102, introduced by Mr. Hardy. The purpose and object of each were to termi- nate the treaty, and to authorize and dinxt the President to give to His ;Majesty, the King of the Hawaiian Islands, a notice of the wish of the United States. The joint resolution reported to the House on January 16, 1883, repudiates and rejects the proposition that had been referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee. It requests the President to negotiate a revision of the treaty. The treaty, as it now stands, makes no mention of a classification, either by the Dutch standard test or by the polariscope test. The only test is a commercial designation. But the joint resolu- tion reported by a majority of the committee asks for a change in the existing treaty, so " as to permit the character and grade of such duty- free sugars to Ije determined by their percentage of absolute fineness or clarification, instead of the color test under the e.visting DuteJi standard." If the last part of that sentence is to be taken, as I think it must he taken, as an intimation that the existing treaty test is " the color test under the existing Dutch standard," then the joint resolution contains an incorrect interpretation and description of the treaty. The contro- versy which, to the annoyance of legitimate trade and business, has been going on for some time past in the Treasury Department and in the Fed- eral courts between Dutch bottles and the polariscope as tests for the classification of imported sugars, is exhibited in the case of Merritt v. Welsh, 10-4 U. S. 694. WHAT DOES THE TEEATY STIPULATE? I do not propose now to discuss whether the treaty, or the test of commercial designation, were in 1875, or are now, expedient or inex- pedient, wise or unwise. I am considering whether or not the draughts- 150 EECOED IN CONGRESS. man of the joint resolution has correctly interpreted the treaty. The language is: Muscovado, brown, and all other unrefined sugars, meaning thereby the grades of sugar heretofore commonly imported from the Hawaiian Islands, and now known in the markets of San Francisco and Portland as " Sandwich Islands sugars." Another clause in the treaty stipulates that the articles to be duty free must be " the growth and manufacture or produce of the Hawaiian Islands." Every descriptive word used in the foregoing classification is com- mercial. The language is addressed to commercial men engaged in the business of importing and dealing in sugars. The words " muscovado," " brown," and " unrefined," as well as " sugar," are used in a commercial sense, and as understood by importers and wholesale dealers in the prin- cipal markets. How such and similar words in tariff laws are to be interpreted and applied by customs officers, Judges and jurors, is set forth in the notable case of Barlow v. The United States, which is to be found in the seventh volume, page 404, of " Peters' Supreme Court Eeports." In order that sugar be duty free, under the treaty and the law of August 15, 1876, the customs officers must find as facts: 1. That the sugar is the growth and manufacture of the Hawaiian Islands. 2. That it comes within the phrase " muscovado, brown, and all other unrefined sugars." 3. That it is of the grade commonly imported from the Hawaiian Islands, before 1875, as " Sandwich Islands sugar," and of the grade known in the markets of San Francisco and Portland as " Sandwich Island sugar." Not a word is said of Dutch standard in defining the " grade" any more than the polariscope. The custom-house appraisers must ascertain the " grade " commonly imported from the Sandwich Islands before 1875, as they distinguish refined from unrefined sugar, molasses from con- centrated meloda, iron from steel, or as they ascertain what the law- makers meant by benzoates, or burning fluid, or shaddocks, or Hoffman's anodyne, all of which are named in section 3504 of the statutes. A QUESTION OF LAW AND DIPLOMACY. The joint resolution reported by a majority of the committee will, if adopted by Congress, be a direction to the President to carry on a nego- tiation with a foreign power upon a prescribed line, accompanied by an EECOKD IN CONGKESS. 151 implied menace to that foreign Government that if the negotiation fails, the American Government will give notice of termination provided for by the fifth article of the treaty. Would Congress direct such a menace to be addressed, under such circumstances, to a great power like Germany or Great Britain? There are, as it seems to me, grave objections to such proposed inter- ference by the houses of Congress with the treaty-making power. That power is by the Constitution as completely and absolutely vested in the President and the Senate as the " power to gTant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States " is vested in the President. Tlie bill and joint resolution originally referred to the committee " authorize and direct " the President to do a specific act under the Hawaiian treaty, which act was to give notice of the wish of the United States to termi- nate the same. Whether or not, under such a treaty as that with the Hawaiian Islands, tlie President may give the notice without the advice, consent and authority of either or both houses of Cpngress, is not quite clear upon the precedents. When, in the early history of the Govern- ment, Congress was of the opinion that certain treaties with France had been repeatedly violated by the French Government, Congress declared without any reference to the President, by a law which was approved by the President July 7, 1798, that the treaties " shall not henceforth be regarded as legally obligatory upon the Government or citizens of the United States." In 1827 a treaty was made between the United States and Great Britain respecting the navigation of certain rivers, bays and creeks, in wliat is now Oregon, which provided that either party might abrogate and annul the same on giving twelve months' notice. In that case, Congress, ]jy a Joint resolution, which the President approved April 27, 1846, authorized the President " at his discretion " to give the iiotice. In 1855, a resolution was adopted by the Senate, and without the con- currence of the House, under which the President gave notice to Den- mark to terminate a commercial convention of 182G with that country touching the Sound dues. During the ensuing session of tlie Senate, Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, offered a resolution to the effect that the action of both Houses, " as in the case of an ordinary act of Congress, was necessary to make the notice effective." The subject was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Senate, wliicli reported adversely to Mr. Sumnei-'s views; but no further action appears to have been taken in the matter. If the joint resolution reported by the committee should pass the two Houses, and be aj)])roved by the President, his approval would be an 153 EECOED IN CONGEESS. expression of his acquiescence in the necessity and propriety of the pre- scribed diplomatic action. But if, in his opinion, it were not expedient to enter upon the proposed line of negotiation, then he might feel con- strained to veto the joint resolution, which veto might raise an incon- venient issue between the treaty-making power and Congress. The question whether or not a notice of termination shall be given under an article like that in the Hawaiian Islands treaty, is primarily an executive question. The facts requisite for its proper decision are, or should be, in the possession or within the reach of the Executive Depart- ment. In the present case there has been no evidence before the com- mittee to show tliat a serious application has ever been made to the President to give the notice provided for by the treaty. PEOCEEDINGS BEFOEE THE COMMITTEE. Nearly a year ago, in February or March, 1883, your committee gave five or six days to the hearing of representations and arguments for and against the termination of the treaty. A verbatim report of the proceed- ings has been printed, and is before the House. The applicants for the abrogation of the treaty were represented before the committee by Mr. Gibson, Mr. DaiTall, and Mr. King, Eepresentatives from the State of Louisiana; by Mr. Hardy, a Representative from the State of New York; by Mr. Sypher, formerly a Eepresentative in Congress for the State of Louisiana; and by Mr. Brown, formerly a Treasury agent of the United States, who appeared to be representing the interests of the sugar planters of Louisiana. The opposition to the abrogation of the treaty was repre- sented before the committee by the late Mr. Allen, then the Minister at Washington from His Majesty, the King of the Hawaiian Islands, and by Mr. Boutwell, who was Secretary of the Treasury under President Grant. I refer thus specifically to the proceedings of the committee in order that the House may understand by whom, and in what presence, the very grave accusations were made against the Hawaiian Government, the Treasury Department, and the customs officers of the United States, to which I shall hereafter allude. If the allegations thus made respecting the practical workings of the Hawaiian treaty shall turn out to be founded in fact, I think this House and the country will agree that one of the most colossal frauds has been perpetrated against the revenue of this Government that has ever been brought to light. The representations made to the committee do not so much tend to show that the treaty was or is defective and vicious, as that the consular and customs officers who have administered the law enacted to enforce the treaty have been either incompetent or corrupt. There can be no doubt that there has been, EECOKD IX COXGKESS. 153 since 1876, an enormous increase in the quantity of sugar imported from the Sandwich Islands into the United States. In the year 1876 only 20,978,374 pounds of dutiable sugars were imported therefrom. In 1877 there were 30,685,142 pounds of free sugars imported; and in 1881 76,900,207 pounds were imported. The arguments of those who, before the committee, advocated the abrogation of the treaty were, that the dutiable value of those sugars imported from the Sandwich Islands in 1881 was $4,927,021; and that, as the average rate of duties on such sugars imported into the United States from other countries at that time was about sixty-two and one-half per cent, ad valorem, the United States lost by the importation of free sugars from the Hawaiian Islands, $3,079,388 of customs revenue. It was also said that the reports of exportation from the United States to' the Sandwich Islands in 1881, on file in the Treasury Department, show a total value of only $2,694,583, or a sum less by $384,805 than the before-mentioned loss to the revenue by the importation of those free sugars. It was said by the Hawaiian Minister, in reply, that the state- ments made to the committee respecting the foreign value of the sugars imported from the Sandwich Islands were incorrect, inasmuch as the invoices presented at our custom-houses contained fictitious values. Those who urged the abrogation of the treaty laid before the committee statistical tables professing to accurately give tlie Dutch standard of all these sugar importations from the Sandwich Islands. If those tables of Dutch standard were correct, they must, it is to be assumed, liave been taken by the customs officers of the United States, and at the time of importation. And if the sugars were correctly examined by the Dutch standard test, why did not the customs officers also discover that the large bulk of these sugars were not duty free within tiie meaning of the commercial test required by the treaty and the law of 1876? All the testimony before your committee tended to show that the treaty sugars were not below No. 7 and not al)Ove No. 10, Dutch standard; whereas the larger part of the sugars entered free from tlie Sandwich Islands were, according to the representations of :\lr. J')rown and Mr. Darrall, above No. 10 Dutch standard. HAWAIIAN AND AMERICAN FRAUDS. There is a feature of this sul)Ject, as it has been presented to your committee, which may have inconvenient consequences, if not delicately and cautiously dealt ^^^th by the United States. It is to be inferred from the statements made by Mr. Gibson (page 49 of the printed report of the proceedings) that there are eighty-two sugar plantations on the Sand- 20 154 RECOED IN CONGEESS. wich Islands owned by eighteen business firms, of which all but a very- few are American. Mr. Brown intimated that the " Hawaiian Govern- ment and customs oificers (aided of necessity by the American Consul at Honolulu) have systematically falsified the invoices of sugar sent to this country under the treaty." I find, on inquiry at the Treasury Department, that Mr. Brown was a special agent of that department from August 18, 1873, to August 18, 1874. He declared himself to be " perfectly well satisfied from examination while a si^ecial agent of the Treasury Department, and from a rather general inclination to investi- gate matters, that sugars have been imported from the Hawaiian Islands that were not produced there." He also declared that he had made representations to that efl:ect to the President of the United States, as well as to the Ways and Means Committee of this House. The late Hawaiian Minister in this country declared that a statement had been made in a Boston newspaper to the effect that twenty millions of the imports of sugaxs into the United States, nonrdnally from the Sandwich Islands, really came through those islands from China. The attention of Mr. Comly, the American Minister, accredited to the King of the Sandwich Islands, having been called to this statement, he answered that — No such fraud could have been consummated without the connivance of all the Hawaiian and United States Consuls and custom-house officers of the forum res sitae (so to speak), in addition to the principals on both sides of the water. During the progi'ess of the inquiry before the committee there was this incident: The CHAIRMAN. — What is the quantity of sugar which you claim is intro- duced illegitimately under this treaty? Mr. BROWN.— Three-fourths of the present importation, which was in the neighborhood of from fifty to fifty-five million pounds for the year 1881 — or to the value of over $3,000,000. The CHAIRMAN. — Supposing that illegal importation was stopped, how wo aid that affect your position as to the abrogation of this treaty? Mr. BROWN. — If the illegal importation of this sugar was stopped, and if all sugar above seven Dutch standard were made to pay duty, I would say that the treaty was not hurting us. EVIDENCE OF THE FRAUDS. In order that the character of the evidence may appear on which have been made such serious accusations of revenue frauds, I will, for the convenience of the House, reproduce a few of the more prominent items of that evidence. Mr. Darrall declared (p. 6): There appears to have been a very remarkable increase of sugar production in those islands, an increase which we know to be utterly impossible. EECOED IX COXGEES-S. 155 There can be no question but that this treaty has been systematically violated from the first by the Hawaiian Government. That declaration distinctly arraigns the Hawaiian Government. Again (p. 7): It (as I think it can be proven), the Hawaiian Government has violated this treaty from the beginning in two important particulars; that of itself would be a sufficient reason for our abrogating the treaty at once. Again (p. 8): When the law was before the House for action, a protest was made by the refiners of the Pacific coast against bringing in any of the high grades of sugar, and so it was specially provided that only low grades of sugar should be imported from the Hawaiian Islands into this country. Previous to the treaty (in 1874- '75-'76), the grades of sugar imported into this country from the Hawaiian Islands all averaged from seven to ten Dutch standard, a low grade of unrefined sugar; not semi-refined, not vaouunm-pan sugar, but unrefined raw sugar. That and no other was to be admitted free of duty. The difference which the kind of sugar imported makes to the Government of the United States is simply this: The duty on low grades of sugar from seven to ten Dutch standard is but two and one-half cents per pound. That is the kind of sugar which was provided by the treaty to be admitted free of duty. But the producers of Hawaiian sugar (and the Govern- ment of the Hawaiian Islands permitted it), inmiediately on the treaty going into effect, began to export entirely different grades of sugar — grades of sugar not pro- vided for by the treaty, but absolutely prohibited by it, and they have systematic- ally and continuously, from the passage of the treaty, sent to this country these high grades of sugar. On page 9 is this declaration by ^Mr. Dan-all: Instead of their sugar being from seven to ten Dutch standard, which is liable to a duty of two and one-half cents per pound, the kind of sugar which they send us averages above fourteen Dutch standard, which should pay to the Govern- ment a duty of from three and one-half to four cents per pound. I am informed in the Bureau of Statistics that three-fourths of the sugar sent us from the Hawaiian Ishinds are above the grade provided in the treaty. The effect of it is simply this: That we not only allow them to send us low grades of sugar free of duty, but they are taking advantage of that and are sending us sugars of a grade higher than that provided by the treaty. Mr. Darrall introduced Mr. Brown, the chief witness respecting the frauds, in these words: Mr. Brown, who is here, and who is an expert on the sugar question, and is also a representative of the sugar planters of Louisiana, will be able to give the committee definite information. loG EECOED IX CONGRESS. Mr. Brown testified (p. 15) tlius: Since 1878 large numbers of vacuum-pans have been introduced in Hawaii, and drained sugars are no longer tlie rule, but exception, in sugar-making in the treaty- farored islands of Hawaii; hence, in 1881, there entered of raw material, 5,373,005 pounds; duty, $134,325; of vacuum-pan semi-refined sugar, 28,486,589 pounds; duty, $801,185; of vacuum-pan semi-refined, fit for consumption, 43,049,613 pounds; duty, $1,429,830; average, 3.14 cents per pound duty lost, or $2,415,230 by grades. Not a pound of these vacuum-pan sugars even assimilates the sugars exempted by the treaty as Sandwich Island sugars in 1876 and prior thereto. Let it be remembered that it is vacuum-pan sugars of high grade entered free from Hawaii, and surreptitiously from Cuba as raw material, that now raid upon American industries and revenues. Again, on page 16: Sheltered by the treaty, Hawaiian sugar producers not only manufacture their entire sugar product into grades averaging above No. 13 Dutch standard for this market, but mysteriously supply themselves with a large amount of raw sugar material in excess of local production hitherto claimed. China and Manila sugars might readily be imported and manufactured into higher grades for ship- ment to the Pacific coast, duty free. Such practices would quickly be prevented if Hawaiian sugars were made dutiable. On page 69: Thus, we find a jump in production in 1876 of 9,706,708 pounds, over forty-six per cent., with no new yield, and a jump in cost value of Hawaiian sugars of $1.87 per one hundred pounds in the first year of the treaty. Clearly, Honolulu invoices wore falsified before or since the treaty, and the Hawaiian officials, the American Consul, and the Hawaiian executives, who, as Mr. Allen shows, vouch for their own honesty — no uncommon thing in this country — must have sanctioned the fraud. On page 71: In answer to the claim that the sugars imported prior to the treaty were of grades running from No. 7 to No. 16 Dutch standard, and that the sugars im- ported duty free under the treaty are similar in color and are, therefore, entitled to free entry, it is only necessary to examine the treaty and then identify the sugars entered before the treaty and the sugars now entering duty free to find evidence that the treaty is being violated, the revenue defrauded, and the people oppressed by the Hawaiian treaty. In my judgment, founded upon the evidence produced by the classification of facts and authentic figures, at least seventy-five or eighty (75 or 80) per cent, of the sugars now entered for consumption duty free from Hawaii are not exempted by the treaty, but under the law are dutiable sugars. RECOED IX COXGEESS. 157 In reply to the charge of delivering in our ports Chinese sugars as Hawaiian sugars, the late American Minister of the King declared (p. 2T): For five or six years the total amount of sugar that was brought into the islands was nine thousand one hundred and seven pounds, at the rate of about one thou- sand five hundred pounds a year, which was a portion of the stores of ships. I shall leave the question of smuggling where it is. It needs no additional state- ment or argument in illustration of its absurdity. I regret that the gentlemen (who undoubtedly believed what they said here) did not, before they made their statements, take the precaution of informing them- selves, as they might have done by writing to the United States Minister or Con- sul, or to any other person in business at the islands. I think that it was due to the Government of Hawaii and to this Government, as well as to ourselves, that that should have been done. As to the quantity of sugars hrought from the Hawaiian Islands ii'to the United States, tlie late Minister said (p. 31): The following is a statement of the business of Hawaii with the United States since the adoption of the treaty: Importation of brown sugar from the islands: Tons. In 1ST7 ■ ■ ]5,.312 In 1878 15,184 In 1879 20,848 In 1880 30,792 In 1881 38,454 Total importation of dutiable sugar by the United States for the fiscal year 1881 was 928.827 From Hawaii 38,454 Total foreign importation 967,281 Quantity of Louisiana sugar produced 136,491 Total quantity of sugar imported and produced 1,103,772 Less imports at Sau Francisco: Dutiable sugars 13,489 Free from Hawaii 38,454 51,943 Total quantity of sugars imported and produced on the Atlantic coast 1,051,829 He insisted that the invoice valuations of sugars were excessive, and that the export values from the United States were incorrect. He pre- sented this table of free imports and exports from 18?7 to 1881, inclu- Bivo (p. 33): 158 EECORD IN CONGRESS. Recapitulation. Total free imports from islands $15,407,144 Total free exports to islands and expenditures in United States.,.. 13,982,574 Showing a balance in favor of the islands $1,424,570 Equal to an average yearly balance of trade in favor of the islands of, $285,000 This amount is largely reduced by the undervaluation of exports to the islands, such as lumber, etc., above referred to, and by the expenditure of money in the United States hy Hawaiian travelers. THE CONSULAR AND CUSTOM LAWS. I confess that I am at a loss to understand how these gigantic frauds upon the revenue of the United States were perpetrated. This Govern- ment maintains diplomatic and consular officers at Honolulu, and a large staff of customs officers at the several ports to collect the rates of duty levied by Congress, and to protect the revenue from frauds. At the last session of the Forty-sixth Congress an appropriation of $7,500 was made for a Minister resident at the Hawaiian Islands, and of $4:,000 for an American Consul at Honolulu. The Eevised Statutes of the United States, the regulations issued thereunder by the Treasury Department, and the regulations for the government of Consuls issued by the State Department set forth precisely and distinctly the rules which must govern the entry of all merchandise into the United States, whether dutiable or duty free. No entry of merchandise is permitted, excepting by the special order of the Secretary of the Treasury, unless the merchandise be accompanied by an invoice. What such invoice must contain is set forth in sections 2853 and 2854 of the Eevised Statutes. When pro- duced to the collector at a port of entiy, the invoice must have indorsed thereon a declaration, signed by the owner, "setting forth that the in- voice is in all respects true." Such invoice must, by section 715, be certified by the proper American Consul as a true invoice. By section 2863, the American Consul at Honolulu was required to report to the Collector of the Port where the revenue may be defrauded, or to the Secretary of the Treasury, any knowledge or belief he may have of any case, or any practice by any persons, whereby the revenue has been or may be defrauded. By section 5442 every Consul who knowingly and falsely certifies to any invoice shall be punished by a fine of not more EECOBD IX COXGEESS. 159 than $10,000, and by imprisonment for a term of not more than three years. And, in general, the consular regulations of the United States require the American Consul at Honolulu to diligently inquire respecting sugars exported from the Sandwdch Islands to the United States, to take samples thereof, and to keep the Treasury Department informed of any improper practices respecting the revenue which he may suspect are on foot in the consular district under his charge. Even when articles free of duty belong to foreign Ministers in Washington, the Treasury regulations require that an application for a free entry shall be accompanied by a bill of lading and statement of the number of packages, " with a general description of their contents," in order that the customs officers may examine such packages to ascertain if they cor- respond with the bill of lading and the statement. Sugar from the Sandwich Islands, even if free of duty, must be entered at the custom- house with as much formality as if dutiable. The entry paper must be signed and sworn to by the importer. Sugars entered under the Hawaiian treaty must be described in the language of the treaty, and must, by the collector, be sent to the regular appraisers for examination, who must on the invoice make a report to the collector; and if, after careful ex- amination, the appraiser classifies the sugars as duty free under the treaty, then the collector is autliorized to issue a free permit for the landing and delivery of the same to the importer, but not otherwise. Can it be — unless incompetency and demoralization have reigned su- preme among American officials in the Sandwich Islands, and among the customs officers where the sugars have been entered — that two- thirds of the importations of sugars from the Sandwich Islands since the treaty have, as Mr. Brown declared, been entered and passed in viola- tion of the treaty, and in fraud of the revenue laws of the United States? If an invoice or an entry has been made with intent to defraud the revenue of the United States by any fraudulent appliance or practice whatever, not only the merchandise described therein is to be forfeited, but if the merchandise has passed out of the possession of the Govern- ment, or is not in existence, the value thereof is to be forfeited and re- covered of the person making the entry. Those making the entry, and all customs officers concerned in such fraud upon the revenue, are liable to fine and imprisonment. If the persons who have made the fraudulent entries of sugars referred to by Mr. Brown are in the United States, both civil and criminal proceedings can be begun against them by the Govern- ment. Certain it is that these fraudulent appliances and practices can be prevented in the future. The following incident during the proceed- 160 RECORD IN CONGRESS. ings before the committee tend to make the workings of this treaty all the more inexplicable: Mr. KASSON. — You say that this large amount of sugar is introduced in viola- tion of the treaty provision? Mr. BROWN.— Yes. Mr. KASSON. — Have any cases been brought into court to settle that question? Mr. BROWN.— No, sir. I apprehend that the matter has been left in statu iio simply because it is generally understood that sugar from the Hawaiian Islands is free, and it is entered at San Francisco without protest or question. You will notice that the treaty does not distinctly designate anything in regai'd to the kind of sugar. It only refers to it as the sugar commonly known as " Sandwich Island sugar." Mr. KASSON. — The ground is taken that this is a fraud on the treaty. Now, whenever our tariff duties are violated by any country the parties in interest pro- test and bring the matter into court and get a decision from the court. Has that been attempted in this case? Mr. BROWN. — I do not know of any such attempt. I do not think it has been. This reply to Mr. Kasson, it is to be remembered, was given by one ^\•ho has been a special agent of the Treasmy Department, and who obtained his information in great part respecting these sugar frauds while in the employment of that department. It may be that if the House will refer to the regulations issued by the Treasurer Department on September 11, 1876, to enforce this treaty, a gleam of light may be thrown on this dark subject. Those regulations can be seen on page 894 and volurpe 22 of The Internal Eevenue Eecord. It will be discovered, on examination of the form of the oath to be taken on the Sandwich Islands by the shipper and before the American Consul, that no declaration is required from the owner or shipper respecting the " grade " of the sugars, as manifestly there should have been. The com- mercial " grade '' was the critical question. The customs oflEicers appear to have examined these sugars sufficiently to furnish the statistics produced before the committee respecting the numbers thereof according to the Dutch bottles test. But can it be that the Treasury Department did not provide those customs officials with bottles containing samples of the treaty sugars, by which all sugars im- ported from the Sandwich Islands were to be tested? Or, if the Treasury did supply the bottles containing the Sandwich Islands grade, then did the customs officers fail to apply those tests? CONCLUSION. I can not but think that instead of adopting the joint resolution re- ported by a majority of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, it is the duty EECORD IN CONGRESS. 161 of Congress to immediately adopt a joint resolution of sometLdng like the following tenor: Resolved, by tlie Senate mid House of Representatives of the United States, in Congress assembled. That the President of the United States be directed to insti- tute an immediate inquiry respecting the frauds upon the revenue of the United States, in violation of the act of Congress, approved August 15, 1876, chapter 290, entitled "An act to carry into effect a convention between the United States of America and His Majesty, King of the Hawaiian Islands, signed on January 30, 1875," which frauds have been set forth and described in the printed copy of " notes of hearing before the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Repre- sentatives, on the bill (H. R. No. 2924) to terminate said treaty." And if it shall appear to the President that any such frauds upon the revenue have been perpetrated, then the perpetrators, and all concerned therein, and especially all guilty diplomatic or consular officers of the United States, if any there be, shall be immediately proceeded against by criminal prosecutions; and also civil pro- ceedings shall be begun to forfeit the sugars, or recover the value of any sugars that have been entered at any custom-house of the United States in violation of customs laws. And, further, that the President be directed to report to Congress all the evidence obtained by him in respect to such frauds, and what steps he has taken under this resolution and the results thereof." It is proper that such a resolution he addressed to the President, in- asmuch as it concerns the sanctity of a treaty hetween the United States and a foreign nation; and inasmuch as diplomatic, consular and customs officers have been inculpated by the testimony before the Foreign Affairs Committee. The subjects of investigation, as well as the inculpated officials, are in part under the immediate jurisdiction of the Treasury Department, and in part under the immediate jurisdiction of the State Department. It is proper, therefore, that the subject be especially com- mitted, in its entirety, to the President of the United States, in order that he may take care, not only that while the treaty be in force it be faithfully executed, but that all violators of the treaty and the laws may be brought to swift and condign punishment. It also seems to me most proper that all furtlier action respecting a notice to Ilis Majesty, the King of the Hawaiian Islands, of the wish of the United States that the treaty be terminated shall be postponed until a message from the President shall have been received by Congress in reply to the proposed resolution. EEMARKS ON NICARAGUA CANAL. February 5, 1883. [see DECEMBER 11, 1883.] The House having under consideration bill (H. R. No. 6799), to incorporate the Maritime Canal Company of Nicaragua, Mr. BELMONT said: " The bill to incorporate the Maritime Canal Company of Nicaragua, 21 162 EECORD IN CONGRESS. as now presented to the House, does not, it is true, contain certain ob- jectionable features with regard to the financial guarantee of the enter- prise by this Government. Yet insuperable political objections to granting the charter under the present conditions still remain; and it is to til is chiefly I would call the attention of the House. This company is founded on a concession granted by the Nicaraguan Government; and by the fifty-first article of this concession, whicli I have here before me, the contractors, that is to say, Nicaragua and this company, reciprocally agree, whenever Nicaragua may think it desirable, to take measures that such of the Governments of America and Euro])e as they desire shall guarantee the neutrality of the canal with a view to soliciting the necessary conventions based upon the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. Now, Mr. Speaker, is the House prepared, by passing the proposed act of incorporation, to commit itself to the provisions of the Clayton- Bulwer treaty and by a law based upon this concession to admit the principle of joint guarantee of neutrality over the isthmian canal? According to the eighth section of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, not only England but any other power of Europe or of Central or South America may enter into this agreement, for a joint control over the transit. Will the House do this in the face of the settled policy of this Government, since the very inception of the treaty in 1850, and, even in disregard of the declarations of the present administration in regard to the treaty? It seems to me it is sufficient to say this in order to point out the neces- sity of further amendments to the bill, which shall also cover objections to the concessions itself in its present shape, before the House can under- take to give any consideration to the proposition. [siiE JULY 1(5. lS-().] SANDWICH ISLAND SUGAR. February 19, 1883. Mr. BELMONT submitted the following resolution, which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs: Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to transmit to the House all correspondence between officers of the Treasury Department or between those officers and any other person or persons, and all orders or decisions by the department respecting the execution of so much of the Hawaiian treaty of 3875 and the law of 1876 to enforce the same, as relates to Sandwich Island sugar. February 24, 1883. The Committee on Foreign Affairs reported back with a favorable recommendation the above resolution, which was adopted by the House. RECORD IX CONGRESS. 163 REMARKS ON IMPORTATION OP WORKS OF ART. February 26, 1883. [see JANUARY 29, 1883.] Mr. BELMONT.— Mr. Speaker, in order that the House may see who are asking Congress to aid and encourage American art by permitting the importation of foreign works of art free of duty, I desire to print in the Record the following names, comprising a few of the artists, painters, sculptors, engravers, art students, manufacturers of art work, and design- ers, who are petitioning for the passage by Congress of the bill in relation to the importation of works of art, H. R. 7417: Albert Bierstadt, 1271 Broadway. Walter Shirlan, 51 West Tenth street. Frederick Dielman, 51 West Tenth street. Wm. N. Chase, 51 West Tenth street. Krusenian Van Elty, 51 West Tenth street. J. C. Nicoll. Olin I>. Warner, 80 East Washington square. Wui. (Jedney Bunce. Frederick W. Freer, University. Geo. F. Shelton, University. H. W. Shurtliff. Albert Ryder, SO East Washington square. Wyatt Eaton, President Society of American Artists, 80 East Washing- ton scjuare. Richard M. Hunt, New York. B. S. Walcott, 54 East Forty-third street. H. Victor Newcomb, 683 Fifth avenue. Logan C. Murray, 37 Fifth avenue. Robert Lenox Kennedy, 99 Fifth avenue. Jacob H. Schiff, 35 West Fifty-seventh street. A. Wolff, 35 East Thirty-eighth streets Charles J. Ilaskin, 119 Broadway. Henry T. Drowiio, 147 AVest Thirty-sixth street. Wm. n. Tilliughast, New York. Stephen G. Clarke. W. T. Schley. Carl Schurz, New York. Robert W. Weir, 24 East Tenth street. J. Aldeii Weir, 80 East Washington square. Frank Ilinsuit, 171 Tremont street, Boston. ,1. IIoi)kinson Smith, 150 East Thirty-fourth street. Arthur Quartley, 1 Union square. Dr. J. Lewenberg, 129 East Sixly-third street. 164 , EECORD IN CONGRESS. R. Swaia Gifford, 152 West Fifty-seventh street. F. D. Willet, 578 Fifth avenue. H. G. Philpot, 49 Fifth avenue. Carlisle Truslow, 110 East Fifty-seventh street. Orrine Davis, The Burlington. Tiffany & Co., Union square. Charles S. Ward, 18 West Thirtieth street. A. L. Abbott, 337 Fourth avenue. Benoni Irwin, 152 West Fifty-seventh street. Wm. Sartain, 152 West Fifty-seventh street. D. W. Tryon, 152 West Fifty-seventh street. Will H. Low, Secretary Society American Artists, 152 West Fifty seventh street. Wm. Bailey Faxon, 152 West Fifty-seventh street. Walter Clark, 145 West Fifty-fifth street. T. S. Hartley, 145 West Fifty-fifth street. Frederick A. Marquand, 119 East Twenty-fourth street. H. G. Marquand, 21 West Twentieth street. Luther Kountze, 120 Broadway. Charles Lanier, 26 Nassau street. J. Pierpont Morgan, 23 Wall street. J. Seligman, 19 Broad street. Howard Potter, 57 Wall street. James M. Brown, 59 Wall street. Samuel D. Babcock, 50 Wall street. William Alexander, 27 West Thirty-fifth street Francis Lathrop, 80 East Washington square. H. Pruett Share, University Building. M. J. Burns, University Building. Frank Fowler. A. J. Conant, 51 West Tenth street. A. D. Shattuck, 51 West Tenth street. A. Carey Smith, 51 West Tenth street. Frank Waler, 337 Fourth avenue. J. W. Champney, 337 Fourth avenue. Nicholas B. Kittell, 337 Fourth avenue. H. R. Bischoff, New York. Samuel P. Avery, New York. L. P. Di Cesnola, New York. Wm. L. Anderson, New York. C. Thaxter Hill, Art Students' League. Frederick Bladel, Art Students' League. Emil M. Allewelt, Art Students' League. John Macdonald, Art Students' League. Ernest L. Major, Art Students' League. Henry Pulwitz, Art Students' League. H. Bolton Jones, 58 West Fifty-seventh street. Carroll Beckwith, 58 West Fifty-seventh street. Edron H. Blashfield, 58 West Fifty-seventh street. R. W. Van Boskerek, .58 West Fifty-seventh street. Robert Blum, 58 West Fifty-seventh street. A. H. Wyand, 58 West Fifty-seventh street. EECORD IX CONGRESS. 165 Thos. S. Clarke, Union square, W. T. Smedley, South Union square. Lewis St. Gaudens, SO East Washington square. Aug. St. Gaudens, 148 West Thirty-sixth street John Taylor Johnston. W. C. Prime. Frederick E. Church. H. H, Chittenden, New York. Edward Jordan, New York. Thacher M. Adams, New York. S. W. Evarts, New York. W. E. Dodge, Jr., New York. Geo. De Forest Ford. New York. Samuel Thorn, New York. Willis K. Jessup, New York. Charles H. Holed. New York. Henry F. Spaulding, New York. Wm. Buchanan, New York. Wm. H. Fogg, New York. J. Paton, New York. II. D. Coursy. F. H. Church, 58 East Thirteenth street. B. N. Mitchell, 58 East Thirteenth street. James Symington, 58 West Fifty-seventh street, Harry Chase, 58 West Fifty-seventh street. C. B. Owen, 58 West Fifty-seventh street. S. H. St. John, 58 West Fifty-seventh street. T. W. Dewing, 139 West Fifty-fifth street. Mrs. M. R. Dewing, 139 West Fifty-fifth street. Ella F. Pell, 139 W^est Fifty-fifth street. De Witt C. French, 139 West Fifty-fifth street. George Inness. L. M. Niles, 52 East Twenty-third street. H. Amy, 21 Nassau street. J. B. Trcnn, Yonkers. R. D. Sawyer, Art Students' League. J. Lewis Webb, Art Students' League. Carl A. Widner, Art Students' League. John F. J. Fresch, Art Students' League. Poultncy Bigelow, 21 Gramercy park. Elliott Roosevelt, 8 West Fifty-seventh street Robt. W. De Forest, 7 Washington square. J. E. Ilindon Hyde, 152 East Twenty-seventh street. Frederic II. Belts, 78 Irving place. Horace Russell, 44 West Thirty-fourth street Duncan D. Parmly, New York. J. L. O'Sullivan, New York. Chas. H. Ward, 193 Second avenue. Henry Marquand, New York. Park Godwin, 19 East Thirty-seventh street. Neil M. Keating, Art Students' I^eague. Jos. T. Clark, Art Students' League. 166 RECORD IN CONGRESS. Edgar S. Cameron, Art Students' League. W. S. Mary, 52 East Twenty-third street, A. F. Tait. John Peoli, 25 East Seventy-fourth street. Charles Harry Eaton, 52 East Twenty-third street. P. E. Rudell, 1 Union square. C. G. Turner, 11 East Fourteenth street. Wm. St. J. Harper, 11 East Fourteenth street. A. Seggin, 11 East Fourteenth street. John L. Fitch, 51 West Tenth street. Henry A. Ferguson, 52 East Twentj'-third street. E. D. Foster, Englewood, N. J. J. W. Collender, New York. Bernard Roelker, New York. George Mosie, New York. Geo. A. Cusker, New York. J. A. Roosevelt, New Y'ork, D. Willis James, New Y'^ork. J. M. S. Alexander, New York. E. A. Willard, New York. ENGRAVERS. T. Cole, New York. John H. Whitney, New York. Minna Williams, New York. Henry Vetten, New York. E. T. Feinemann, New York. W. H. Morse, New York. M. L. Owens, New York. Wm. H. Lippincott, artist, 44 West Thirtieth street. Chas. F. Ulrich, artist, 1153 Broadway. John H. Sherwood, 531 Fifth avenue. A. Irwin, New York. R. H. Carson, New York. C. A. Powell, New York. J. A. Taylor, New York. A. Waldyer, New Y'ork. H. Davidson, New York. G. Schwartzburger, New York. J. J. Blodgett, New York. John J. Level, 21 West Fiftieth street. Charles W. Lamed, Professor U. S. Military Academy, West Point. In order to meet the only objection that has been made against the bill, I would favor an amendment striking out the word " hthographs " from the second section. [see continued, DECEMBER 11, 1883.] RECOKD IX COXGRESS. 167 SPEECH AT A DIXXEE TENDERED BY ME. BELMONT'S CON- STITUENTS. Babylon, N. Y., June 9, 1883. Mr. Belmont said: — Are you quite sure, my friends, that I deserve all this? Certainly, none but the most partial and generous of friends, such as you, would so kindly magnify what I have done, or even what I have attempted, during the short time that I have been your Representative in Congress. I hope that my action on such public questions as have been presented to me, has been in harmony with the wishes and opinions of a majority of the voters of this district. THE AUTUMN OF 1882. When we took counsel together as Democrats, at New Brighton, Staten Island, on the eve of the last November election, I said, among other things, to our friends there assembled, that the questions of the near future would be over " the principles and methods of taxation." I al- luded to the requirements of our political system, tliat " taxes shall be levied for public purposes only," and that all taxes, whether direct or indirect, must be submitted to that test. Hence, the Democratic conten- tion in this State in 1873 and 1874, and in the National Conventions of 187G and 1880, that duties should be levied "for revenue." I urged that no sudden changes should be made in the tariff tables as would inequitably interfere with vested rights. That the existing excessive taxation, both State and National, has reduced the purchasing power of those wages. That the labor strikes constantly occurring in different por- tions of the country, indicated that laboring men fancied they did not get their share of the benefit of tlio e([uivalent of the forty-three ])er cent, average ad valorem duty then levied on aljout $.500,000,000 in value annually imported into the country. That commerce must be in exchange for surplus productions; and tliat if we sold in Europe we must buy in Europe; and that a tariff of duties which impeded buying in foreign markets would also impede tlie selling of American staples in the markets of the world. Did not that contention of Democrats in this Congressional district represent the subsequent popular uprising all over the countr}-? 168 ' EECORD IN CONGRESS. WHAT INSPIRED THE VOTERS IN 1883? And, my friends, what feelings, passions, sentiments or purposes were behind this contention of ours in November, that manifested itself on election day at every ballot-box from the Atlantic to the Pacific? Was there not the feeling that the Government had, by its interference, made everything in America more costly and expensive than it need be? And was there not a purpose to try to remedy the evil? The movement in November was a popular movement, darting suddenly along like a wave of flame. The laboring men, who are buyers and consumers, discovered that every tax diminishes the purchasing power of every dollar received as wages, because that tax has entered into and enhanced the price of articles they had bought and used. The American manufacturers, who desired a foreign market, had learned that excessive American taxation so increased the cost of American pro- duction as to hinder the sale of their products in foreign markets. The hoarse cry about the dangers and perils to us from European pauper labor had encountered the fact that American wheat could compete successfully in Mark Lane, London, with Eusssian wheat, gi'own on land around the Black sea, equally fertile, equally cheap, and produced by labor the cheap- est of any in Europe; and with the cost of freight from the American wheat fields to Liverpool or Bremen greater than from those Eussian fields. American mechanics and inventors had come to realize that if the Government would only take off its clumsy hand of taxation and interference, such American genius and energy as that which planned and have completed the Brooklyn bridge, could defy the world in the rivalries of industry. And more than that ! Those farseeing voters, who had carefully studied the whole field of industrial observation, had be- come convinced that British manufacturers feared that, with reduced American taxation and free raw materials, American enterprise and energy would open all the ports of the world to American staples and manu- factures in successful competition with England, our principal commer- cial rival. WHAT THE LAST CONGRESS DID, In the canvass of 1882 there were three questions which it then seemed to the Democrats of this district ought to be, and would be, prominent in the deliberations of the following session of Congress. Those ques- tions were: The tariff question, the shipping question, and the question of civil service reform. Each of those questions did come before Congress very conspicuously. Civil service reform was dealt with by a new law, and the responsibility for the working of that civil service reform is now with the Executive. EECOKD IX CONGRESS. 169 There was not^ unfortunately, a successful treatment of the shipping question. In the matter of the tariff, the November election distinctly warned President Arthur and the Secretary of the Treasury, that the whole question of taxation and expenditure had come to the front and would demand attention. The creation of a Tariff Commission in May, 1882, which, by the law of its creation, was compelled to report to Con- gress not later than the 1st of December, 1882, contributed to enforce an early executive consideration of the question. The President, in his annual message, denounced the existing tariff system as "unjust." He urged " immediate and extensive reductions in the annual revenues of the Government." He declared that " only such taxes ought to be levied as are necessary for a wise and economical administration of the Govern- ment." He suggested that " all internal taxes, save those which related to distilled spirits, could be prudently abrogated." He insisted on the enlargement of the customs free list, and a simplification of the " com- plex and inconsistent schedules," and a substantial reduction of the rates on " sugar, molasses, silk, wool and woolen goods," as well as the rates on *' manufactures of cotton, iron and steel." The Secretary of the Treasury, while advising a retention of the internal revenue tax on beer and tobacco as well as on spirits, urged a reduction of the tariff in the sense indicated by the President. When Congress assembled, in December, the revenue committees literally began a race of rivalry, as between the Senate and the House, to be the first to present a tariff reform measure. Thus, at the outset of the session, showing a willingness to heed the popular de- mand. The country became more interested in the question than it had been since the Civil war began. The newspapers, of whatever shade of political opinion, seemed to be in white heat over the dis- cussions and disputes about a "tariff for revenue," or "a tariff for protection," or " a tariff for revenue only," as two recent Demo- cratic National Conventions, the one of 1876 and the one of 1880, had demanded. I do not need to detain you with a description of the in- adequate outcome of this mountain of labor. You have seen the disap- pointing and unavaihng and ridiculous mouse. The voice of the people, as pronounced in November, was finally disregarded. The will of an over- whelming majority of voters of the State of New York was in this respect ignored by its two Senators, and by many of its Eepresentatives. Tariff reform was suffocated and strangled by a Eepublican Congress at the dictation of certain manufacturers who fancied their interests required the maintenance of this excessive taxation, many of whom have since realized their error. So much for the last Congress. And now for the future. 22 170 RECORD IN CONGRESS. THE QUESTION OF THE FUTURE IS TAXATION AND EXPENDITURES. It is impossible for me to doubt whether or not the intelligent voters of this Congressional district are thinking about this matter of Government taxation and expenditure. The letters that I receive, and the conversa- tions that I hear, compel me to be conscious that they are thinking of it, and especially concerning its effect upon the welfare of the workingmen of this district. There is no need of mystery in this business. The work- ingmen do pay, under our present system of taxation, State and National, proportionately more tax than they should pay. The Federal census of 1880 has brought to light a great mass of new and startling facts concern- ing the amount and the incidence of taxation. Last year the Federal Government levied and collected internal and external taxes to the amount of more than $367,000,000. Who paid that colossal sum? In addition, the several States collected as States over $60,000,000, to say nothing of the other vast sums raised by county, town and city taxation. Those taxes, each and all, entered into and increased the price of articles that the workingman purchased, hired, used or consumed, and workingment have, as a rule, large families, and there are many mouths to feed. The taxes on houses and lands enhance the rent of the rooms which the workingman and his family occupy. In the year 1883 the foreign value of the mer- chandise imported into this country, exclusive of coin and bullion, was something over $724,000,000. Of this merchandise about $500,000,000 in value were dutiable, and some $300,000,000 were free of duty. The average ad valorem rate of duty on the dutiable merchandise was about forty-three per cent., and on the whole mass of importation it was some thirty-two per cent. The average prices of imported dutiable goods were enhanced by customs taxation forty-three per cent. But the existing tariff has not been arranged, only with a view to collecting the $230,410,730.25 that were collected by the custom-houses in 1883. The rates were ar- ranged also to impede the importation of certain articles, as for example, coarse blankets, in order that certain domestic manufacturers could have a monopoly of the American market, and thus be enabled to levy taxes on every workingman who purchases a domestic blanket for his bed. Thus it happens that the more than $300,000,000, paid by the country to the collectors of customs, were no measure and test of the taxation inflicted by the tariff. There were " protective " taxes as distinguished from " rev- enue " taxes. Who can compute the total sum of those protective taxes paid in 1888? Mr. Eobert J. Walker, in his treasury report of 1847, es- timated that on the average of dutiable goods, the price of corresponding domestic goods is enhanced by at least two-thirds of the duties. Mr. Burchard calculated in 1876 that of $14 paid by the workingman on ac- count of increased prices caused by the tariff, less than $5 went into the RECORD IN CONGRESS. ITl • Treasury, and over $9 went into the pockets of the manufacturers. The total value of the manufactured products of this country in the census year of 1880 is put down at $5,369,667,706. How much were the ])rices of such of those articles, as were purchased hy workingmen, enhanced by the forty-three per cent, average duty on similar imported articles, all of which increase went into the pockets of manufacturers? THE EXCESSIVE TAXATION IS INJURIOUS TO THE MANUFACTURERS OF NEW YORK. I have no feehngs of hostiUty or resentment against the manufacturers in this district. Far from it! There are those among them who have been and are my steadfast friends. This Congressional district has within its limits a fairly-balanced representation of all the great industries of this imperial commonwealth of the State of Xew York — agricultural, com- mercial and manufacturing. This Congressional district is on the seaward side of that vast commercial metropolis now embracing New York and Brooklyn, which grasps in one hand the golden harvest of the West, while i\ath the other it espouses the everlasting sea! The manufacturing in- dustry is as near and as dear to us as is the agricultural, the commercial, the shipping or the railroad industr}\ I plead to-day for all the well- selected and well-conducted manufacturing business of this district when I ask why it shall not have free raw materials from abroad, a.< well as sliip- builders? In the Tariff Act of 1872 and reproduced in sections 3,513 and 2,514 of the Revised Statutes, you will find that every article of foreign production, needed for the repair and rebuilding of American vessels, en- gaged exclusively in foreign trades, can be entered free of duty; and that nearly every article necessaiy for the construction and equipment of ves- sels built in the United States for foreign trade, can also be imported and used free of duty. Why, I beg to know, shall not all the manufacturers of this district as well be permitted to iin])ort foreign materials free of duty? Why shall not farmers for the repair and rebuilding of their dwell- ing-houses and barns, and for the rey)air of their agricultural implements? Why shall not the railways be permitted to import the materials for the repair of their rolling stock and tracks free of duty? If then the employ- ment of labor at the American rate of wages is to be maintained, must not Congress do for the other industries what it has done for the shipi)ing industry? My friends, I do not wish to weary you by a consideration of this ques- tion of taxation. I speak of the tariff, at this time, because I believe the more the question is discussed, the more clearly the country will see that their interests require tarifE reform. If there had Ijcen an adequate discus- sion of the tariff question in 1879, General Garfield would never have been 172 RECORD IN CONGRESS. elected. In 1883 there is an opportunity to prevent in 1884. a repetition of the blunder which was so fatal in 1880. And moreover there is little patience to be expected for hard facts and dry figures in the last hours of a Presidential campaign. I hear it said, here and there, that the welfare of all the laborers of America hinges on the tariff question. Can that be so? Are there no workingmen and workingwomen in this land excepting those employed by manufacturers? Let us see: Throughout the United States there were, in 1880, only 3,738,930 men, women and children all told, out of a total population of over 50,000,000, employed in all the factories and mining establishments in the United States. What is the relation of the manufacturing and mining oc- cupation and industry to all the occupations and industries of the State of New York? "The Empire State" has a greater number of manufacturing establishments, uses therein a larger amount of capital, employs therein more working people, pays therein annually a larger sum of wages, applies therein energy and capital to a greater variety and value of raw materials, and exhibits at the end of the year a greater sum total of manufactured products of all kinds than any other State in the Union. In all of these elements of industry New York is far ahead of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Jersey or Illinois. The yearly value of the manufactured products of New York is more than twice and a half as large as that of the whole of New England. Indeed, it bears the rela- tion to the value of the manufactured products of New England and Pennsylvania combined, of $1,080,696,596 to $1,219,841,464, or of 108 to 131. Is not New York entitled to be heard, and her position con- sidered, in this tariff discussion ? Let us look a little closer into the statistics! There are, in the State of New York, 43,739 manufacturing and mining establishments. All of these employ 531,536 persons, of whom 364,579 are males above sixteen years of age, and 137,455 are females above sixteen years of age, and 39,529 are children and youths. But the total population of New York, as given by the last census, was 3,981,428. Of these, 377,460 were agri- cultural laborers; 537,897 were engaged in professional and personal ser- vices; and 339,419 were engaged in trades and transportation. So that out of nearly 3,000,000 of persons in the State of New York, engaged in all kinds of occupations, only about one-fourth were manufacturers, mechanics and miners. ^ Now, my friends, how can it be that any tariff rates, arranged and de- vised to benefit so small a percentage of the workingmen of the State of New York, can infiuence and increase the fanning wages, the railway wages, the mercantile wages, the shipping wages, the teachers' wages, the household wages, the fishing wages, the hotel wages, or, indeed, any other EECOED IN CONGKESS. 173 wages in this State? Even if the wages of every one were nominally in- creased, the purchasing power of each dollar of wages is diminished when- ever Congress, by impeding the importation of any article like coarse blankets, or window glass, or clothing, enables the American manufacturer to increase the price. In this country of cheap land, of fertile land, and of relatively sparse population, is it not agriculture that regulates the prices of labor? I may be mistaken, and if so I desire to be corrected; but the evidence tends to show that there is in this country at this moment a quantity of capital, of machinery, and of labor embarked in the manu- facturing and mining industries beyond what is required by the consumers of the country. Does not all the testimony show that, when a mill in New England is destroyed by fire, it is not, as a rule, rebuilt? What, but the excess of supply over the demand of the home market, can be the signi- ficance of the strikes which are now beginning to convulse the manu- facturing industries of the West? If I am right in my conjecture, then the thing above all others which the manufacturing industry of this country requires is a foreign market; and to obtain that foreign market there must be cheapened production. The alternative, therefore, is that either the manufacturers of this Congressional district must have the raw ma- terial free of duty, or they will inevitably be compelled to reduce the rate of wages, and to that we all object. THE ORGAXIZATION OF THE NEXT DEMOCRATIC HOUSE. Now nobody, of whom I have heard, proposes to straightway abolish American custom-houses, and throw open our ports to the free entry of all foreign merchandise. Nobody, of whom I have heard, denies that the Federal Government must collect $200,000,000, if not $2.50,000,000, or even $300,000,000 annually by customs-house duties. Nobody, actually nobody, of whom I have heard, and who does not represent a subsidized interest, pretends to assert that $300,000,000, or $250,000,000, or even $200,000,000 can possibly be collected from arriving foreign imports with- out affording an ample safe guard to the capital now invested in American manufacturing, and ample incidental protection to all domestic industries, whether infant or adult. This, then, my friends, is the situation: A Democratic House is to assemble in Washington next December. For the doings of that House the Democratic party of the country will be held responsible. The Demo- cratic party solicited from the voters the control of the next House; and the voters, in November last, gave it to them. Now, in what direction, and for what purpose, did and do the voters intend and wish the Demo- cratic members of the next House to exercise that power? The question 174 EECOKD IN CONGRESS. is a practical question which you, my friends, in behalf of the Democratic voters of this Congressional district can answer; and that answer it is my duty and will he my pleasure to heed. Would it not he silly as well as weak for us to first shut oiir eyes and ears, and then deny that the problem of organizing the next Democratic House is under Democratic considera- tion all over the country? There are those in the country, Eepublicans and Democrats, who demand that the questions of taxation and tarijff reform shall be not touched at all by the next House. Others insist that a portion or all of the internal revenue taxes shall be swept away, and yet the tariff be left to stand as it was hurriedly arranged by the last Eepublican Congress. No one so far as I know questions the power of Congress to prohibit under the clause in the Constitution "to regulate commerce with foreign nations," importation, as was done by the last Congress in regard to adulterated and spurious teas, for instance. But the Democratic party, as I understand it, does deny that under the revenue clause of the Constitution Congress can properly levy duties for any other purpose than " for revenue." If protection can^ under the revenue clause, be only an incident to revenue, then, manifestly, Con- gress should consider itself restrained by the Constitution from carrying the incident beyond the principal powers. I do not say that the judicial power can control the law-making power as to rates of duty, but I do say that Congress should in that matter exercise the constitutional restraint upon itself. There are a good many Democrats Avho urge that every Democratic member of the next House, who is a wise, and a far-seeing, and a fore- seeing politician, will select a Speaker who will arrange the different com- mittees, and especially the Ways and ]\Ieans Committee, on the policy and plan of doing nothing, under any circumstances, about the tariff and about taxation. A great many other Democrats, on the other hand, feel that a Democratic Congress was chosen l;)y the voters because they wished those subjects dealt with; that those subjects can not be fastened and battened down, and that the Democratic House must, therefore, be or- ganized so as to deal witli those (juestions of taxation as well as ex])endi- ture. What do you say? The new Eepublican tariff will go into operation on the first day of next month, and nobody can now foresee its effect. Nobody can now foretell what rates the Treasury Department will, by interpretation, order to be levied. If the rates, plainly and distinctly levied, shall turn out to be monstrous, for example, like that of one hundred and twenty-one per cent., ad z'aloretn, levied on plate glass, is a Democratic House to stand dumb and motionless in face of the monster? If the Treasmy Depart- ment shall decide all questions of ambiguity in the law in favor of the KECORD IX CONGKi:&S. 175 monopolist manufacturers, and against consumers, is the House not to legislate to correct the error, and to remedy the evil? Is the existing scandalous system of custom-house protests, appeals, decisions, suits, and Treasury' refunds, in which too many officials are corrupt participants, to go on unhindered by a Democratic House? Were there many who foresaw, as you did in this district, in October, 1882, the general uprising of the voters in the next November, demanding reform in taxation, re- form in the tariff, and reform in expenditures? But who can now prophesy and announce what the people will, in January, 1884, demand of the next Congress? It is quite possible that the working of the new tariff will, from end to end of the country, excite emotions of aggressive hostility to that slipshod bit of Eepublican legislation. Shall, or shall not the next Democratic House be organized and equipped and disciplined to deal with that demand when it comes? In 1882 the total net ordinary expenditures including interest were $258,000,000, the total receipts from customs $220,000,000, and from internal revenue taxes $146,000,000. On that basis of receipts and expenditures how can the internal revenue taxa- tion be abolished without a revision of the tariff"? It is good politics to declare in advance that the next House will not touch tariff reform, nor tax reform, and the House shall be organized in order to resist, and run away from any and all demands of the country that the consumers of manufactured articles, the manufacturers themselves, shall have their " day in court," now that a Democratic House has again come into power? Again, my Democratic friends, I ask, "what do you say to this?" And now, my friends, I am very much obliged to you for your atten- tion. Xeed I tell you that I shall ever hold in grateful remembrance your kindness to me to-day. APPENDIX. DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. The Pexsacola Telegraph Company v. The Western Union Telegraph Company. 1. The powers conferred upon Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, and to establish post-offices and iiost roads, are not confined to the instrumentalities of commerce, or of the postal service l08es," so far as it declares that the erection of telegraph lines shall, aa against State interference, be free to all who accept its terms and conditions, and that a telegraph company of one State shall not, after accepting them, be excluded by another State from prosecuting its business within her juris- diction, ia a legitimate regulation of commercial intercourse among the States, and is appropriate legislation to execute the powers of Congress over the postal service. 4. Nor is it limited in its operation to such military and post roads as are upon the public domain. 5. The statute of P^lorida approved December 11, 18(10, so far as it grants to the I'ensacola Telegraph Company the exclusive right of establishing and main- taining lines of electric telegraph as therein specified, is in conflict with that act, and, therefore, inoperative against a corporation of another State entitled t(i the )irivil(f,'('s which that act confers. 6. Without deciding whether, in the absence of that act, the legislation of Florida of 1874 would have been sufficient to authorize a foreign corporation to construct and operate a telegraph line within the counties of Escambia and Santa Rosa in that State, the court holds that a telegraph company of 180 APPENDIX. another State, which has secured ca right of way by private agreement with the owner of the land, and duly accepted the restrictions and obligations required by that act, can not be excluded by the Pensacola Telegraph Company. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Florida. In 1859, an association of persons, known as the Pensacola Telegraph Company, erected a line of electric telegraph upon the right of way of the Alabama and Florida railroad, from Pensacola, iij Florida, to Pollard, in Alabama, about six miles north of the Florida line. The company operated the whole line until 18(32, when, upon the evacuation of Pen- sacola by the Confederate forces, the wire Avas taken down for twenty- three miles, and Cooper's Station made the southern terminus. In 1864, the whole was abandoned, as the section of the country in which it was situated had fallen into the possession of the United States troops. On the 1st of December, 1865, the stockholders met; and it appearing that the assets of the company were insufficient to rebuild the line, a new association was formed for that purpose, with the old name, and new- stock to the amount of $5,000 subscribed. A resolution was adopted by the new company to purchase the property of the old, at a valuation put upon it in a report submitted to the meeting, and a new board of directors was elected. A meeting of the directors was held on the 2d of January, 1866, at which the president reported the completion of the line to Pensacola, and a resolution was adopted, authorizing the purchase of wire for its ex- tension to the navy yard. The attorneys of the company were also instructed to prepare a draft of a charter, to be presented to the Legis- lature for enactment. On the 24th of July, 1866, Congress passed the follomng act: AN ACT to aid in the construction of telegraph lines, and to secure to the Government the use of the same for postal, military and other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled. That any telegraph company now organized, or which may hereafter be organized, under the laws of any State in this Union, shall have the right to construct, maintain and operate lines of telegraph through and over any portion of the public domain of the United States, over and along any of the military or post roads of the United States which have been or may hereafter be, declared such by Act of Congress, and over, under, or across the navigable streams or waters of the United States: Provided, That such lines of telegraph shall be so constructed and maintained as not to obstruct the naviga- tion of such streams and waters, or interfere with the ordinary travel on such military or post roads. And any of said companies shall have the right to take APPENDIX. 181 and use from such public lands the necessary stone, timber and other materials for its posts, piers, stations, and other needful uses in the construction, mainte- nance and operation of said lines of telegraph, and may pre-empt and use such portion of the unoccupied public lauds subject to pre-emption through which its said lines of telegraph may be located as may be necessary for its stations, not exceeding forty acres for each station; but such stations shall not be within fifteen miles of each other. § 2. And be it further enacted. That telegraphic communications between the scvernl departments of the Government of the United States and their officers and agents shall, in their transmission over the lines of any of said companies, have priority over all other business, and shall be sent at rates to be annually fixed by the Postmaster-General. § 3. And be it further enacted. That the rights and privileges hereby granted shall not be transferred by any company acting under this act to any other cor- poration, association or person: Provided, hozi'czrr. That the United States may at any time after the expiration of five years from the date of the passage of this act, for postal, military or other purposes, purchase all the telegraph lines, property and effects of any or all of said companies at an appraised value, to be ascertained by five competent, disinterested persons, two of whom shall be selected by the I'ostmaster-General of the United States, two by the company interested, and one by the four so previously selected. § 4. And be it further enacted, That before any telegraph company shall exer- cise any of the powers or privileges conferred by this act. such company shall file their written acceptance with the Postmaster-General, of tb(> restrictions and obligations required by this act. 14 Stat. 221; Rev. Stat., § 5263 et seq. All railroads in ihe United States are liy law post roads. Rev. Stat., § 3964; 17 Stat. 308, § 201. On the 11th of December, 18G6, the Legislature of Florida passed an act incorporating the Pensacola Telegraph Company, and granting it " the sole and exclusive privilege and right of establishing and main- taining lines of electric telegraph in the counties of Escambia and Santa Rosa, either from difTercnt points within said counties, or connecting with lines coming into said counties, or either of them, from any point in this [Florida] or any other State." The capital stock was fixed at $5,000, with the privilege of increasing it to such an amount as might be considered necessaiy. The company was authorized to locate and con- Btruct its lines within the counties named, "along and upon any public road or highway, or across any water, or upon any railroad or private property for which pennission shall first have been obtained from the proprietors thereof." In this act all the stockholders of the new associa- tion which had rebuilt the line were named as corporators. Xo meeting of the directors was held until January 2, 1808, when the secretary was instructed to notify the stockholders " that the charter drawn up by Messrs. Campbell & Perry, attorneys, as per order of board, January 2, 1866," had been passed. 183 APPENDIX. On the 5th of Jime, 1867, the directors of the defendant, the Western Union Telegraph Company, a New York corporation, passed the follow- ing resolution, which was duly filed with the Postmaster-General: Resolved, That tliis company does hereby accept the provisions of the act of Congress, entitled 'An act to aid in the construction of telegraph lines, and to secure to the Government the use of the same for postal, military and other purposes,' approved July 24, ISGG, witli all the powers, privileges, restrictions and obligations conferred and required tliereby; and that the Secretary be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to file this resolution with tlie Postmaster-Gen- eral of the United States, duly attested by the signature of the acting president of tJie company and the seal of the corporation, in compliance with the fourth section of said act of Congress. In 1872, the property of the x\lahama and Florida Kailroad Company, including its right of way and railroad, was transferred to the Pensacola and Louisville Eailroad Company; and on the 14th of February, 1873, the Legislature of Florida passed an act. Avhich. as amended February 18, 1874, authorized the last-named company " to construct, maintain and operate a telegraph line from the P)ay of Pensacola along the line of the said (its) road as now located, or as it may hereafter be located, and along connecting roads in said county to the boundary lines of the State of Alabama, and the said lines may connect and be consolidated with other telegraph companies within or \\dthout the State, and said company may pledge, mortgage, lease, sell, assign and convey the property appertaining to the said telegraph lines, and the rights, privileges and franchises con- ferred by this act, Avith full power in such assignees to construct, own and operate such telegraph lines, and enjoy all the privileges, rights and franchises conferred by this act; but in such case the said railroad com- pany shall be responsible for the proper performance of the duties and obligations imposed by this act." This was within the territory embraced by the exclusive grant to the Pensacola Telegraph Company. On the 24th of June, 1874, the Pensacola and Louisville Eailroad Com- pany granted to the Western Union Telegraph Company the right to erect a telegraph line upon its right of way, and also the rights and privileges confen-ed by the acts of February, 1873 and 1874. The Western Union Company immediately commenced the erection of the line; but before its completion, to-wit, July 27, 1874, the bill in this case was filed by the Pensacola Telegi-aph Company to enjoin the work and the use of the line, on account of the alleged exclusive right of the company under its charter. Upon the hearing, a decree was passed dismissing the bill, and this appeal Avas taken. Mr. Charles W. Jones, for the appellant. APPEXDIX. 183 Except when prohibited or restricted by the provisions of the State Constitution, the Legislature can grant exchisive privileges and fran- chises within its own jurisdiction. Cooley Const. Lim. 281; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1; West Eiver Bridge Co. v. Dix et al., 6 How. 507; S. C, 16 Yt. 44G; The Binghamton Bridge, 3 Wall. 51; Shorter v. Smith, 9 Ga. 529; The Proprietors of the Piscataqua Bridge v. The ISTew Hampshire Bridge et al., 7 IST. H. 35; Boston Water Power Co. v. Boston & Lowell Railroad Corporation et al., 23 Pick. (Mass.) 360; Boston & Lowell Eail- road Corporation v. Salem & Lowell Railroad Co. et al., 3 Gray (Mass.), 1; Califoniia Telegraph Co. v. The Atlantic Telegraph Co., 22 Cal. 398; Hazen et al. v. The Union Bank of Tennessee, 1 Sneed (Tenn.), 115; The People V. Bowen, 30 Barb. (X. Y.) 24; Livingston v. Yan Ingen et al., 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 506; Ogden v. Gibbons, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) Ch. 150. In Florida there were no such restrictions or prohibitions. On the con- trary, by the express terms of section 3, article 15 of her Constitution, the special statute of December 11, 1866, incorporating the appellant and granting the exclusive pri^aleges which are asserted in this suit, is valid. That statute is not referred to in that of February 14, 1873, or the amendatory act of 1874, and is, therefore, not repealed by a general repealing clause. Crane v. Rider, 22 :Mich. 322; State v. Mills, 34 N. J. L. 177; State v. Brannin, 2 Zab. (X. J.) 485; Fostick v. Perrysburg, 14 Ohio St. 474. The said statute of December 11, is, however, a contract with the State, which can not bo impaired or modified without the company's consent, A subsequent statute interfering with that contract, or the rights there- under vested, is inoperative and void. Trustees of Dartmouth College V. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518; State Bank of Oliio v. Knoop, 16 How. 369; Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 id. 331; Jefferson Branch Bank v. Skclly, 1 Black, 436; Franklin Branch Bank v. The State of Ohio, id. 74; The Binghamton Bridge, supra; Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U. S. 679. Tlio appellee is a Xcw York corporation; and, in the absence of any legislation of Florida empowering it to exercise its corporate franchises in the latter State, can set up nothing in conflict with the exclusive rights of the appellant under its charter. It has no existence or rights beyond the limits of the State which created it, except by the comity or the enabling acts of other States. The Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 15 Pet. 519; Ohio & Mississippi Railroad Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Black, 286; Paul V. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168; Liverpool Insurance Co. v. Massachusetts, 10 id. 566; Railroad Company v. Harris, 12 id. 65. The act of 1874, under which the appellee claims by assignment from the Louisville and Pensacola Railroad Company, must be construed with 184 APPENDIX. reference to this settled principle. The assignment was not effectual to transfer any franchise, because the assignee was, in this instance, in- competent to take. The act of Congi-ess of July 24, 18G6, has no bearing upon the case. It is in substantially the same terms as that of August 4, 1852, 10 Stat. 28, Avhich grants to any railroad, plank-road or turnpike company the right of way through the public lands, and the right to take therefrom earth, stone or wood, for the purpose of construction, and to select sites for depots and workshops. It extends, on certain conditions, efficient aid to any telegraph company whose authorized lines are to be established over the public domain. If it can be construed as conferring upon a corporation of one State the right in another State to do certain acts and enjoy certain privileges in connection with that domain, the indispensable condition is necessarily implied that, by an enabling statute of such other State, the requisite capacity to do the acts or enjoy the privileges within her limits has been, or will be, bestowed on the corporation. It does not, propria vigore, enlarge the corporate powers of any company, or authorize it to exercise them in a foreign jurisdiction. If it attempted to do so, it would, to that extent, be clearly void, as an assumption of a power which has been wisely and to the fullest extent lodged with the respective States. But if the appellee was a Florida corporation, clothed with undisputed authority to establish and work its lines within the county of Escambia, the act would give her — what is not here m issue — a right of way only over the puljlic domain. Congress did not possess, and could not grant, more. The United States acquires no proprietary interest in any railroad by declaring it a post road. Dickey v. Maysville & Lexington Turnpike Eoad Co., 7 Dana (Ky.), 113. The only objects thereby attained or sought are the security of the mail and the protection of the postal service. Mr. Perry Belmont, contra. Telegraphing, as practised by the respondent, is a part of that inter- course which constitutes commerce. Restrictions upon the free right to erect and maintain telegraph lines operate to regulate that intercourse. Such restrictions, when imposed by State authority, are void, as contra- vening the Constitution of the United States. The act of the Legislature of Florida, approved December 11, 1866, relied on by the appellant, not only trespasses upon the domain of Con- gress, but assumes to forisid Avhat that body has authorized. The question concerning the power of Congress to enable a corporation to exercise its franchises in a State other than that which created it, is APPEXDIX. 185 not necessarily involved in determining the rights of the parties. The appellee is exercising certain franchises which the Pensacola and Lonis- ville Eailroad Company, pursuant to a statute of Florida, transferred to it by an assignment, which, except within the territory in question, it must be conceded, was as valid and effectual in vesting them as if they had been immediately derived from a legislative grant. The landed proprietors have granted to it the right of occupancy. It is, therefore, lawfully in that State, and has estabhshed connections there -^nth its lines coming from other States. The case, therefore, turns upon the single point, whether, after complying with the conditions and regulations imposed by Congress, such a company so carryiug on a commercial business may, with all its foreign and internal connections, be excluded, at the instance of another corporation, from certain portions of the State. ilr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. Congress has power " to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States" (Const., art. 1, § 8, par. 3); and "to establish post-offices and post-roads." Id., par. 7. The Constitution of the United States and the laws made in pursuance thereof are the supreme law of the land. Art. G, par. 2. A law of Congress made in pursuance of the Con- stitution suspends or overrides all State statutes with which it is in conflict. Since the case of Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, it has never been doubted that commercial intercourse is an element of commerce which comes within the regulating power of Congress. Post-offices and post- roads are established to facilitate the transmission of intelligence. Both commerce and the postal service are placed within the power of Congress, because, Ijeing national in their operations, they should be under the protecting care of the national Government. 'J'he powers tlnis granted ai"e not confined to the instnnnentalities of commerce, or the postal service known or in use when the Constitution was adopted, but they keep pace Avith the progress of the country, and adapt tliemselves to the new developments of time and circumstances. They extend from the horse with its rider to the stage-coach, from the sailing-vessel to the steamboat, from the coach and the steamboat to the railroad, and from the railroad to the telegraph, as these new agencies are successively Ijrought into use to meet the demands of increasing popu- lation and wealth. They were intended for the government of the busi- ness to which they relate, at all times and nnder all circumstances. As they were intrusted to the general government for the good of the nation, it is not only the right, but the duty, of Congress to see to it that 2-i 186 APPENDIX. intercourse among the States and the transmission of intelligence are not obstructed or unnecessarily encumbered by State legislation. The electric telegraph marks an epoch in the progress of time. In a little more than a quarter of a century it has changed the habits of busi- ness, and become one of the necessities of commerce. It is indispensable as a means of inter-communica.tion, but especially is it so in commercial transactions. The statistics of the business before the recent reduction in rates show that more than 80 per cent, of all the messages sent by tele- graph related to commerce. Goods are sold and money paid upon telegraphic orders. Contracts are made by telegraphic correspondence, cargoes secured, and the movement of ships directed. The telegraphic announcement of the markets abroad regulates prices at home, and a prudent merchant rarely enters upon an important transaction without using the telegraph freely to secure information. It is not only important to the people, but to the Government. By means of it the heads of the departments in Washington are kept in close communication with all their various agencies at home and abroad, and can know at almost any hour, by inquiry, what is transpiring any- where that affects the interest they have in charge. Under such circum- stances, it can not for a moment be doubted that this powerful agency of commerce and inter-communication comes within the controlling power of Congress, certainly as against hostile State legislation. In fact, from the beginning, it seems to have been assumed that Congress might aid in developing the system; for the first telegraph line of any con- siderable extent ever erected was built between Washington and Balti- more, only a little more than thirty years ago, with money appropriated by Congress for that purpose (5 Stat. 618); and large donations of land and money have since been made to aid in the construction of other lines. 12 Stat. 489, 772; 13 id. 365; 14 id. 292. It is not necessary now to inquire Avhether Congress may assume the telegraph as part of the postal service, and exclude all others from its use. The present case is satisfied, if we find that Congress has poAver, by appropriate legislation, to prevent the State from placing obstructions in the way of its usefulness. The Government of the United States, within the scope of its powers, operates upon every foot of territory under its jurisdiction. It legislates for the whole nation, and is not embarrassed by State lines. Its peculiar duty is to protect one part of the country from encroachments by another upon the national rights which belong to all. The State of Florida has attempted to confer upon a single corporatioj? the exclusive right of transmitting intelligence by telegraph over a certain portion of its territory. This embraces the two westernmost counties of APPENDIX. 1S7 the State, and extends from Alabama to the Gulf. Xo telegraph line can cross the State from east to west, or from north to south, within these counties, except it passes over this territory. Within it is situated an im- portant seaport, at which business centers, and with which those engaged in commercial pursuits have occasion more or less to communicate. The United States have there also the necessary machinery of the national Government. They have a navy yard, forts, custom-houses, courts, post- ofhces and the appropriate officers for the enforcement of the laws. The legislation of Florida, if sustained, excludes all commercial intercourse by telegraph between the citizens of the other States and those residing upon this territory, except by the employment of this corporation. The United States can not communicate with their own officers by telegraph except in the same way. The State, therefore, clearly has attempted to regulate commercial intercourse between its citizens and those of other States, and to control the transmission of all telegraphic correspondence within its own jurisdiction. It is unnecessary to decide how far this might have been done if Congress had not acted upon the same subject, for it has acted. The statute of July 24, 1866, in effect, amounts to a prohibition of all State monopolies in this particular. It substantially declares, in the interest of commerce and the convenient transmission of intelligence from place to place l)y the Government of the United States and its citizens, that the erection of telegraph lines shall, so far as State interference is con- cerned, be free to all who will submit to the conditions imposed by Congress, and that corporations organized under the laws of one State for constructing and operating telegraph lines shall not be excluded by another from prosecuting their business within its jurisdiction, if they accept the temis proposed by the national Government for this national pri\alege. To this extent, certainly, the statute is a legitimate regulation of commercial intercourse among the States, and is appropriate legisla- tioft to carr}' into execution the powers of Congress over the postal service. It gives no foreign corporation the right to enter upon private property without the consent of the owner and erect the necessar}'- structures for its business; but it does pro\ade, that, whenever the consent of the owner is obtained, no State legislation shall prevent the occupation of post- roads for telegraph purposes by such corporations as are willing to avail themselves of its privileges. It is insisted, however, that the statute extends only to such military and post-roads as are upon the pubhc domain; but this, we think, is not so. The language is, "Through and over any portion of the public domain of the United States, over and along any of the military or post- 188 APPENDIX. roads of the United States Avhicli liave Ijceii or may hereafter be declared such by act of Congress, and over, under, or across the navigable streams or waters of the United States." There is nothing to indicate an intention of Umiting the effect of the words employed, and they are, therefore, to be given their natural and ordinary signification. ]\ead in this way, the grant evidently extends to the public domain, the military and post-roads, and the navigable waters of the United States. These are all within the dominion of the national Government to the extent of the national powers, and are, therefore, subject to legitimate congressional regulation. No question arises as to the authority of Congress to provide for the appro- priation of private property to the uses of the telegra|3h, for no such attempt has been made. The use of public property alone is granted. If private property is required, it must, so far as the present legislation is concerned, be obtained by private arrangement with its owner. No compulsory proceedings are authorized. State sovereignty under the Constitution is not interfered witii. Only national privileges are granted. The State law in question, so far as it confers exclusive rights uiDon the Pensacola company, is certainly in conflict with this legislation of Con- gress. To that extent it is, therefore, inoperative as against a corporation of another State entitled to the jirivileges of the act of Congress. Such being the case, the charter of the Pensacola company does not exclude the Western Union Company from the occupancy of the right of way of the Pensacola and Louisville Eailroad Company under the arrangement made for that purpose. We are aware that, in Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, tMs court decided that a State might exclude a corporation of another State from its juris- diction, and that corporations are not Anthin the clause of the Con- stitution which declares that " the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all pri^dleges and immunities of citizens in the several States." Art. 4, § 2. That was not, hoAvever, the case of a corporation engaged in interstate commerce; and enough was said T)y the court to show, that, if it had been, very different questions would have been presented. The language of the opinion is: " It is undoubtedly true, as stated by counsel, that the power conferred upon Congress to regulate commerce includes as well commerce carried on by corporations as commerce carried on by individuals. * * * This state of facts forbids the supposition that it was intended in the grant of power to Congress to exclude from its control the commerce of corporations. The language of the grant makes no reference to the instrumentalities by which commerce may be carried on; it is general, and includes alike commerce by individuals, partnerships, associations, and corporations. * * * rpj^^ defect of the argument APPENDIX. ISD lies in the character of their (insurance companies) business. Issuing a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce. * * * Such contracts (policies of insurance) are not interstate transactions, though the parties are domiciled in different States." The questions thus suggested need not be considered now, because no prohibitory legislation is relied upon, except that which, as has already been seen, is inoperative. Upon principles of comity, the corporations of one State are permitted to do business in another, unless it conflicts with the law, or unjustly interferes with the rights of the citizens of the State into which they come. Under such circumstances, no citizen of a State can enjoin a foreign corporation from pursuing its business. Until the State acts in its sovereign capacity, individual citizens can not complain. The State must determine for itself when the pubhc good requires that its implied assent to the admission shall be withdrawn. Here, so far from withdrawing its assent, the State, by its. legislation of 1874, in effect, invited foreign telegrapli corporations to come in. Whether that legislation, in the absence of congressional action, would have been sufficient to authorize a foreign corporation to construct and operate a line within the two counties named, we need not decide; but we are clearly of the opinion, that, with such action and a right of way secured by private arrangement with the owner of the land, this defend- ant corporation can not be excluded by the present complainant. Decree affirmed. ]\Ir. Justice Field and ^Ir. Justice iluut dissented. 'Mr. Justice Field. I am compelled to dissent from the judgment of the court in this case, and from the reasons upon wbich it is founded; and I will state with as much brevity as possible the grounds of my dissent. The bill was filed to obtain an injunction restraining the defendant from erecting, using, or maintaing a telegraph line in the county of Escambia, Florida, on the ground that, by a statute of the State passed in December, 18GG, the complainant had acquired the exclusive right to erect and use lines of telegraph in that county for the period of twenty years. The court below denied the injunction and dismissed the bill, iipon the ground that the statute was in conflict with the act of Congress of July 24, 1866, entitled "An act to aid in the construction of telegraph lines, and to secure to the Government the use of the same for postal, military, and other purposes." 14 Stat. 221. The statute of Plorida incorporated the Pensacola Telegraph Company, which had been organized in December of the previous year, and in terms 190 APPENDIX. declared that it sliould enjoy "the sole and exclusive privilege and right of establishing and maintaining lines of electric telegraph in the counties of Escambia and Santa Rosa, either from different points within said counties, or connecting with lines coming into said counties, or either of them, from other points in this or any other State." Soon after its organization, and in 1866, the company erected a line of telegraph from the city of Pensacola, through the county of Escambia, to the southern boundary of Alabama, a distance of forty-seven miles, which had since been open and in continuous operation. It was located, by permission of the Alabama and Florida Railroad Company, along its line of railway. After the charter was obtained, the line was substantially rebuilt, and two other lines in the county were erected l)y the company. In February, 18T3, the Legislature of Florida jaassed an act granting to the Pensacola and Louisville Railroad Company, which had become the assignee of the Alabama and Florida Railroad Company, the right to construct and operate telegraph lines upon its right of way from the Bay of Pensacola to the junction of its road with the ]\Iobile and Montgomery railroad, and to connect the same with the lines of other companies. By an amendatory act passed in the following year (February, 1874), the railroad company was authorized to construct and operate the lines, not only along its road as then located, but as it might be thereafter located, and along connecting roads in the county, to the boundary of Alabama and to connect and consolidate them with other telegraph companies, and to sell and assign the property appertaining to them, and the rights, privileges, and franchises conferred by the act; and it empowered the assignee, in such case, to construct and operate the lines, and to enjoy these rights, privileges, and franchises. Under this amendatory act, and soon after its passage, the railroad company assigned the rights, privileges, and franchises thus acquired to the Western Union Telegraph Company, the defendant herein, a corpora- tion created under the laws of the State of 'New York; which at once proceeded to erect a line from the city of Pensacola to the southern boundary of Alabama, along the identical railway on which the com- plainant's line was erected in 1866, and has been located ever since, with the avowed intention of using it to transmit for compensation messages for the public in the county and State. By the erection and operation of this line, the complainant alleges that its property would become value- less, and that it would lose the benefits of the franchises conferred by its charter. There can be no serious question that the State of Florida possessed the absolute right to confer upon a corjioration created by the exclusive priv- APPENDIX. 191 ilege for a limited period to construct and operate a telegraph line within its borders. Its Constitution, in existence at the time, empowered the Legislature to grant exclusive privileges and franchises to private cor- porations for a period not exceeding twenty years. The exclusiveness of a privilege often constitutes the only inducement for undertakings hold- ing out little prospect of immediate return. The uncertainty of the results of an enterprise will often deter capitalists, naturally cautious and distrustful, of making an investment, without some assurance that, in case the business become profitable, they shall encounter the danger of its destruction or diminution by competition. It has, therefore, been a com- mon practice in all these States to encourage enterprises having for their object the promotion of the public good, such as the construction of bridges, turnpikes, railroads, and canals, by granting for limited periods exclusive privileges in connection with them. Such grants, so far from being deemed encroachments upon any rights or powers of the United States, are held to constitute contracts, and to be within the protecting clause of the Constitution prohibiting any impairing of their obligation. The grant to the complainant was invaded ])y tlie subsequent grant to the Pensacola and Louisville b'ailroad Company. If the first grant was valid, tbe second was void, according to all llic decisions of this court, upon tbe power of a State to impair its grant, since the Dartmouth College Case. The court below did not hold otherwise, and I do not understand that a different view is taken here; but it decided, and this court sustains the decision, that the statute making the iirst grant was void, by reason of its conflict with the act of Congress of July 21, ISGG. With all deference to my associates, I can not see that the act of Con- gress bfis anything to do with tbe ca*ie before us. Jn my judgment, it has reference only to telegraph lines over and along military and post- roads on the iiuhlic domain of the United States. The title of the act expresses its purpose; namely, ''To aid in the construction of telegraph lines, and to secure to the Government the use of the same for postal, military, and other purposes." The aid conferred was the grant of a right of way over the public domain; the act does not propose to give aid in any other way. Its language is that any telegraph company organized under the laws of a State " sball have the right to construct, maintain, and operate lines of telegrai»b through and over any portion of the public domain, over and along any of the military and post-roads which have been or may hereafter he declared sucli by act of Congi-ess, and over and across the navigal)le streams or waters of the United States." The por- tion of the })ul)lic domain which nuiy be thus used is designated by refer- ence to the military and post-roads upon it. Were there any doubt that 193 APPENDIX. this is the correct construction of the act, the provision which follows in the same section would seem to remove it; namely, that any of the said companies shall "have the right to take and nse from sitcJi public lands the necessary stone, timber, and other materials for its posts, piers, stations, and other needful uses in the construction, maintenance, and operation of said lines of telegraph, and may pre-empt and use such por- iton of the unoccupied public lands, subject to pre-emption, through which its said lines of telegraph may be located, as may be necessary for its stations, not exceeding forty acres for each station, but such sections shall not be within fifteen miles of each other." In the face of this language, the Italics of which are mine, there ought not to be a difference of opinion as to the ol)ject of the act, or as to its construction. The con- clusion reached by the majority of the court not only overlooks this lan- guage, but implies that Congress intended to give aid to the telegraph companies of the country, — those existing or thereafter to be created, — not merely by allowing them to construct their lines over and along post- roads upon the public lands Init also over and along such roads within the States which are not on the public lands, where heretofore, it has not been supposed that it could rightfully exercise any power. The only military roads belonging to the United States within the States are in the military reservations; and to them the act obviously does not apply. And there are no post-roads belonging to the United States within the States. The roads upon which the mails are carried by parties, under contract with the Government, belong either to the States, or to individuals or to corporations, and are declared post-roads only to protect the carriers from being interfered with, and the mails from being delayed in tiieir transportation, and the postal service from frauds. The Government has no other control over them. It has no proprietary interest in them or along them to Ijestow upon any one. It can not use them without paying the tolls chargeable to individuals for similar uses; it can not prevent the State from changing or discontinuing them at its pleasure; and it can acquire no ownership or property interest in them; except in the way in which it may acquire any other property in the States, — namely, by purchase, or by appropriation upon making just com- pensation. Dickey v. Turnpike Road Co., 7 Dana (Ky.), 113. The public streets in some of our cities are post-roads, under the declara- tion of Congress (Eev. Stat., § 3964); and it would be a strange thing if telegraph lines could be erected by a foreign corporation along such streets without the consent of the municipal and State authorities, and, of course, without power on their part to regulate its charges or control its management. Yet the doctrine asserted by the majority of the APPENDIX. 193 court goes to this length. That, if the owners of the property along the streets consent to the erection of such lines by a foreign corporation, the municipality and the State are powerless to prevent it, although tlie exclusive right to erect them may have been granted by the State to a cor- poration of its own creation. If by making a contract with a party to carry the mails over a particular road in a State, which thus becomes by act of Congress for that pur- pose a post-road. Congress acquires such rights with respect to the road that it can authorize corporations of other States to construct along and over it a line of telegraph, why may it not authorize them to construct along the road a railway, or a turnpike or a canal, or any other work which may be used for the promotion of commerce? If the authority exist in the one case, I can not see why it does not equally exist in the other. And if Congress can authorize the corporations of one State to construct telegraph lines and railways in another State, it must have the right to authorize them to condemn private property for that purpose. The act under consideration does not, it is true, provide for such condemnation; but if the right exist to authorize the construction of the lines, it can not be defeated from the inability of the corporations to acquire the necessary property by purchase. The power to grant implies a power to confer all the authority necessary to make and grant effectual. It was for a long time a debated question whether the United States, in order to obtain property required for their own purposes, could exercise the right of eminent domain within a State. It has been decided, only within the past two years, that the Government, if such property can not be obtained by purchase, may appropriate it, upon making just compensation to the owner (Kohl v. United States, 91 U. S. 3G7); but never has it been sug- gested that the United States could enable a corporation of one State to condemn property in another State, in order that it might transact its private business there. We are not called upon to say that Congress may not construct a rail- road as a post-road, or erect for postal purposes a telegraph line. It may be that the power to establish post-roads is not limited to designating the roads which shall be used as postal routes, — a limitation which has been asserted by eminent jurists and statesmen.* If it be admitted that the power embraces also the construction of such roads, it does not follow that Congress can authorize the corporation of one State to construct and • Elliott's Debates, edition of 183G, 433, 487; Views of President Monroe ao companyinp his veto message of May 4, IH22; Views of Judge McLean in his dissenting opinion in the Wheeling Bridge Case, 18 How. 441, 442. 25 194 APPENDIX. operate a railroad or telegraph line in another State for the transaction of private business, or even to exist there without the permission of the latter State. By reason of its previous grant to the complainant, Florida ■\\-as incompetent to give such permission to the assignor of the defendant, or to any other company, to construct a telegraph line in the county of Escambia. The act of the State of February 3, 1874, in the face of this grant, can only be held to authorize the construction of telegraph lines by difl'erent companies in other counties. If, therefore, the defendant has any right in that county, they are derived solely from the act of Congress. A corporation can have no legal existence beyond the limits of the sovereignty which created it. In Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519, it was said by this court that " it must dwell in the place of its creation, and can not migrate to another sovereignty." And in Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, we added, that "the recognition of its existence even by other States, and the enforcement of its contracts made therein, depend purely upon the comity of those States, — a comity which is never ex- tended where the existence of the corporation or the exercise of its powers is prejudicial to their interests or repugnant to their policy. Having no absolute right of recognition in other States, but depending for such recognition and the enforcement of its contracts upon their assent, -it follows, as a matter of course, that such assent may be granted, upon such terms and conditions as those States may think proper to impose. They may exclude the foreign corporation entirely, they may restrict its busi- ness to particular localities, or they may exact such security for the performance of its contracts with their citizens as in their judgment will best promote the public interest. The whole matter rests in their dis- cretion." If, therefore, foreign corporations can exist in the State of Florida, and do business there by the authority of Congress, it must be be- cause Congress can create such corporations for local business, — a doctrine to which I can not assent, and which to my mind is pregnant with evil consequences. In all that has been said of the importance of the telegraph as a means of intercourse, and of its constant use in commercial transactions, I fully concur. Similar language may be used in regard to railways; indeed, of the two, the railway is much the more important instrument of com- merce. But it is difficult to see how from this fact can be deduced the right of Congress to authorize the corporations of one State to enter within the borders of another State and construct railways and telegraph Hnes in its different counties for the transaction of local business. The grant to the complainant in no way interferes with the power of Con- APPENDIX. 195 gress, if it possesses such, power, to construct telegraph lines or railways for postal service or for military purposes or with its power to regulate commerce between the States. The imputation that Florida designed by the grant to obstruct the powers of Congress in these respects is not war- ranted by anything in her statute. The like imputation, and witb equal justice, might be made against every State in the Union which has au- thorized the construction of a railway or telegraph line in any one of its counties, with a grant of an exclusive right to operate the road or line for a limited period. It is true the United States, equally with their citizens, may be obliged in such cases to use the road or line; but it has not here- tofore been supposed that this fact impaired the right of the State to make the grant. When the General Government desires to transact busi- ness within a State, it necessarily makes use of the highways and modes of transit provided under the laws of the State, in the absence of those of its own creation. The position advanced, that if a corporation be in any way engaged in commerce it can enter and do business in another State without the lat- ter's consent, is novel and startling. There is nothing in the opinion in Paul V. Virginia which gives any support to it. The statute of Virginia, which was under consideration in that case, provided that no insurance company not incorporated under its laws should do business within the State, without previously obtaining a license for that purpose; and that it should not receive such license until it had deposited with the treasu- rer of the State Ijonds of a specified character to an amount vaiying from $30,000 to $50,000. No such deposit was required of insurance companies incorporated by the State for carrying on their business within it; and in that case the validity of the discriminating provisions of the statute, between the corporations of the State and those of other States, was assailed. It was contended, among other things, that the statute was in conflict with the power vested in Congress to regulate commerce among the several States; that the power included commerce carried on by corporations as well as that carried on by individuals; and that tlie issuing of a policy of insurance upon property in one State by a corporation of another State was a transaction of inter-State commerce. The court replied, that it was true that the language of the grant to Congress made no reference to the instrumentalities by which commerce might be carried on; that it was general, and included alike commerce by individuals, partnerships, associations, and corporations; and that, therefore, there was nothing in the fact, that the insurance companies of New York were corporations, which impaired the argument of counsel, but that its defect lay in the character of the business; that issuing a policy of insurance was not a transaction of commerce; that the policies were mere contracts of 196 APPENDIX. indemnity against loss by fire, and not articles of commerce in any proper meaning of the term. In other words, the court held that the power of Congress to regulate commerce was not affected by the fact tliat such commerce was carried on by corporations, but that a contract of insurance made by a corporation of one State upon property in another State was not a transaction of inter-State commerce. It would have been outside of the case for the court to have expressed an opinion as to the power of Congress to authorize a foreign corporation to do business in a State, upon the assumption that issuing a policy of insurance was a com- mercial transaction. And it is impossible to see any bearing of the views, which were expressed, upon the doctrine advanced here, that a corpora- tion of one State, in any way engaged in commerce, can enter another State and do business there without the latter's consent. Let this doctrine be once established and the greater part of the trade and com- merce of every State will soon be carried on by corporations created witli- out it. The business of the country is to a large extent conducted or con- trolled by corporations; and it may be, as was said by this court in the case referred to, " of the highest public interest that the number of cor- porations in the State should be limited, that they should be required to give publicity to their transactions, to submit their atfairs to proper examination, to be subject to forfeiture of their corporate rights in case of mismanagement, and that their officers should be held to a strict accountability for the manner in which the business of the corporation is managed, and be liable to summary removal." All these guards against corporate abuses the State would be incapable of taking against a cor- poration of another State operating a railway or a telegraph line within its borders under the permission of Congress, however extortionate its charges or corrupt its management. The corporation might have a tariff of rates and charges prescribed by its charter, which would be beyond the control of the State; and thus, by the authority of Congress, a State might be reduced to the condition of having the rates of charges for transporta- tion of persons and freight and messages within its borders regulated by another State. Indeed, it is easy to see that there will remain little of value in the reserved rights of the States, if the doctrine announced in this case be accepted as the law of the land. The power vested in Congress to regulate commerce "among the several States" does not authorize any interference with the commerce which is carried on entirely within a State. " Comprehensive as the word 'amoijg' is/' says Chief Justice Marshall, "it may very properly be re- stricted to that commerce which concerns more States than one;" and "the completely internal commerce of a State, then, may be considered a]'pj:xdix. 197 as reserved for the State itself." Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 194, 195. That commerce embraces the greater part of the business of every State. Every one engaged in the transportation of property or persons, or in sending messages, between different points within the State, not destined to points beyond it, or in the purchase or sale of merchandise within its borders, is engaged in its commerce; and the doctrine that Congress can authorize foreign corporations to enter within its limits and participate in this commerce without the State's consent is iitterly subversive of our system of local State government. State control in local matters would thus be impossible. The late war was carried on at an enormous cost of life and property, that the I'nion might be preserved; but unless the independence of the States within their proper spheres be also preserved, the Union is value- less. In our form of government, the one is as essential as the other; and a blow at one strikes both. The General Government was formed for National puiposes, principally that wo might have within ourselves uni- formity of commercial regulations, a common currency, one postal system, and that the citizens of the several States might have in each equality of right and privilege; and that in our foreign relations we might present ourselves as one Nation, lint the protection and enforcement of private rights of both, persons and property, and the regulation of domestic affairs, were left chiefly with the States; and, unless they are allowed to remain there, it will be impossible for a country of such vast dimensions as ours — with e\ ery variety of soil and climate, creating different pur- suits, and conflicting interests in different sections — to be kept together in peace. As long as the General Government confines itself to its great bnt limited sphere, and the States are left to control their domestic affairs and business, there can be no ground for public unrest and disturbance. Dis(iuiet can onl}' arise from the exercise of ungranted powers. Over no subject is it more important for the interests and welfare of a State that it should have control, than over corporations doing business within its limits. By the decision now rendered, Congressional legisla- tion can take this control from the State, and even thrust within its borders corporations of other States in no way responsible to it. It seems to nie that, in this instance, the court has departed from long-established doctrines, the enforcement of which is of vital importance to the efficient and harmonious working of our National and State Governments. Mb. Justice Hunt. — I dissent, on the ground that the act of Congress was intended only to apply to telegraph lines constructed upon the public domain. ;Mr. Justice Haelan did not sit in this case, nor take any part in deciding it. 198 APPENDIX. « EXECUTIVE OFFICERS IN CONGRESS." [PAPER READ BEFORE THE AMERICAN SOCIAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION, AT CINCINNATI, MAY 22, 1878.] Shall officers of the Executive Department of the Federal Government be permitted to sit in either House of Congress, with the privilege of making oral reply to inquiries addressed to them by either House, or of discussing any measure appertaining to their respective departments? The question deserves careful consideration. Those who have had ex- perience in the practical business of the legislative and executive branches of the Government of the United States, are most competent to discuss it, and it is respectfully urged upon their attention. In 1864 the subject was brought to the notice of Congress. A bill to permit the heads of the executive departments to occupy seats on the floor of the House of Representatives was introduced by Mr. Pendleton, of Oliio, March 3, 1865. Amendments to the rules of the House were reported, which, had they been adopted, would have changed the method of carrying on the public business. The urgency of the Civil war ren- dered it impossible to secure due attention to the subject, and the measure received too little attention in the House. If the matter ought to be again submitted to either or both Houses in order that it be subjected to the most thorough and practical examination, it is perhaps still more desirable first to incite popular discussion of an ad- ministrative question of this nature. Certain important advantages might be gained by a change similar to that proposed by Mr. Pendleton. However far-reaching in its possible effects, its tendencies are thought to point in the direction of results which every well-wisher of republican institutions desires to obtain. The immediate purpose of the change is to remove certain existing restrictions upon communication between the executive and legislative branches. There has been, to be sure, no practical experience which authorizes a definite, conclusion as to the wisdom of making such a change in our laws. The Provisional Government and Constitution of the Confederate States did, indeed, nominally allow Cabinet officers to have seats on the APPENDIX. 199 floor of Congress. Most of them were members, and all sat in the Con- gress. The Confederate Government was in embryo, and they were engaged in its practical organization. Their presence in Congress was no doubt of great value, and the testimony of those who were liigh in authority now bears witness to this fact. It was this Congress which made the Permanent Constitution of the Confederate States, and pro- vided measures of war. But its sessions were secret; the people were not admitted to an audience of the discussions; and we have, therefore, no records defining the exact position held therein by members of the Cabinet in their official capacity. It was believed by the framers of the Confederate Government, that good results might be obtained by pre- serving this feature of their provisional Constitution. Accordingly, in the permanent Constitution, after the words "And no person holding anv ofTice under the Confederate States shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office," they introduced this clause: " But Congress may by law grant to the principal officer in each of the executive departments, a seat upon the floor of either House, with the privilege of discussing any measures appertaining to his department." (Confederate States Constitution, art. 1, § 6.) The Constitution and laws of the Confederate States were modeled upon those of the Federal Government. The law organizing the Treasury Dejiartment, as in the case of the United States law, contained a clause requiring the Secretary " to make reports and give information to Con- gress or the President, as he may be required." The other departments were established in precisely the same manner as under our own system. (Statutes at Large, of the Confederate States, Provisional Congress, Sess. 1, Chaps. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.) The Federal Constitution distributes the functions of government among three departments. It ordains that, for the better preservation of constitutional methods, these departments — executive, legislative, and judicial — shall be kept distinct and separate. But does it contemplate a nonintercourse amounting almost to isolation? Does it intend such a wide separation between the executive and legislative departments, as to leave them without facilities of communication most useful to the pur- poses both of legislation and administration? The Executive may begin a policy which Congress resists, and the absence of an authorized means of oral communication may prevent the harmony of action necessary to the public welfare. Under even these conditions of political antagonism, partial co-operation between the two might be obtained, but that is often now done by methods which are secret and indirect, and, therefore, unde- sirable. AVhon, on the contrary, there is already a coincidence of opinion between the executive and legislative branches, the intercourse resulting 200 APPENDIX. from the common purpose would be promoted by free oral communica- tion. If the necessities of government compel the executive and legisla- tive departments to communicate with each other, it seems better that such intercourse be authorized, open and responsible, and that it be like other deliberations of the legislative body. A government should be the machinery through which the sovereignty — with us the whole people — may enforce under constitutional forms the public administration of its will. Can not, therefore, the executive part of the nation have a representation in the discussion of legislation? Congress is composed of local representatives, and it is necessary that local interests be represented, but it may be supposed that much would be gained if the heads of departments were permitted to present adminis- trative national interests in questions affecting their departments. The heads of the departments were once, with the exception of the Treasury, little more than the mere adjuncts of the President, but in the opinion of many persons they have collectively been raised into a body outside the Constitution, and the Cabinet has become a sort of co-ordinate and fourth branch of the Government, with its own discretion and policy, and with no tie of interdependence between it and the House of Eepresentatives, other than the welfare of the common country as each understands it. The law organizing the Department of Foreign Affairs (as then called), which was the first department created, was enacted July 37, 1789, and declares that the Secretary " shall perform and execute such duties as shall from time to time be enjoined on or intrusted to him by the Presi- dent of the United States, agreeable to the Constitution, relative to correspondences, commissions or instructions to or with public ministers or consuls from the United States, or to negotiations with public min- isters from foreign States or princes, or to memorials, or other appli- cations from foreign public ministers or other foreigners, or to such other matters respecting foreign affairs, as the President of the United States shall assign to the said department; and furthermore, that the said principal officer shall conduct the business of the said department in such manner as the President of the United States shall from time to time order or instruct." On September 15, 1789, the name of the depart- ment was changed. By the Acts of 1842 and 1856 the Secretary of State is required an- nually to lay before Congress: " First — ■ A statement, in a compendious form, of all such changes and modifications in the commercial systems of other nations, whether by treaties, duties on imports and exports, or other regulations, as shall have APPENDIX. 201 been communicated to the department, including all commercial infor- mation contained in the official publications of other governments, which he shall deem sufficiently important." " Second — A synopsis of so much of the information which may have been communicated to him by diplomatic and consular officers during the preceding year as he may deem valuable for public information; specify- ing the names of any consuls or commercial agents who may have been remiss in transmitting commercial information," and other reports, lists of consular officers, statements of expenditures, etc. By these laws the Secretary of State was made directly responsible to Congress for the doing of certain things named therein. The law establishing the Department of War was enacted August 7, 1789, and defines the general relation of the Secretary to the President, in similar terms. By subsequent acts — 1809, 1866, 1868— the Secretary was required to lay before Congress annual statements of contracts and purchases, reports of bids for ^^'orks, reports of examination of river and harbor improvements, abstract of returns of Adjutant-Generals of States, and laws have been passed giving the Secretaiy certain discretionary powers; the same may be said of the Navy Department. And thus again did Congress make those officers its agents for the doing of specified acts without the intervention of the President. The law organizing the Treasury Department, passed September 2, 1789, provides: " The Secretary of the Treasury shall, from time to time, digest and prepare plans for the improvement and management of the revenue and for the support of the pubhc credit; shall superintend the collection of the revenue; shall from time to time prescribe the forms of keeping and rendering all pubhc accounts and making returns; shall grant, under the limitations herein established, or to be hereafter provided, all warrants for moneys to be issued from the Treasury in pursuance of appropriations by law; shall make report, and give information to either branch of the Legislature, in person or in writing, as may be required, respecting all matters referred to him by the Senate or House of Kepresentatives, or which shall appertain to his office; and generally shall perform all such services relative to the finances as he shall be directed to perform." The Secretary is required to make annual and quarterly reports to Congress. The law creating the office of Attorney-General, passed September 24, 1789, declares, that " there shall be appointed a meet person, learned in the law, to act as Attorney-General for the United States, who shall be sworn or affirmed to a faithful execution of the office, whose duty it shall be to prosecute and condnnt all suits in the Supreme Court in which 202 APPENDIX. the United States shall he concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required hy the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments, touch- ing an}' matters that may concern their departments, and shall receive such compensation for his services as shall by law be provided." The Department of the Interior was established by the Act of March 3, 1849; and as the law only in effect assigned to the new department work previously done in other departments, there is nothing in the act which indicates even any special accountability to the President. By the Act of May 29, 1872, the head of that department is required to make annual reports to Congress as follows: " A report showing the nature, character and amount of all claims presented to him during the preceding year under laws or treaty stipula- tions for compensation for depredations committed by Indians, whether allowed by him or not, and the evidence upon which his action is based." In the early history of the Government, we find that on the 22d of July, 1789, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs appeared in the Senate in obedience to the following order, issued no doubt under the treaty-making power of that body: " Ordered, That the Secretary of Foreign Affairs attend the Senate to- morrow, and bring with him such papers as are requisite to give full in- formation relative to the Consular Convention between France and the United States." (Annals of Congress, Vol. 1, p. 52.) During the Second Congress, the follo\ving resolution was passed: " Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to institute an inquiry into the causes of the late defeat of the army under the command of Major-General St. Clair; and also into the causes of the detentions or delays, which are suggested to have attended the money, clothing, provision, and militaiy stores for the use of the said army, and into such other causes as may, in any manner, have been been productive of the said defeat." (Annals of Congress, Vol. 3, p. 490.) The result of this inquiry fixed a certain degree of responsibility upon the Treasury as well as upon the War Department for the failure of General St. Clair's expedition, and on the day assigned for the consid- eration of the subject the following resolution was offered: "Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of War be notified that this House intend on Wednesday next to take into consideration the report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the failure of the late expedition under General St. Clair, to the end that APPENDIX. 203 they may attend the House and furnish such information as may be conducive to the due investigation of the matters stated in the said report." (Annals of Congress, Vol. 3, p. 659.) It was moved to strike out the latter part- of the resolution, and, after a well-sustained debate, the proposition for the personal attendance of the Secretaries was finally rejected. A few days latter, a resolution was introduced of the following purport: " Resolved, As the opinion of this Committee, that measures for the reduction of so much of the public debt as the United States have a right to redeem ought to be adopted, and that the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to report a plan for that purpose." (Annals of Congress, Vol. 3, p. G95.) A three days' debate followed in which leading members on each side of the House took part. It was insisted on the one hand that a reference to the Secretar}^ of the Treasury on the subject of loans, taxes and provisions for the public debt was in fact a delegation of the author- ity of the Legislature; that there existed a distinction between the deliberative functions of the House and the ministerial functions of the executive powers; that the deliberative functions should be first exercised before the ministerial began to act; that it should be decided by the House, in the first instance, whether the debt should be reduced by im- posing new taxes or by varying the burdens, or by new loans, and that the fundamental principles of any measure should perhaps be decided in the House, even before a reference to a select committee. On the other hand it was said that the distinction between deliberative and ministerial functions is qualified by the law establishing the Treasury Department; that the law makes it the duty of the Secretary to digest and report the plans to ameliorate our finances without any call from the House. By such references, neither is the power of the House to deliberate infringed nor does it give the Secretaiy a right to deliberate ministerially. The result of the deliberations of the Secretary was not obligatory on the House any further than it was warranted by the force of argument, and the report from the head of a department could no full her influence the House than by the weight of the wisdom it con- tained. Supposing the legislative body should undertake to originate without this previous step, and a difficulty should occur for want of in- formation, it would be derogatory to its dignity to apply then to the Secretary for assistance, and dangerous to proceed in error or ignorance. If the influence of the Secretar}^ is formidable, it would be much more formidable if exerted against a select committee than in the whole House. The resolution was adopted by the vote of 32 to 25. 20-i APPENDIX. On the following day it was resolved, " That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to report a plan for the reimbursement of the loan made by the Bank of the United States, pursuant to the eleventh section of the act entitled ' An Act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States.' " (Annals of Congress, Vol. 3, p. 723.) Shortly after, the Secretary submitted a report in answer to both of the foregoing resolutions, but in this discussion respecting the Secretary of the Treasury there was no consideration of the propriety, or the useful- ness, of oral, as distinct from written reports. When the second clause of the Act of 1789, establishing the Treasury De- ])artment, was under consideration Mr. Page objected to the words making it the duty of the Secretary to " digest and report plans for the improve- ment and management of the revenue and to the support of the public credit; " observing that it might be well enough to enjoin upon him the duty of making out and preparing estimates; but to go any farther would be a dangerous innovation upon the constitutional privilege of this House; it would create an undue influence within its walls, because mem- bers might be led, by the deference commonly paid to men of abilities who give an opinion in a case they have thoroughly studied, to support the Minister's plan, even against their own judgment. Nor would the mischief stop here: it would establish a precedent which might be ex- tended until we admitted all the ministers of the Government on the floor, to explain and support the plans they have digested and reported, thus laying a foundation for an aristocracy or a detestable monarchy." (Annals of Congress, Vol. 1, p. 592.) Nevertheless, Mr. Page's motion for striking out the clause was negatived, and it is now " the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to digest and prepare plans for the improve- ment and management of the revenue, and for the support of public credit." And if plans are to be " prepared," why should not they be orally " reported " to Congress. The brief citations which I have made from the statutes creating the several executive departments of the Federal Government, and defining the duties of the respective heads of those departments, are useful in this discussion as expressions of the opinions of the men who were mem- bers of the First Congress, in respect to the right of the law-making power of the Government to control the heads of those departments. The first Congress was held in the city of Ncav York, and began its sittings on March 4, 1789. The first statute it enacted regulated the time and man- ner of administering certain oaths; the second levied duties on goods, APPENDIX. 205 wares and merchandise imported into the United States; the third im- posed duties on tonnage, and the fourth was entitled " An Act for estab- lishing an executive department to be denominated the Department of Foreign Affairs." The law creating the Department of War was ap- proved August 7th, as we have seen, and that establishing the Treasury Department was approved September 2, 1789. No Department of Jus- tice (as it is called in the law first creating it of June 22, 1870) nor an Attorney-General's Department, was made by the First Congress, which on September 24, 1789, at the end of an act, " To establish the Judicial Courts of the United States," directed the appointment of an officer to be called the Attorney-General. The Navy Department was made out of the War Department on April 30, 1798; the Post-Office Department came into being on March 3, 1825; the Interior Department on March 3, 1849, and the Department of Justice on January 22, 1870. These seven are known as the executive departments of the Government. Of the four departments created in 1789 by the First Congress, it is only necessary now to speak of three, since, as we have seen, the Attorney- General was but an officer to prosecute and conduct suits in the Supreme Court, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when " required " by the President, or when " requested " by the heads of any of the departments. In estabhshing these three departments, viz., of Foreign Affairs, of War, and of Treasury (the language of the law is not " of the Treasury," but " of Treasury "), Congress did not treat them ahke in the sense of subjecting the head of each to the law-making power. The Secretary of State and the Secretary for the Department of War were each directed to perform such duties " as shall from time to time be enjoined on or intrusted to him by the President of the United State," and to "conduct the business of the said department in such manner as the President of the United States shall from time to time order or instruct." This legislation, in respect to both departments, maintained the re- quirement of the Constitution, which gave to the President power to make treaties, to appoint ambassadors and other public ministers, and to command the army and navy of the United States. No law of Con- gress could direct the President how he should make a treaty, or receive foreign ministers, or command the army and navy, and, therefore, the heads of the Department of Foreign x\ffairs and of the army and navv were made, in legal effect, the subordinates of the President, and of no one else. But when Congress came to deal witli the Treasury De- partment, the theory of legislation was very different. The Secretarv of the Treasury is not directed by Congress to conduct the business of his 206 APPENDIX. • department in such manner " as the President of the United States sliall from time to time order or instruct; " but, after enumerating certain specified things which the head of the Treasury is to do, he is required " generally to perform all such service relative to the finances as he shall be directed to perform " — without saying by whom directed. The Secretary of Foreign Afi'airs is not directed to make report or give in- formation to either branch of the Legislature. Nor, indeed, to this day, does the Secretary of State make, at the opening of Congress, any formal report either to the President or to Congress, but whatever is to be said in respect to foreign affairs, is said directly by the President of the United States in his annual message. The Secretary of the Treasury, however, is, by the law of 1789, distinctly required " to make, report and give opinions to either branch of the Legislature, in person or in writing (as he may be required) respecting all matters referred to him by the Senate or House of Eepresentatives, or which shall appertain to his office." Tliis, certainly, is a unique requirement in our laws. He is compelled to report " in person or in A^a'iting, as he may be required," which is a distinct declaration that Congress can compel the Secretary of the Treasury, whenever either House may see fit, to appear at its bar and give such information as either House may require. This legis- lation must be taken as a distinct expression of opinion on the part of the First Congress which assembled under the Constitution, that the law-making power could constrain the Secretary of the Treasury to answer in person any question which either branch of the Legislature might put to him respecting his department. But can that be true of each and every head of a department? Can the law-making power require the Secretary of State to appear in person before the House of Eepre- sentatives and give such information as that House may require in re- spect to a pending negotiation of a treaty, or in respect to the manage- ment of the foreign affairs of the country? The Constitution has invested the President with authority to make treaties and appoint foreign ministers, with the consent of the Senate. It would, therefore, seem that Congress has not power to compel the Secretary of State to give information respecting such matters. But as to all other matters relating to this department, there apjoears to be no reason why Congress should not claim and exercise the same power as is expressly claimed in the law organizing the Treasury. To the Executive is given the power to carry out in secret certain measures of its foreign policy, yet should Congress open its doors and invite the Secretary of State to the floor, even in regard to these measures, certain things, which in his opinion ought to be made known, could in this way be communicated, and perhaps with greater facility and dispatch than at present. APPENDIX. 207 Can the Secretary of War or the Secretary of the Navy he compellecl, in hke manner, to appear before either House and answer in respect to the manner in which the President of the United States proposes to exercise his functions as " Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy? " ^Ye have seen that laws have been enacted prescribing the duties of the Secretaries of "War and of the Navy, and which have invested them with a discretion respecting certain specified acts independent of the President. In regard to these matters, can not the law-making power require oral information as well as written reports? And in regard to other matters, an invitation to attend upon Congress would recognize the right of the executive officer to withhold information if it was thought inconsistent with executive authority to impart it. The House of Representatives has, under the Constitution, the sole power of impeachment, and tlicre probably can be no doubt that the House can summon any individual and compel his attendance to tell what he knows in order that the House may decide whether it will prefer articles of impeachment against the President. But that is very difTerent from a question of administration like that which we are con- sidering. To put in another form the question respecting the ability of the legislative branch to deal with the executive branch, let it bo asked whether the President can be compelled to give information to Congress in any other way, or at any other time, than that which he may choose. The Constitution declares that " the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." It also declares that " he shall, from time to time, give to the Congress informa- tion of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." The traditions of the early history of the Federal Government under the present Constitution is that the annual messages of Presidents Wash- ington and John Adams were delivered in person by each of them, in like manner as the Queen of Great Britain sometimes delivers her Royal Speech, and that the annual messages of the two first Presidents were answered by an address from Congress. But this practice was changed by President Jefferson, and ever since all messages from the President to either House of Congress have been delivered by a messenger and in WTiting. If the legislative branch were now to attempt to require the President to come in person before either branch, and answer inter- rogatoi-ies respecting "the state of the Union," would that be an un- constitutional interference with the executive branch? And if the legis- lative branch can not compel the President to give to Congress informa- tion which he does not see fit to give, can Congress indirectly compel a 208 APPENDIX. head of a department to give up executive information as an aid to legislation? If a distinction can be found to exist between the execu- tive office of the President and the office of the several heads of the executive departments, a different rule would be made to apply to each. The President alone is the constitutional executive. He alone is the co-ordinate branch of the Government; the Constitution has prescribed his powers and duties, and he must remain independent of Congress as to the manner in which he may choose to communicate information in regard to executive matters. The heads of the executive departments are there to aid him in the performance of certain duties, and so far are responsible to him alone. But Congress creates offices by law, and the creation of an office implies all that relates to its constitution and termination. All the heads of departments are the creatures of Con- gressional legislation. May not new duties be assigned to them by the same power which created them? May not Congress, which made the Treasury Department amenable to its jurisdiction, claim like powers over the other executive departments? Is there something in the Constitution which makes the Treasury Department an exception to the general rule? That instrument pro- vided " that all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Kepresentatives." Under the British system it is the Executive which asks for money and specifies the several items, and Parliament can either give or refuse, but it can not modify. Under our constitutional system only the House of Representatives can originate and present a bill for " raising revenue." This provision of the Constitution affords a special reason why the House of Representatives at least should have authority to compel the head of the Treasury Department to deliver up, from time to time, whatever infonnation may be in the possession of the depart- ment. But can the House compel the Secretary of the Treasury to dis- close an opinion which the President may entertain in respect to a tariff, but which the President, for reasons of his own, is unprepared to him- self formally communicate to Congress? There is a distinction between final acts which have been performed, and a possible future policy; and, although Congress may clearly compel information in regard to the one, it probably can do no more than ask it in regard to the other. It seems that there exists, in respect to the Treasury Department, the same dis- tinction which we have found in the others, between, on the one hand, matters in which Congress may compel information, and, on the otlier hand, those in which it is permitted only to invite information from the Executive. Although, then, the law-making power may compel certain APPENDIX. 209 information from the Executive, in regard to any or all of the depart- ments, it is still of the essence of our system that in respect to future acts or a future policy, the Executive shall be just as independent of the legislative branch as the latter is of the executive branch, and consent is necessary before information can be obtained, as to such future acts or policy. But when there is consent in this respect, a law authorizing them to deliberate together over acts other than final, might prove to be of great advantage. Every one understands that an executive officer can not, under the Constitution, be a member of either House of Congress, and, therefore, all idea of giving a head of a department a vote in either House of Con- gress is out of the question. The framers of the Constitution, by the prohibition that " no person holding any office under the United States shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office," intended only to prevent an executive officer from voting. The law or- ganizing the office of the Secretaiy of the Treasury proves that they did intend to permit him to be so far a member of either House as to have the right to discuss public questions on the floor of the House, and thereby and to that extent influence the decision of public questions. It is an open question whether the framers of the Constitution intended that a liead of an executive department should have the right, when he pleased, to appear upon the floor of either House of Congress for the purpose of participating in the discussion, or, what amounts to the same thing, give information. Yet there seems to be no constitutional reason to prevent the enactment of a law granting this right to executive officers. If we accept the law organizing the Treasury, as evidence in the solution of this question, it would appear that the head of a department can give infonuation in person, although he must await an in\dtation or call from the House which seeks his appearance. But clearly, under that law, the law-making power can prescribe it as a duty of an executive officer that he shall, when commanded, appear in person upon the floor of either House for the purpose of giving information or participating in dis- cussion respecting matters appertaining to his office. If the law-making power can make such appearance obligatory upon a head of a department, can the latter be lawfully required to appear against the will of the President? In other words, does the Constitu- tion command that the will of the President shall govern in the per- forming of all executive acts by executive officers? Since the Tenure of Office Act, the relations of this inquiry, it seems to me, have been very seriously changed. During the First Congress 27' 210 APPENDIX. the power of the President to remove from office without the assent of the Senate was affirmed. Tliis question was very much agitated dur- ing the administration of President Jackson, but finally, and during the administration of President Johnson, the law-making power has declared in effect that the President can not remove even a Cabinet officer without the assent of the Senate. Under the Tenure of Office Law, what would be the condition of the President in whom the Constitution has vested, in terms, all " the executive power " of the nation, if Congress could compel all the members of the Cabinet, against the will of the President, to appear upon the floor of either House, and give all the information in their possession about the opinion of the President upon " the state of the Union? " It would, indeed, seem to be unconstitutional for Con- gress to undertake to extract such information from the executive de- partments. Yet Congress, in 1789, declared that the Secretary of the Treasury " shall make report and give information to either branch of the Legislature either in person or in writing," as either House may require, " respecting all matters wliich shall appertain to his office." The language, it will be seen, does not cover information upon other matters than those relating to " his office." It has, moreover, now grown to be very much the habit of Congress to require subordinate executive officers to do certain acts without making any mention of the President, and a large proportion of them may be done without any special direc- tion from him. Here, therefore, we find again the distinction between acts about which Congress may compel information and those about which information can be obtained only in such manner as the Executive may see fit, or which may be withheld altogether, according to his will. The question of giving seats upon the floor of either House to execu- tive officers has been considered heretofore as if it only related to heads of departments. But why? The Constitution, as is well known, con- tains no such phrase as " Cabinet officers " or " constitutional advisers." It does say that the President may require the opinion in writing of " the principal officer in each executive department," and, therefore, it is well enough to say that such officers are the constitutional advisers of the President. So another clause of the Constitution declares that Congress may vest the appointment of sundry inferior officers "in the heads of departments." If it is necessary or useful for Congress to provide by general legislation for the personal appearance upon the floor of either House of any executive officers, the number need not be limited to the seven heads of executive departments, and might include the chiefs of bureaus. APPENDIX. 211 Thus far, I have invited your attention to a consideration of the in- qiiir}' whether law-making power can compel the attendance of executive officers. The other side of the general question is whether Congress ought not by general law, and each House may not by special rules, pro- vide for personal attendance of heads of departments, if they see fit to come, and thereby obtain a verbal answer to inquiries instead of written answers as are now given. Indeed, as to these written inquiries by either House of the Executive Department, it has been suggested whether, except as to the Treasury- Department, a more proper practice would not be to address the inquiry to the President and let him in turn send the inquiry to the proper subordinate executiA'e officer, and then accompany the reply with such observations as the President may see fit in his wisdom to make. This would probably be a more cumbersome and slower process of obtaining the information than under the present practice. The only mode of communication is by written reports and by an occasional oral statement before a committee, if, indeed, we may mention the personal letters which are constantly passing to and from members of Congress and heads of departments. The annual reports of the Secretaries, ex- cepting the Secretary of the Treasury, are, in general, addressed to the President, and possibly he may or may not, as he chooses, communicate them to Congress, although the custom is to send such reports with his annual message. Essential as these reports are to the purposes of legis- lation, and to a proper understanding of the requirements of each de- partment, they often need further explanation, which no one ought to be able to give as well as the head of the department himself, or the chief of the bureau which has the special subject in immediate charge. Do we lose anything by the modern habit of failing to treat the Presi- dent as the sole responsible head of the Executive Department of the Government, and the only source of infornuition and opinion in regard to "the state of the Union?" It is diificult to require the absolute responsibility of the President; but, under the proposed change, it is probable that the executive power would be subjected to a new and more definite form of accountability which might even have its advantages over the purely parliamentary system. Under the proposed plan, if the head of a department found that he was seriously opposed by the majority in Congress there would be more than one course left open to him. He might resign and the President appoint some one to take his place, with- out being under the necessity of removing any other member of the administration; or he might modify his views and^ submit a new and more acceptable proposition: or the administration might decide to re- cede from their position and wait for a new Congressional election to change the attitude of the Legislature. 212 APPENDIX. It might be asked whether the public sendee really gain anything by exposing a head of a department to be pestered and badgered by oral interrogatories put by inquisitive members of either House, even if pro- tected by the most careful and conservative rules and regulations. Is there enough of deference pervading transactions of our public business in Washington to make such a system successful? When the heads of departments have gone before Congressional committees, they have been received with the utmost official courtesy, even by members politically hostile to them, and may not a committee of the whole House be sup- posed equally capable of preseiwing its official dignity? In every suc- cessfully-administered representative and legislative or parliamentary body, I take it to be conceded that the best part of legislative work must, in order to be done well, be transacted in the committee-room. There, and only there, can the evil to be remedied be carefully ascertained; there, and only there, can a careful and critical examination be made of existing laws, and legislation prepared which shall thoroughly and prudently remedy any existing evil. Before such small assemblages, executive offi- cers can give their information without restraint, and in that conversa- tional way which permits freedom. If a Congressional committee has been conscientious and thorough in its work, it will have extracted from an executive officer all the useful information he possesses. Much of such information, wliich could safely for the public interests be given in the private session of a committee, might not be proper for a public session of the whole House. Yet it as often happens that the secret methods of committees are undesirable and that there ought to be publicity of executive details, and such pub- licity is frequently even necessary to the purposes of an administration and as an exposition of its policy. Official reports of the proceedings before the committees are, therefore, published. Members of Congress have not always time to study them. They are there to represent dis- tricts and States; many of the men have special work to attend to in the different committees, and if they give the rest of their time to listen- ing to Avhat actually goes on in the deliberative assembly, little more can be asked of them. But a few words spoken by the head of a depart- ment would place the whole of Congress on the same vantage ground as members of a committee, and this would be particularly necessary if it should happen that a select committee is not representative in its char- acter and its deliberations, therefore not important to the action of the House. ., Formulated into a bill, this change would run somewhat thus: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Eepresentatives, etc.. That the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Treas- APPENDIX. 213 urv', the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Interior, the Attor- ney-General and the Postmaster-General shall be entitled to occupy seats on the floor of either House, with the privilege of discussing any measure appertaining to their departments, under such rules as may he prescribed. § 2. That the said Secretaries, the Attorney-General and the Post- master-General attend the sessions of the Senate and of the House of Eepresentatives, immediately on the opening of the sittings on of each week, and give information in reply to questions asked under the rules. This would secure to the Secretaries the right to take part in dis- cussions relating to their respective departments, and, at stated times, require them to attend. And, that limits might be placed upon the right of inquiry, the rules of the two Houses might be amended in the manner proposed by the Select Committee, of which 'Mv. Pendleton, of Ohio, was chairman in ISiil. Those amendments were intended for the House of Pepresentatives only, but could be made to apply to the Senate as well, so that the Clerk of the Senate and of the House of Representa- tives shall keep notice-books, in which they shall enter, on the request of any member, any resolution requiring information from any of the executive departments, or any question intended to be propounded to any member of the Cabinet. The member giving notice of such resolution or question could, at the same time, give notice that the same shall be called upon on or of the succeeding week: Provided, That no such resolution or question shall be called up, except l)y unanimous consent, within less than three days after due notice shall have been given. The Clerk could, on the same day on which notice is entered, transmit to the cliief officer of the proper department a copy of the resolution or ques- tion, together with the name of the member proposing the same, and of the day when it will come before the House for action. On aiitl of each week, before any other business shall be taken up, except by unanimous consent, the resolutions and questions could be taken up in the order in which they have been entered upon the notice- book for that day. The member offering a resolution could state suc- cinctly the object and scope of his resolution, and the reasons for desiring the information; and the Secretary of the proper department could reply, giving the information, or the reasons why the same should be zvithheld, and then, without further debate, the House shall vote on the resolution, unless it shall be withdrawn or postponed. In putting any question to the Secretaries, or the Attorney-General or Postmaster-General, no argu- ment or opinion should be offered, nor any fact stated, except so far as 214 APPENDIX. may be necessary to explain snch question. And in answering such question the Secretary, the Attorney-General, or Postmaster-General, should not debate the matter to which the same refers, nor state facts or opinions other than those necessary to explain the answer. The foregoing project would involve only model changes and not con- stitutional innovations — new methods and not new systems of govern- ment. It would introduce a practice which might tend to combine the executive and legislative departments in that harmonious sympathy, most desirable in the shaping and directing of measures for the public welfare. The power to call the head of a department before a committee, to sub- poena him and put him under oath would remain as before, only these more violent measures would not be resorted to, excepting when other established means of obtaining information had been exhausted. If some novel mode of procedure had been introduced into the courts, by which seals and documentary evidence were no longer admitted, certain recognized means of arriving at a judgment would be taken away, but the powers of the court and of the jury would remain the same, and be as independent of each other as before. So the admission of the Secre- taries would seem in like manner to leave undisturbed the powers of the executive and legislative branches of the Government, and would only afford an opportunity of free and open consultation between them, which might materially aid Congress in reaching its decisions upon ques- tions of policy. If it is within the scope of the letter and spirit of the Constitution, that executive officers be admitted to discuss public meas- ures on the floor of either House, it is clearly only a question of ex- pediency whether or not the law ought to be enacted. And in popular discussion it may be well to keep in mind that the idea of bringing Cabinet officers before the Houses of Congress is not necessarily sug- gested by the Parliamentary system of Great Britain. That system is, in its fundamental principles, so different from ours as to be hardly a safe guide for us. The term " Cabinet officers," identical in both coun- tries, might give rise to such an impression; but the meaning is very different in England and in America. There the Ministry is in eft'ect the Executive, and is also in another respect little more than a Com- mittee of the House of Commons to carry into execution its general policy; while here the Cabinet officers, although under a certain control of the Legislature, are the advisers and assistants of the Executive, and the President is legally responsible for their acts. Changes in certain respects similar to the plan here suggested as applicable to our system, have, as we have seen, often and by the very nature of things, presented themselves for consideration during the history of American legislation, APPEXDIX. 215 and annals of Congress contain more than one debate upon the subject, at times when information was to be obtained from heads of depart- ments. It belongs to the development of our own laws, and ought, perhaps, to be discussed exclusively within its capacity of being adjusted to the American system. Laws are sometimes framed with a particular intention, which, in the course of time and by force of circumstances, bring about results utterly at variance with the purpose of the law- makers. But the converse is equally true, that difficulties are often raised, and obstacles suggested to a proposed scheme, which are after- ward found to be fanciful or exaggerated, and to which the practical working of the law suggests an easy and ample remedy; and tliis holds good particularly in regard to matters of administration. 316 APPENDIX. TAXATION OF CITY BONDS. (The International Review, April, 1879.) The last message of the Governor of New York calls upon the munic- ipalities throughout the State to reduce their expenditures. A com- mission appointed to " devise a plan for the government of cities in the State of New York" advised lately in their report that cities be pro- hibited from borrowing money except for certain specified purposes, and advocated, whether wisely or not, general restrictions upon municipal debts by constitutional amendment. But even if these recommendations sliould be adopted a.nd a reduction of expenditures effected, there would still remain the tax upon city bonds presenting a serious drawback to the process of funding them at a lower rate of interest and thus lighten- ing the burdens of the people. To diminish the tax rate is to enlarge the comforts of all citizens, but chiefly of the poorer classes. The question briefly stated is: What would be the effect upon all classes, capitalists and laborers alike in our largely indebted cities, either in the creation of new debts or in funding old debts at a lower rate of interest, to issue bonds which should be exempted from taxation of every description?* The debts of the several cities in the State of New York, according to the above-mentioned report, amount to $170,000,000, upon which the interest is more than $11,000,000 a year, or about 6^ per cent. Such a rate is, at present, 2 or 2^ per cent, higher than it ought to be. The bonds of cities like New York are as good security as Government bonds, perhaps even better, because unaffected by the uncertainties to which the latter are sometimes subjected by congressional action, and there can be no doubt that the reason city bonds generally bear a rate of interest so much higher than the Government 4 per cent, is that they are subject to a tax from which the latter are exempted. The city of Boston recently attempted to obtain a 4 per cent, loan of $1,000,000 by popular subscription. Now a 4 per cent, city loan would readily have been taken up in the city itself where the bonds were so well known to be in every respect equal in value to the Government 4 *This exemption in behalf of federal bonds is fortified by tlie Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. It is not practicable, even if desirable, to withdraw it. But why should the holder of federal bonds enjoy an exemption which is denied to the small holders of municipal bonds? APPENDIX. 217 per cents, but it failed completely as a popular loan, simply because the people found that by writing their names for the subscription they be- came liable to a tax. Subscription after subscription is marked as can- celed upon the city books, having been made under the impression that the bonds were exempt from tax. The loan was finally taken up in banks which disposed of the bonds in such a manner that the tax can not reach them. It is said that the city treasury of Boston does not allow assessors to look at the record of registered bonds, and it is openly acknowledged that if the assessors could get at these books and ascertain the bonds held in Boston, which are honestly liable to taxation by Boston, the rate of interest would, on a new loan, go ii]) at least 1^ per cent. As in the case just quoted, the moment there appears a possibility that the law will be executed, the city can not place the smallest loan at low rates, or at a rate less than 5^ per cent. This means increased taxation for many thousands of people and is only one instance of the effects of such a tax law. Could a tax be levied on Government bonds, the interest would naturally rise in proportion to the rate of the tax. In other words, if the lending of money to the Government were taxed, the payment of tiie tax would eventually fall on the Government itself. If we take for ex- ample the rate of taxation in a city to be 3 per cent., the Government 4 per cents compared witli city l>onds, are in elfect a T per cent, invest- ment, and citizens holding 7 per cent, bonds of their own city would receive only 4 per cent. It is a discrimination tax against citizens, and the cities, therefore, lose the investors wbo would give the highest prices for their bonds and who would accept the lowest rate of interest. The high interest-bearing bonds are, in consequence, held by nonresidents, and foreigners and the cities are compelled in reality to pay the tax themselves and thus impose an additional burden upon taxpayers. In forming an o])inion upon the probable elfect of exempting city bonds from taxation, it must be borne in mind, that under our con- stitutional system of States it is practically impossible for any city or State to bring all its bonds or the holders of all its bonds under taxation. The Supreme Court of the United States decided, during its last term, that no city in the. Union can, when it borrows money which it promises to repay with a fixed annual or semi-annual interest, levy and collect a tax on the bonds, or the money loaned, by retaining or withholding the tax out of the interest when it becomes due. Xonresident holders of city bonds can not, therefore, be reached in that manner. The laws of the State of New York declare, generally, that with certain defined excep- tions, all personal estate "situated z^nthin this State" shall be liable to taxation. As to city bonds, then the critical question may be whether 218 APPENDIX. they have a taxing situs within the State. Sneh bonds are now assim- ilated to negotiable paper, and are regulated Ijy the laws which govern the latter. The prevailing rule of law in the United States is, that chattels, which have a tangible existence, are only taxable in the State in which they actually are, unless in transit for sale, and they are to be taxed like unnegotiable debts, in the State where the o^\^le^ may be. But bonds of cities, transferable by delivery% and, indeed, all negotiable instruments are to be taxed where they are found. The Supreme Court at Washing-ton has decided that debts owned by cities are not, in every sense, the property of the cities, but are oljligations of the cities. In the hands of the holder city bonds have value, and in the hands of the holder may be taxed, but the bonds have no situs separate from that of the holder. And, therefore, it happens that all bonds issued by the city of New York, if owned and held out of the State, can escape New York taxation. Take the city of New Y'ork as an illustration. The city debt is $113,418,403.49, after deducting the sinking fund, which amounts to $32,142,787.83; and the appropriation for the interest upon, it for 1879 is $8,790,153.84. All the bonds are subject to a personal tax, provided they are so held that the tax can be collected. The rate of tax in New York for 1878 is $2.55. The annual interest upon the funded debt is at the rate of 6 and 7 per cent., except upon $6,900,000, which has recently been negotiated in 5 per cent, bonds. The citizen of New York does not want a registered bond, because such a bond is itself evidence of the holders liability to the tax, although registered bonds are, of course, the most desirable investment and, if untaxed, would be taken by him at extremely low rates of interest. He might invest in a 7 per cent, bond, and, if willing to pay the tax of 2^ per cent., receive only 4-| per cent, from his investment, but if he takes a 6 per cent, or 5 per cent, coupon bond, and either can not or will not avoid the tax, he would receive but 3-J or 2^ per cent. Naturally, under these circumstances, al- most all the city bonds, registered and unregistered 5, G and 7 per cents are held by persons not within the jurisdiction of the city. The city, therefore, fails utterly in this endeavor to levy upon its credit an annual tax amounting to nearly one-half of the annual interest iipon its obliga- tions. If it could be supposed that the whole principal of the debt con- tributed its share by the payment of the tax, a large revenue, in some sort justifying the policy of taxing the bonds, might then be expected; but the fact that out of this debt of over $113,000,000, about $45,000,- 000 of bonds held by savings banks and life insurance companies are untaxed, and the remaining $68,000,000 are nearly all so distributed as not to fall within the taxing power of the city. It is making a large APPEXDIX. ^19 estimate to put the amount reached hy tlie Tax Commissioners at $1,000,000. From the whole debt of $113,000,000. all that can be col- lected by the 2-J per cent, tax is about $25,000. It is, therefore, a correct assumption that the repeal of the tax would permit funding at 2 per cent, less than the present rate, and, in that case, there would be a saving of more than $2,000,000 a year in interest on the bonded debt. The difference, therefore, between $2,000,000 and $25,000, represents the amount of loss Avhich the tax upon bonds brings upon the payers of the city annually; that difference is an amount which has to be made up out of the earnings of its people. The indebtedness of a city, like that of a government would best be shared and subdivided as much as pos- sible among its citizens. Xo doul)t investments in city bonds, by small holders, are just as likely to be made as small investments in Government securities, and experience shows, by the enormous amounts which are daily being taken, the extent to which these last can be distributed among all classes of the people. "Were the city bonds exempted from taxation, a new and conservative class of investors wouhl at once present them-' selves, who, as owners of the bonds of the city in which they are tax- payers, would have additional reasons for regarding the general welfare of their city as a matter of personal interest. It is especially in large cities, where there is a restless clement ready and anxious to profit by any unwise pu1)lic expenditure, that it is most impolitic to discourage citizens from investing in the municipal securities. Indeed it can hardly be questioned that municipal extravagance and bad government need be less feared whenever cities ojjcu their suljscription with the view of en- listing their own citizens as investors; and this they never can do, as they levy a tax upon their bonds. It has been said in regard to the exemption accorded to Government bonds that the holders can escape State and municipal taxation; al- though, as we have seen, the loss in taxes is discounted in the low rate of interest which the bonds pay. A similar objection would not hold against city bonds. The Government bonds are everj'where exempt and they can be and are easily purchased in large amounts for temporary investment, which enables the holder to avoid his due share of taxation. Municipal bonds could, on the contrary, be exempted only in the cities where they are now taxed, and they are, besides, generally held for permanent investment and have not the marketable character of Govern- ment securities. It seems superfluous to continue to emphasize so self-evident a proposi- tion as that; it is both unprofitable and impolitic to tax municipal bonds, since, even though tlie present Tax Law in regard to these bonds is but 230 APPENDIX. imperfectly executed, its very existence does, unquestionably, some de- gree of injury to the credit of our municipal corporations. At the same time it almost defies explanation that the damaging effects of the tax should, nevertheless, be ignored, and that the tax itself, which has not even the merit of producing a revenue, should still be tolerated. Some other taxes have been considered unjust and injurious, although they do bring larger revenues to the public treasuries, and much well-merited criticism has been expended upon taxing certain forms of personal prop- erty, such as mortgages and other evidence of indebtedness. Discussions of this sort involve the reconstruction of a whole system of taxation. The tax is hannful in all its. tendencies, indefensible on every ground whatever, and the exemption demanded for city bonds presents a simple proposition, distinct and apart from the consideration of other taxes. The demand can not honestly be resisted on the pretence that it is made for the benefit of a class, or of individuals, or of a particular locality, or of corporations other than municipal; but, on the contrary, it would be granted in the interest of the whole population of every community upon which this tax is now inflicted. In a word, this species of tax admits of prompt legislative action, and as soon as this could be obtained, the bonds of great cities would appreciate in value, and the funding of municipal debts at lower rates would easily be accomplished in every city of the State. A lower rate of interest on a city's debt is, for the taxpayer, equivalent to the lifting of a portion of his l3urdens. For the rich man this may be a trivial matter, but for the masses it is of very great im- portance. The policy which neglects their interest is unworthy of any intelligent self-governing community. Not only in the State of New York, but in every part of the Union are cities now taxing their own credit and these four brief suggestions are, therefore, committed to this review as applying to a subject of general interest. PERRY BELMONT. APPEXDIX. 221 NECESSITY OF STRAIGHT PAETY OEGAXIZATION. (Article wntributed to New York World, December 8, 1875.) There is notliiiig in politics more true than this — while we are correcting abuses we are in clanger of a fall into new errors. There is at present among ns an unmistakahle tendency to correct abuses and mis- uses of public trusts, and the nation is now exerting itself to be free of corrupt and ignorant politicians of all grades and denominations; but at the same time, there is also a fallacy abroad as to the means of arriving at these results, which, if it became prevalent, would bring a new class of evils upon our public service and a new phase of demoralization into our political parties. The introduction of reforms needs no commendation, nor does their necessity at this moment require any proof; but the erroneous opinion to which we have referred should receive serious attention, now that the Presidential election is approaching, and with it all tlie opportunities to make these much-desired changes. It is fair to denounce, as a fallacy, the idea that our reforms can be effected by the election of men of high per- sonal character who are yet without serious doctrinal convictions. That this error is spreading throughout that largo class outside of politics which turns the scale at every election is abundantly proved by the expres- sion of public opinions which are now generally current, and which are constantly finding expression. How often do we hoar it said that we want men who are not identified with either of the existing parties, and how often is it that other popular remedies are proposed which would recommend the union of the best men of both parties? The latter propo- sition disregards the fact that men of this stamp would find it impossible to lay aside their principles and convictions in order so to unite, and that it would be those least deserving of public confidence who would conform to such a demand. However much the Democratic party should welcome new converts, it should consider in doing so whether it is wise to accept former opponents as leaders, and whether the battle is not to be won by reforming within the lines of party rather than by breaking them down. AYe doubt if a great party should listen to aspirants for oflRcial honors, who tell us that political parties are constantly changing; tliat tliey are formed like the 223 APPENDIX. waves of the oeoaii, that a?^ one wave falls another, composed of j^artly the same element, rises to take its place. It is impossible not to admire the beanty and convenience of a theory which enables us, conscientiously, to place ourselves on the crest of each succeeding wave, or rather in the van of each successful party. But perhaps it is not carrying the simile of the waves too far to say that if this be the constitution of political parties our convictions should never reach below the surface. The election, by the Democratic party, of Mr. Kerr to the Speakership is in refreshing contrast to such opinions, and clearly points out the fact that public interests are best served by men whose knowledge of political affairs is the result of long experience, and whose deep-rooted convictions may be expected to guide them whenever political questions are brought to their notice. We are now forcibly reminded how wrong is the popular notion that there are really no deep-lying principles which separate the two existing parties, whereas, on the contrary, there have been two diverging currents of opinion since the very foundation of our Govern- ment, bearing different names at successive stages of their progress, and now called Iic^'ubli'-an and Democratic. On the one hand, limitation of the power of the people, centralization of the powers of the government, subjection of local authority, which are with us progressive ideas. On the other hand, extension of the power of the people, and a belief that a further centralization of the power of government, as well as the executive interference with local authority are dangeroits to republican institutions, which are conservative principles. In all other countries, we find the same two systems continually opposing each other and alternately triumphing, and they must also always form part of our social organiza- tion. Around these wide differences, single issues upon foreign policy, taxation, financial and commercial regulations, etc., may grottp them- selves so as to place a man in temporary opposition to his party. Such an opposition will, however, never extend to a violation of conscientious beliefs, and the main issues will always draw Ijaek to their allegiance all right-thinking minds. As it is only when the affirmative and negative are taken liy such minds that we can expect any happy results, from political or legislative issues, it is to be hoped that the Democratic party will continue to place in its foremost ranks such men as Mr. Kerr, Avhose adherence to principles in disregard of consequences, and Avhose bold conduct when, under the tyranny of an oppressive majority, indicate the source from which we must draw our strength. B. APPENDIX. 903 THE ELECTORAL TOTE OF 1876. (Article contributed to the New Yorli Herald, February 5, 1S76.) DANGERS OP" THE TWENTY-SECOND JOINT RULE POINTED OUT. Senator Morton, the Chairman of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, has brought in a hill providing for the counting of votes for President and Vice-President. The Senate has been for a week and is still engaged in the consideration of this important subject, and it would be well should it receive more general attention. The object of the bill is to prescribe a method of counting which shall take the place of the twenty-second joint rule. That rule, lately referred to in these columns, was adopted in 1865, and retained until this year by the two Eepuljlican houses of Congress. It empowered a mere majority in either house to refuse, without a word of debate, to count the vote of a State. The country was thus unable to judge of the fairness of siu^h re- jections, and those who might be guilty of any criminal partisanship in objecting to votes cast for an opponent could escape in silence and with impunity. In 187,3, Louisiana and Arkansas were disfranchised and the three votes cast Ijy Georgia for ^Ir. Greeley were thrown out, according to the following clause of the rule: '"'And no vote objected to shall 1)0 counted except by the concurrent vote of the two houses, etc., and upon any such question there shall be no debate in either house." It was fortunate for the peace of the country during the present ad- ministration that tlie rejection of those eighteen electoral votes did not change the result, and that j\Ir. Grant was lawfully elected President, even without taking them into account. Early in this session of Con- gress the Senate, without consulting the Democratic house, retired from the joint rule to which two Republican liouses had so long remained parties, and referred this whole matter of counting to Mr. Morion's com- mittee. As might have been expected, the spirit of the legislation pro- posed and advocated by Mr. INIorton and his friends, in 1876, is quite the reverse of that which we find in their rule of 1865, 1869 and 1873; and the new bill provides tliat no vote of a State shall be rejected " except by the alTirmative vote of the two houses," and gives ample opportunity for debate. While Senators are exercising their ingenuity in establishing some method not only of counting the votes, but also of questioning and de- ciding tlio legality of electoral certificates, we may in(|uire what con- stitutional authority they have for so doing. The twelfth amendment says that "' the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the 224 APPENDIX. votes slial] then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes for President shall be the President." This means that the Presi- dent of the Senate shall open the certificates, and that Congress shall count the votes — that is, may adopt convenient modes of computing the number cgst for each candidate, and shall declare the result. But can this be construed to give either or both houses power to reject the list of the votes of a State sealed and certified by the electors, together with a list of the names of the electors certified under the Executive authority of such State? Are not these certificates primary evidence of the true vote of a State, which Congress is bound, under the Constitution, to accept? And apart from constitutional objections is it expedient that Congress should have the jurisdiction claimed, and could a debate in that body, during the exciting process of counting the votes in a close contest, ever satisfactorily settle the questions which might arise? It seems, however, necessary that some tribunal should decide which of two sets of certificates are to be counted, and which rejected; for it has been seen that a State had two Legislatures and two Governors, and coji- sequently transmitted to the seat of Government two sets of votes. Still, had it not been for Federal and military interference, Louisiana would not have made two returns at the last election and occasioned an apparent necessity for legislation. But whatever law may now be devised and whatever tribunal may be provided, the country will not soon forget the twenty-second joint rule of 1865, nor that the Senate and the House have, for three elections, usurped a power to silently disfranchise a State; that this power has been exercised, that it is only because of overwhelm- ingly popular majorities in favor of one candidate its dangerous conse- quences have not already been upon us, and that although they are now anxious to place themselves on the record in condemning their own rule, it is only to-day that the Eepublican leaders are proposing a remedy. Mr. Boutwell says, "At that time (1869) there was a decided opinion that the rule was a bad one." Mr. Morton refers to a former speech in which he said: " But it was certainly adopted without much consideration, and with a view apparently of furnishing an additional safeguard against re- ceiving electoral votes from States that had been in rebellion." At the same time he says: "It is, in my judgment, the most dangerous contri- vance to the peace of the nation that has ever been invented by Congress; a torpedo planted in the straits with which the ship of State may at some time come into fatal collision." Yet these leaders have dared to maintain their " dangerous contrivance," their " torpedo " during President Lin- coln's last term, and during President Grant's two terms, and until their opponents had gained control of the other house. AVill they be held responsible ? APPENDIX. 225 THE TWENTY-SECOXD JOIXT IRXE OF THE TWO HOITSES. (Article contributed to the New York Herald, February 7, 187G.) The tricky cleverness and the brntal energy of unprincipled ambition seem to have many admirers. ]\Ir. Blaine in the House and Mr. Morton in the Senate, although they have shown themselves willing and eager to rekindle the elements of civil war to further their personal interests, may, perhaps, have good reason to entertain the brightest hopes from the un])atriotic course they are pursuing. To the friends of these two amiable gentlemen and to those who give their unqualified assent to the general course of the Republican party, we recommend a consideration of the rule under which the electoral votes in the last three Presidential elec- tions were counted. To have escaped a great danger is often to remain without a true sense of its reality or an appreciation of its extent. There are many people who even now know nothing whatever of the joint rule of 18G5, and some who are aware of its provisions would liave us believe that a political party which has dared to place within its grasp a dangerous weapon would not have yielded to the temptation of using it. The rule was adopted by a Congress in IxUli branches wholly under the control of the Republican leaders, February G, ISGo — that is to say, in order to count the votes of a momentous Presidential eleeticm, which had taken place in November, ISG-l. TIu^ objectionable feature is as follows: " If, upon reading any such certificate by the tellers, any question shall arise in regard to counting the votes tlierein certified, the same beino- stated by the presiding ofiicer, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and said question shall be submitted to that body for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit said question to the House of Representatives for its decision, and no question shall be decided aflirmatively and no vote objected to shall be counted except by the concuiTcnt vote of the two houses, which beino- obtained, the two houses shall immediately reassemble, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the question, and upon any such question there shall bo no debate in either house." A single objection to the counting of the vote of a State obliges the Senate to withdraw, and each house must then consider the objection without debate, and unless both houses concur in counting such a vote it will be rejected. H becomes very clear, then, that, witliout a word of debate, a mere majority in either house was empowered to object to and to throw out sutticient votes to prevent any candidate from receivin"- a 29 226 APPENDIX. majority of electoral votes, and it would then immediately devolve on the House of Representatives to elect the President of the United States, according to the twelfth amendment of the Constitution. Speeches and protests have been made against the rule on the Demo- cratic side in both houses; but the fact that in the last Presidential elections overwhelmingly Eepublican majorities were returned and its full powers not, therefore, called into requisition, accounts for its dangers hav- ing remained unappreciated by the people. It is very strange, however, that it is only now, when its powers might be turned against themselves, that the Eepublican leaders should admit and disclose the true nature of this dangerous instrument of their own creation. A Republican Senator, Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, now says that civil war is contained in it. The correctness of this opinion which Mr. Sherman expresses to-day is fully demonstrated by the records of the proceedings of both houses in February, 1873. This conclusive evidence of the practical working of the rule is suffi- cient to indicate its immense dangers. Instead of seventy-four out of tlie total uumber of electoral votes, which is SHG, a strong Democratic can- didate might have obtained a small majority. The passions of a closely-contested Presidential campaign do not stop at the threshold of the halls of Congress, and it is idle to suppose that members of the majority would not have found pretexts to rise in their seats and demand and obtain the rejection of sufficient votes to destroy such a majority. "What would, then, have been the action of a people and a party thus disre- garded? Had the Democrats not obtained control of the present House of Representatives the rule would have been retained to-day, and the approaching election, with all the passions and sectional jealousies v/hich are already gathering, might have made the hundred and first year of our existence as a nation the year of a great calamity. What, then, is now the action of the Eepublican leaders? The Senate, the branch which has remained Republican, has adopted the policy of simply withdrawing from the joint rule. For the first time in our history one house has, without consulting the other, retired from an agreement to which both houses were parties. Republican and Demo- cratic Senators unite in condemning the infamous character of the rule. But why do the former raise objections to its being considered by the Democratic House? Can they pretend to fear that it would demand the retention of the rule ? The expressions of the Democratic leaders do not admit of such a supposition. Is it not rather to avoid discussion which may bring the matter before the people, who would resent this insult to their independence of will, should they come to understand its full inten- APPENDIX. 227 tions? It is an old tool of no further use and to be thrown aside; but it is to be buried in the most decent, effective and expeditious manner. But whatever may be the intentions of these gentlemen they will not succeed in evading their responsibility. The nation will direct its atten- tion to their action in the past, and will object to their present course, which leaves us without a rule bv which to count the votes in the coming election and which debars the possibility of both houses agreeing upon some satisfactory method of proceeding in this matter. HOW THE ELECTORAL VOTES WERE COUXTED IX 1873. (Article contributed to New York Herald, March 4, 1S76.) Are the authors of the twenty-second joint rule to be permitted to con- sign it to oblivion and evade their responsibility? Tlie following is the clause no longer of value to the dominant party: "And no vote objected to shall be counted except by the concurrent vote of the two houses, which, being obtained, the two houses shall immediately reassemble, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the question, and upon any such question there shall be no debate in either house." A Republican Senate and a Republican House of Representatives agreed upon this rule in order to count the electoral votes in 1865, and it lias remained in force until the assembling of the present Conj^ress. A few extracts from the Congressional Globe of Eebruary 12. 1873, will demonstrate the ease with which a Presidential candidate could, iiiidcr the rule, have been deprived of his majority had he been unacceptable to a Congress controlled by his political opponents: "Mr. Trumbull objects to the counting of the votes cast for President and Vice-President by the electors in the State of Mississippi, for the reason that it does not appear from the certificate of said electors that they voted by ballot. " Mr. Hoar objects to the counting of the votes of the State of Georgia, because the votes reported by the tellers, as having been cast ])y 'the electors of the State of Georgia for Horace Greeley, of New York, can not be lawfully counted, because said Horace Greeley, for wlioni they appear to have been cast, was dead at the time said electors assembled and east their votes, and so not a person within the meaning of the Constitution, this being a historic fact of which the two houses may properly take notice. 228 APPENDIX. " Mr. Banks. — I rise to a point of order, and it is that we have no power to decide on the eligibility of any man voted for for President. "Mr. Bingham. — Is debate in order? "The Speaker.— It is not. " Mr. Hoar's resolution that the electoral votes of Georgia for Horace Greeley should not be counted was passed by a vote of 101 to 99. " Mr. Trumbull objects to the vote of Texas, because there is no certifi- cate by the executive authority of the State that the persons Avho voted for President and Vice-President were appointed as electors of that State, as required by the act of Congress. " Mr. Dawes. — I think the statute of the State of Texas should be read, as it all depends on that. " The Speaker (Mr. Blaine). — Reading the statute of the State of Texas would be in the nature of debate. " The Senate having resolved as follows: — Eesolved, That the electoral vote of Arkansas should not be counted (22 for counting, 28 against counting); "And the House having resolved as follows: — Eesolved, That the electoral vote of the State of Arkansas, as reported by the tellers, ])e counted (103 for counting, 25 against counting); " There being a nonconcurrence of the two houses on this question, the vote of Arkansas, in accordance with the provisions of the joint rule, Avill not be counted. " Both houses concurred in not counting the vote of Louisiana." Wlio could have foreseen that the elections in 180-1, 1868 and 1872 Avere not to be closely contested? Certainly not those gentlemen who have for eleven years been apparently unaware of the dangerous nature of their own method of counting votes. Senator Sherman of Ohio was one of the tellers in 18T3, yet it is but a few weeks ago that he was heard in the Senate to say that civil war was contained in this rule. The pro- posal of the Senate to rescind the joint rule at this particular time is a confession of indefensible partisanship in its original adoption, and the objections of Eepubliean Senators to consulting with the Democratic House of Eepresentatives may have the effect of withdrawing the whole disgraceful matter from public scrutiny, and also leave us without auy prescribed method whatever of counting electoral votes. There is uot a man in the United States to-day who knows how the votes in the approaching Presidential election are to be counted. It is true, there remains the constitutional provision that " the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Eepresentatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted." It seems that APPENDIX. 229 this was insufficient, as it does not say by whom or how they are to he counted. Its framers, however, evidently believed that tho composition of our highest deliberative assembly would always be such that a simple grant of power to count votes would be unattended with danger, and on the other hand, that the people were to remain watchful and appreciative of their rights. XATIOXAL DEBT. (Letter to New York neralil, of April li.', 187(5. on issue of four per cent, bonds.) To the Editor of the Herald: An article in last Sunday's Herald, relating to the national debt, is so different from the usual tone and reasoning of your columns on iliat subject tliat it lias invited the few words of criticism which are now sub- mitted to your consideration. Secretary Bristow is therein warned " against big bonanza syndicates," and a fear is expressed tluit " he pays too mucli deference to the judgment of the craftv bankers who are scheminong Island P.udget on 4 Remarks in Cfnigress upon 5 American Shi|imasters' Association, Letter to, on Resuscitation of American Merchant ^Iarin(> 57 Anti-INIonopoly I^<>ague, Resolutions adopted by, approving action in Congress, 81 Anti-Polygamy Bill, Remarks in opposition to. in Congress 10 Appointments to Committees, Forty-seventh Congri'ss 10 Argument before Supreme Court of the United States in Telegraph cases. .. . 184 Art, Free Importation of AX'orks of, and Anti(iuities, Spe(>ch in House of Reiiresentatives in favor of 1G3 Art, Municipal Art Society, of New York, I'art taken in originating 230 Articles contributed by: To New York World, on election of Speaker Kerr. Decend.er S. IS?."). .. . 221 To New York Herald. I'ebruary .">. ISTO. on Hangers of Electoral Count. 223 To New York Herald, February 7, lS7t>, on Twenty-second .Toint Rule for counting lilectoral \'ote 22."> To New York Herald, March 4. 1.S7fi. How the Vote of 1S73 was Counted. 227 To New Y(U-k Herald. April 11. l.S7i;. On I'our Per Cent. I'.ond Issue.... 220 B. . ' Bills inti'oduced by, in I•^lrty-seventll (''ongress: To Revive American Shipping 2 To Repeal Tonnage 1 )uties 11 For Relief of O.vster IManters of Riclunond ('ounty. New York 55 Elaine, James G., Press Comments on Examination of 12 Brewers of New York Cit.v, Resolution adopted by, commending action in Congress 70 c. Chili-IVruvian War: Resolution offered in House of Representatives and subsequentl.v adopted, requesting I'resident to communicate all information regarding attempted intervention of the United States in the Chili-Peruvian War G 234 INDEX TO VOL. I. Page Chili-Perurinii War— (Continued): Resolution calling for correspondence of Jacob R. Shipherd, with State Department on Cliili-Pernvian affairs; also adopted 6 NeAv York Tribune's comments on Shipherd resolution 11 Resolution requiring Committee on Foreign Affairs to inquire into abstrac- tion from State Department files of Shipherd's letters, also to make in- quiiy as to any contract entered into at Paris or elsewhere between any foreign corporation, and any American citizens concerning any conces- sions by Peru to any French or foreign company, wherein allusion was made to the diplomatic action of the United States. Also adopted, after debate 7 Resolution as to employment and compensation of Mr. Trescot as Envoy to the South American Governments 9 Philadelphia Democratic Association, Resolution of, commending action in examination of Secretary Blaine, as to orders to South Pacific Squad- ron 12 Brooklyn Eagle's comments thereon 14 New York Star's comments IG Speech delivered in House of Representatives July 5, 1882, on the War in the Pacific, and the part tuken by the United States State Depart- ment in relation thereto; and as to the Landrcau and Cochet claims, and the contract of the French Company, the Credit Indnstrielle 21 Minority Report on Chili-Peruvian Investigation, from Committee on For- eign Affairs 62 Civil Service Reform Association, Letter to, in regard to removal of minor officers 100 Committees of Forty-seventh Congress, appointments on 1 Conkling, Roscoe, New Y'^ork World interview, indorsing Belmont for re-elec- tion against independent candidate 80 D. Dinner tendered to, by prominent citizens of New Y''ork, at Delmonico's. . . . 132 Speech of acknowledgment 131 Letters from Grover Cleveland, Robert E. Pattison, and Chauncey F. Black 138 Speech of Mr. Hensel, Chairman of Pennsylvania Democratic State Cent- ral Committee 139 Letter from Governor Thos. M. Waller, of Connecticut 142 Speech of David B. Hill 113 Dinner tendered to, by constituents, at Babylon, N. Y^., July 9, 1883, and response thereto 167 E. Election to Forty-seventh Congress i'^ Election to Forty-eighth Congress 101 Electoral Count of 187G, Dangers of Twenty-second Joint Rule pointed out. . 223 Executive officers, Address to Social Science Association in favor of admitting them to seats in Congress I'JS F. Fenian Funds, the Irish-American newspaper refutes charges in relation thereto 81 INDEX TO YOL. I. 235 G. Pajre George, Henry, Speech at dinner to, in regard to Irish Land Laws 85 H. " Hawaiian Treaty — Minority Report upon, from Committee on Foreign Af- fairs ' '^ I. Importation of Works of Art — Speech on Itj-) J. Japanese Indemnity, New York Herald's comments on action tJiereon To L. Land Question in Ireland, Speech on ""^•* Letters to: American Shipmasters' Association '• ' Civil Service Reform Association 1'*'^ Long Island Budget, on Merchant Marine Bill -4 Young Men's Democratic Club, at Chickering Hall Meeting i»0 M. Merchant Marine, Resolution to investigate the decline of 50 Maritime Association, New York, licsdlution of thanks for action on Mer- chant Marine ^'* Steamship Companies of New York. Letter ot thanks fmni, U>v artion on Merchant ^Marine ^^ National Debt, Letter to New York Herald on Issue of Four IN-r Cent. Bonds, Naturalization of Aliens, Resolution to protect 10 Nicaragua Canal: Jllnority Report on, from Committee on Foreign Affairs 1<»^> Speech on ^*'^ Nomination to Forty-seventh Congress, New York Herald's report, October 17, 1880 l^'l Nomination to Democratic State Convention declined, 1882 77 Nomination to Forty-eighth Congress "^ 0. Oyster planters of Richmond county, Resolution of thaidcs adopted by 55 O'Conor, Charles, letter from, as to Fenian funds 84 P. Party organization. Necessity of, pointed out --1 Press comments, on nomination and election to Forty-seventh Congress: Eagle, Brooklyn : ^"'" Herald, N. Y ^''i 236 INDEX TO VOL. I. Page Fress Comiiieuts on Nomination, otc.^ {Contiinicd) : World, N. Y Eagle, Brooklyn, on Blaine examination 14 Evening Post, N. Y., on Shipping Bill 3 Evening Post, N. Y., on Tariff Address 97 Herald, N. Y., on action on Japanese indemnity 75 Star, N. Y'., on Blaine examination 16 Sun, N. Y., on second nomination to Congress 80 Telegram, N. Y., on Shipping Bill 3 Tribune, N. Y., on Shipherd resolution 11 Worid, N. Y., on Shipping Bill 5 Prime meridian, Report on, subsequently enacted into law IS Debate on 19 Debate on 54 E. Reports by, to Forty-seventh Congress: On establishment of prime meridian IS Resolutions offered by, to Forty-seventh Congress: Chili-Peruvian investigation 6 Orders to South Pacific squadron 12 Sandv^'ich Island sugar 1G2 Shipherd's correspondence 6 Trescot's employment 9 S. : Sandwich Island sugar. Resolution as to 102 Shipherd, Jacob R., calling for correspondence G Shipping, American, Bill to revive 2 Speeches by: Accepting nomination. Forty-seventh Congress i Accepting nomination, Forty-eighth Congress 78 American shipping 146 Chili-Peruvian War 21 At constituents' dinner 167 At Delmonico dinner 134 At opening of Loan Exhibition, 1892 231 Importation of works of art 163 Land question in Ireland 85 Nicaragua Canal 161 Tariff, before Jeffersonian Club, Staten Island 86 Steamship companies. New York, Letter of thanks from, on Marine investiga- tion resolution 60 Supreme Court, U. S., Argument before 179 T. Tariff, Address on, before Jeffersonian Club, Staten Island 86 Telegraph Company cases, Argument before Supreme Court 179 Tonnage, duties, Bill to repeal 11 Trescot, Envoy to South America, Resolution as to 9 PUBLIC RECORD OF PERRY BELMONT A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE 47TH • 4STH • 40TH • soTH Congress Vol. II PRINTED FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION 1898 FORTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS- FIRST SESSION. December 3, 1883, to July 7, 1884. Speaker, JOHN G. CARLISLE. APPOIXTMEXT OX STAMjIXG COMMITTEES. HOUSE OF KEniESENTATIVES. December 24, 1SS3. Tho SPEAKEli announced the appointment of the following standing COMMITTEES: COMJriTTEE OX FOREIGX AFFAIRS.— Messrs. Curtin, Belmont, Dciister, C'lenienls, Cox, of Xorth Carolina, George D. Wise, Stewart, of Texas, Ijariib, Rice, Wait, Ketcham, Phelps, and Hitt. COM:\nTTEE OX EXPEXDITURES OX PUBLIC BUILDINGS.— i\[cssrs. Belmont (chairman), Wilkins, Spriggs, Sumner, of Wisconsin, Far- mer, Weaver and OTIara. EECOED IN CONGEESS. EXTEADITIOX TEEATIES. (From the Congressional Record.) Mr. BELMONT, December 11, 1883, submitted the following resolu- tion, wliicli was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs: Resolved, That the President be requested to transmit to this House complete copies of all correspondence between this Government and that of Great Britain, respecting the extradition of alleged fugitives from justice, that has taken place since the date of the President's special message to Congress, of December 23, 1S7(), announcing that the suspended extradition under the treaty of 1842 had been resumed; and that the aforesaid correspondence be accompanied by projects of any new extradition stipulations that may have been submitted by either Govern- ment to the other since the suspension in ISTG of the operations under the ter.th article of the treaty of 1842. In the House of Eepresentatives, February 6, 1884, Mr. BELMONT, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, reported back the foregoing resolution (which was adopted) and made the following report: The purpose of the resolution is to enable the Foreign Affairs Com- mittee and the House to examine all the diplomatic notes that have passed between the United States and Great Britain since December 23, 1876, on the subject of extradition, and also to examine any projets of new extradition arrangements that may have been made or may have been submitted by either Government to the other. The date, December 23, 1876, is taken as a starting point because the correspondence between the two Governments up to tliat time has been printed. It will be remembered that in 1876 President Grant, exer- cising the power given to him by the stipulations of the eleventh article of the treaty of 1812, suspended the extradition proceedings under the tenth article. The British Government shortly thereafter abandoned its pretensions, and President Grant revived proceedings under the treaty of 1842. The question then in dispute was whether Lawrence, who had been charged in London by the Federal attorney in New York with the crime of forgery committed several times on distinct and separate charges — and who had consented in London to be surrendered on only one charge — ■ whether he could be tried on the other charges in New York. While that was under discussion President Grant demanded from the EECOED IX COXGEESS. 3 British Government tlie extradition of Winslow, also charged with for- gery. The demand was refused unless the President would say that Winslow should not be tried in this country excepting on the identical charge on which the surrender might be made. The promise was refused, and then President Grant suspended the tenth article of the treaty of 1842. "\Mien the extradition article was subsequently revived the country was told that negotiations were on foot for the conclusion of a more satisfactory convention. P>ut no new treaty has been concluded. The extradition stipulations in the Webster-Ashburton treaty of 1843 are contained in one brief article, and are now considered incomplete. The treaty was negotiated in order to define and settle certain temvoi-ial boundaries. The articles respecting the final suppression of the African slave trade and the extradition of criminals were subordinate stipulations. The extradition article is little more than a repetition of the twenty- seventh article of the Jay treaty of 1794, enlarged as to crimes by adding to "murder," and "forgery," "assault witli intent to murder," "piracy," " arson," and " robbery." In 1843 an extradition convention was concluded between the United ►States and France wliich specified tlie crimes of " nnirdiT."" "intent to murder," " rape," " forgery," " arson," and " embezzlement." Up to tlie treaty between us and the Hawaiian Islands of 1849, which only included the five offenses in the British treaty of 1842, the French and British treaties were the only extradition arrangements which the United States had with foreign Governments. In 1850 came a treaty with Switzerland. Since then the United States have concluded some twenty extradition treaties, covering more tlian as many distinct offenses. Meanwhile the old treaty of 1842 between two such great commercial powers as the United States and Great Britain stands unenlaro-ed and unimproved, with tliree thousand miles of boundary on the north of us, with British colonies in the West Indies, and with unsurpassed facilities for almost daily departure from the jurisdiction of either country by swift ocean steamers. The existing British treaty only specifies, as I have said, murder, assault with intent to murder, pii-acy. arson, robl)ery, and forgery. ISTeither burglary, the fabrication and circulation of counterfeit money, bonds and bank-notes, embezzlement of puljlic money nor of private funds, kidnapping, larceny, nor, indeed, any of the modern commercial crimes are covered by. the British treaty. Xo treaty arrangements exist between these two great English-speaking nations for a preliminary arrest and holding on an application made ])y cable, nor, indeed, are there any of the modern appliances for arrest and surrender, such as are to be found 4 EECOKD IN CONGRESS. in recent extradition treaties, and notably in tlie one concluded last year between us and Spain. Besides the evident defects in the Ashburton- Webster treaty, to which allusion has been made, and especially the absence of any definite stipu- lations about the right and power of the demanding Government to try for any other offense than the identical one on which the sun-eader was made, there is the other grave defect that the existing British-Ameri- can extradition article says not a word about a surrender, when the offense charged — as for example, murder — was inspired and committed with a political motive. Neither is any reference made to political crimes in the treaties which we have with the Hawaiian Islands, with Bavaria, or with Prussia. The other extradition treaties concluded by the United States exclude any surrender for a political ofl'ense. France, 1843: "Any crime or offense of a purely political character." Switzerland, 1850: " Those of a political character." Two Sicilies, 1855: " Offenses of a political character," unless the po- litical offender shall also have been guilty of some one of the crimes enumerated in article 22, which article specifies V murder " and " assassi- nation." Austria, 1856: "Not to any crime or offense of a political character.'' Baden, 1857: "Crimes of a political character." Sweden, 1860: "Any crime or offense of a political character." Venezuela, 1860: " Those of a political character." Mexico, 1861: "Any crime or offense of a purely political character." Hayti, 1864: "Those of a political character." Dominican Eepublic, 1867: "Those of a political character.'' Italy, 1868: " Any crime or offense of a political character." Salvador, 1870: " Any crime or offense of a political character." Peru, 1870: "Any crime or offense of a purely political character." Nicaragua, 1870: " Any crime or offense of a political character." Orange Free State, 1871: " Those of a political character." Ecuador, 1872: "Crimes or offenses of a political character." Belgium, 1874: " Any crime or offense of a political character." Ottoman Empire, 1874: " Any crime or offense of a political character." Spain, 1877: " Auy crime or offense of a political character, nor for acts connected zvitli siicli crimes or offenses." It is to be borne in mind that while the British statute forbids the Queen or any Minister of the Crown to surrender a fugitive for the com- mission of an offense of a purely political character, the laws of Congress make no allusion to the subject. EECORD IX COXGRESS. - O There was, not long ago, much excitement in this conntrv. it will be remembered, over the rnmor that the British Government had demanded of the State Department the extradition of Mr. Sheridan and one or two others, on the charge that one or all of them had been guilty of a con- spiracy to murder Lord Cavendish in Dublin. It is proper that this House shall know officially what passed between the two Governments in that relation. Did the British Government make or endeavor to make the demand on the State Department? It will ])e seen that the British- American treaty does not specify " cons}>iracy to comiiiit murder,"' al- though it is true that a British statute enacted since the treaty of 1843 does declare that "murder" shall in England include "conspiracy to murder." In the existing relations of the two countries with one another grow- ing out of events in Ireland it is certainly of tlie utmost importance that this House shall know what views, if any, the British Government has taken and expressed on this c^uestion respecting the cpumtity and Cjuality of political motive and purpose which can uuiki' mui-d"r an in- extraditable offense in the eye of her own statute or in the eye of inter- national law. Can assassination ever be a jiolitical offense in the domain of public law? If assassination be defined as murder committed with premedita- tion and under the inspiration of })rivate vengeance, would the assassin of President Lincoln or of Secretary Seward have been sun'cndered by the British Government if he had ffed to Canada or Jamaica, and the American Govennneut liad uuide the demand? Would British statute Jiave permitted a surrender? It is quite safe to say that the people of the Li^nited Slates will never consent that their Government shall sur- render to a foreign power a participant in even an unsuccessful political revolution, reljcllion, or civil commotion who has found an asylum on our shores and has Ijccn charged hy the Government ho attempted to overthrow with murder or forgery or arson", committed in the promotion, and only in tlie i)romoti()n, of such political revolt which had then passed beyond the condition of an ordinary Niolation of law; and for the reason, among others, that the irihunals of the demanding country can not be assumed to be suHiciently im]>ariial fo try such a ])olitical offender. In more than a dozen of the c.xti'adition treaties made by the United States it has been sti])ulated that citizens of tlie country on which the demand is made shall not be surrendered; liut, in a great part of those, the judicial tribuiuils of tlie foreign State takes jurisdiction of offenses committed by its subjects in foreign countries which the United States do not, liecause, under our system, an offense can only be tried in the 6 KECORD IN CONGRESS. State or district wliere coininitted, unless it was committed in an American vessel on the high seas. There is another reason why this Honse should take cognizance of what, since 187G, has gone on between "Washington and London in re- spect to extradition. The tendency is increasing among publicists in both countries to regulate extradition by statute, and by statute to give to the judicial tribunals power to arrest and order a surrender to a de- manding government irrespective of treaty, and under conditions to be prescribed by the surrendering State. The reason of the tendency is that governments are beginning to see that it is for their interest to be rid of criminals. Caution is, of course, to be exercised in inflicting a sentence of surrender, but no more than inflicting a sentence of punish- ment. One of the objections urged in this country against the extradi- tion article in the Jay treaty of 1794 was, that a jury trial was not seciu-ed. An objection against a general statute authorizing the judicial power to sentence a surrender lias been that, in the absence of a treaty, a foreign Government might refuse to reciprocate and surrender to us fugitives from justice. But the answer has been made that such a re- fusal would work an injury to the country refusing, by making of it a " Botany Bay " for criminals from other nations. These are some of the reasons which have induced the committee to report the resolution. (From the New York Times, February 14. 1K84. ) The adoption by the House of Representatives of Mr. Belmont's report of the resolution of inquiry desiring the President to transmit to the House copies of all correspondence between the State Department and Great Britain since 1876 upon the subject of extradition, opens a question of supreme importance. Mr. Belmont reported that the Foreign Affairs Committee favored the resolution and recited to the House several of the reasons which impelled them to this result. He regards the existing extradition arrangements as incomplete and unsatis- factory, and evidence of which was given during President Grant's administration when the country was told that a new treaty was being then considered. He shows that neither burglary, the fabrication and circulation of counterfeit money, bond and commercial crimes are covered by the British treaty. There is no provision for an arrest primarily on a cabled application, and an especial defect is that the apprehending government can try a criminal only upon the charge for which he was taken. The chiefest and most important point in Mr. Belmont's report, and one which he alludes to very carefully, is the lack of an arrangement between the two countries upon the subject of extradition for crime committed from a political standpoint. In view of the present condition of England's domestic affairs, and of the recent excitement concerning the report that Her Majesty's Government had demanded the surrender of Mr. Sheridan and others, accused of complicity in the PhcBnix Park murders, Mr. Belmont wisely thinks there should be some distinct and positive understanding upon this subject. He significantly points out that our treaties with France, Switzerland, Austria, Sweden, Mexico, Venezuela, EECOED IX CONGRESS. 7 Belgium, Turkey, Spain, Italy aud very many less important powers all provide for the exclusion of political crimes from the list of extradictable offenses, and that while the statutes of England forbid such surrenders, the laws of Congress make no allusion to the subject. The purpose of the inquiry thus undertaken is to discover how the State Depart- ment has placed itself upon the subject and to examine any projefs that may have been suggested by either side upon this subject. It is obviously a matter demand- ing deliberation and an early conclusion. MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT. Mr. BEL:\[0XT, Fehrnary 5, 188-i. submitted the following resolution, which Avas adopted, with some change of phraseolog}^ February 6th. Reaoheil, That the I'resident be aud he hereby is requested, if in his opinion it is not incompatible with the public interest, to communicate to this Mouse the correspondence concerning the representations made to this Government in rela- tion to the existing tariff discriminations against the works of foreign artists, together with such other information on the subject as may be of record in the Department of State. Tn response thereto, the following message was transmitted to the Congress : To the House of Representatives: I transmit herewith, in answer to the resolution of the House of Representa- tives of the (5th February last, a communication from the Secretary of State respecting the extradition of criminals under the treaty of 1S42 with Great Britain. CHESTER A. ARTHUR. Executive Mansion, WAsiiiNfJTos, May 12, 1881. To the President: The undersigned. Secretary of State, to whom ^^as referred a resolution, of the House of Ri'presentatives of the (Jth of l'''ebruary, as follows — Resoknl. That the President be requested to transmit to tliis House complete copies of all currcsijondence between this Government and that <>( (jreat Bi'itain, respecting the extradition of alleged fugitives from justice, that has tiikcn place since the date of the President's sp(>cial message to Congress, of December 23, 187U, announcing that the suspended extradition under the treaty of 1842 had been resumed; and that the aforesaid correspondence be accompanied by projects of any new extradition stipulations that may have been submitted by either Government to the other since the suspension in ISTO of the operations under tlie tenth article of the treaty of 1842. has the honor to submit to the I'resident the following report: With a view to understanding the scope of the resolution and the nature of the information desired by the House of Representatives, the resolution has been considered in connection with the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. It would ai>pear therefrom that the main purposes in view are to ascertain — 8 EECOED IN CONGEESS. 1st. Whether tlie iiiterpi'ctatioii ol' the provisions of the tenth article of the treaty of 1842 with (ireat Britain has been the subject of contention between the two Governments since the date of the President's message of December 23, 1876, announcing that the suspended extradition under the treaty of 1842 had been resumed. 2d. Whether any applications have been made to this Government by that of Great Britain looking to the extradition of any person or persons for a crime not enumerated in the treaty or for a crime of a political character; and, 3d. Whether negotiations have been carried on between this Government and that of Great Britain at any time since December 23, 187G, looking to the modi- fication of the existing provisions for extradition, and if so, to possess the text of any drafts of treaties considered in the course of such negotiation. There may be other points of in(iuiry in the report submitting the resolution, but it is thought that they will be sufficiently answered liy the present report. la the first place, the undersigned has the honor to report that no contention has arisen between the two Governments since December 23, 1876, respecting the interpretation or effect of the tenth article of the treaty of 1842. The point there- fore in dispute, as to whether surrender should be conditional on a guarantee of the Government receiving the surrendered person that he should not be tried for any other than the offense for which he was surrendered, having been waived, has not been revived in any case of a demand of extradition since made. There is. therefore, no correspondence on this point to be submitted. In the second place, no demand looking to the extradition of any person for an offense not specified in the enumeration of the treaty has been made by the Government of Great Britain upon that of the United States, or by the Govern- ment of the United States upon that of Great Britain. A number of demands have been reciprocally made. In each case the offense has been specified in the terms covered by the enumeration of the treaty, and the proceedings have been certified by the examining magistrate in due form of law to the Executive, with all the evidence adduced to support the charge. It has then become the duty of the Executive Department to examine the evidence in review, and decide upon its sufficiency before issuing a warrant of surrender. In no case has any pre- sumption been raised, either by the evidence or by representations on behalf ot the accused, that the crime imputed was of a political character or connected with offenses of such character. Had such a presumption been raised it w^ould have been the duty of the Executive to decide the question and determine whether the surrender should be granted. It is held that, although the treaty is itself silent as to political accusations, and our statutes are equally silent on this point, yet, under international law and usage, the right to determine whether an offense imputed is so political in its nature or surroundings as to warrant a refusal to surrender is one inherent in national sovereignty and requiring no authority or obligation of treaty to permit its exercise. It is not supposed to have been in the purview of the resolution that all the papers in regard to each individual demand of extradition since December 23, 1876, should be submitted to the House of Representatives, and no attempt is made to do so. In the third place, the undersigned must hold that, although the resolution omits — doubtless inadvertently — the usual clause that the submission of corre- spondence which is requested shall be made if in the opinion of the President it be not incompatible with the public interest, it is not the intent of Congress to request the President to communicate matters whicli it may not comport with the public interest to disclose. It may have been within the purview of the resolution to inquire whether EECOKD IX COXGRESS. y the limited enumeration of offenses in the tenth article of the treaty of 1S42 has been found inadequate to subserve the public interests. The undersigned may observe that on past occasions representations have been made to the Department of State by persons interested in the secure administration of justice that the -want of a more comprehensive schedule of extraditable crimes is detrimental to the interests of this country, but such domestic correspondence is not understood to be requested. A similar representation has been made by the Executive of the Dominion of Canada, through the British legation in this capital, and as this representation may be deemed to come within tJie scope of the resolution, a copy of the British Minister's note is herewith transmitted to the President, fo the end that, if lie deem it proper to do so, it may be com- municated to the House of Representatives for the information of that body. By the tenth article of the treaty of 1842, the following crimes only are enumerated : (1.) Murder. (2.) Assault with intent to commit murder. (3.) Piracy. (4.) Arson. (5.) Robbery. (6.) Forgery. (7.) The utterance of forged paper. The bulk of the representations made to this Department in lavur of an enlarge- ment of tlie list have urged that fraudulent bankruiitcy and embezzlement should be especially named. If an opportunity for revision and enlargement of the r>ritish list be found, this Department would favor the addition of manslaughter, counterfeiting, em- bezzlement of public moneys or by persons hired or salaried, larceny, perjury, rape, alxluction, child-stealing, ki.lnapping. burglary, criminal destruction of a vessel and mutiny or revolt on shiitboard. all of which are found specified and appropriately defined in the later extradition treaties of the United States with other |)owers. It will be observed that the existing engagement with Great Britain is silent as to the natiunality of the accused — that is. it nuikes no exception as to citi- zens of the surrendering country, and under it an American citizen is equally liable with any alien to be surrendered. A conunon provisi the ajipraisers at the several ports to estimate and appraise the dutiable value of such merchandise at the time and place of shipment to the I'nited States, and whether or not, in his opinion, it is for the advantage of the rcventie that the invoice value of merchandise consigned to the I'nited States by the manufacturer shall be at the time and place of " mantifacture " (section 28."i4). but the dutiable value l)e estimated and ap- praised as at the time and place of shii)ment, as now recpiired by law. (From the Now York Herald, April 7, 1H84.) Tt will bo remembered tliat a sjiceial agent of tlie Treasury, who super- vises tlie execution of the customs laws, in liis last annual report made serious cliarges against ]irominent Xew York importers. Those charges also bore especially against foreign manufactnrers who send tlieir pro- ducts to tliis country on consignment to their agents to be sold for the account and at the risk of the foreign owners and sliippers. The allega- tions of tlie special agent were that, on merchandise subject to an ad valorem duty based on the fair market value thereof at the date of ex- portation in the principal markets of the countiT from which the same had been exported, extensive frauds had been perpetrated on the revenue by presenting invoices to consuls and custom-houses that were false be- cause declaring a value below the value required by law. 3 18 EECOKD IN CONGRESS. The annual reiDort of the special agent created a good deal of com- plaint hy New York importers that injustice had heen hy it done to them. ]\Ir. Perry Belmont presented to Congi-ess a resolution asking Secretary Tolger to send to the House the official communications made by Consuls and customs officers on which the report of the special agent had heen based. A request made by the House, Avhich had been reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, was complied with a few days ago. Mr. Belmont was interviewed on Saturday evening by a reporter of the Herald in respect to this Treasury report, and the recommendations it maizes for new legislation to prevent the presentation of false invoices to Consuls and customs officers. Mr. Belmont said he had not been able yet to examine the mass of official correspondence which accompanied the report of Secretary Folger. He had, however, carefully read the text of the report and the proposed new legislation. He said the Secretary of the Treasury declares distinctly that the documents " seem to furnish conclusive evidence of general and extensive under-valuation of imported merchandise subject to ad valorem duties," and adds, " that this evil has been steadily growing since the passage of the law approved June 22, 1874, entitled 'An act to amend the Customs Revenue Laws and to repeal moieties.' " THE LAWS OF 1799 AND 1874. "What Avas the purpose and character, Mr. Belmont," the reporter asked, " of the law of June, 1874, to which Secretary Folger refers as the starting point of the recent revenue frauds?" "You may remember," replied Mr. Belmont, "the case of Phelps, Dodge & Co., and the excitement that it created. That case aroused an agitation against the then existing moiety system by which, under the law of 1799, the Government got one-half of the proceeds of forfeitures, an informer got one-quarter, and the remaining quarter was divided between the Collector, Surveyor and Naval Officer of the port where the seizure Avas made. That was the moiety system of 1799. The same law, you will remember, forfeited a whole invoice if one line declared a false value of one article, although all the rest of the invoice might be honest and true. The law, prior to 1874, not only forfeited the merchandise when actually seized, but if the merchandise had been consumed before discovery of the fraud, that law authorized the bringing ' a suit for value,' as it was called, against the person making entry of the goods, and a judgment against him for the value of the merchandise, even though he, not knowing the invoice false, were an innocent party, and he had remitted the proceeds of the sale to his consignor in Europe." "Judge Brown has, I am told, recently decided in New York,^that the Law of 1874 swept away ' suits for value,' and that a forfeiture can not EECOED IX CONGRESS, 19 now be decreed unless the merchandise be itself under seizure. The Law of 1874 also said that only the article falsely invoiced could be condemned and that the whole invoice, if honest in part, should not be infested by the false items. Prior to 1874, the salary of the Collector at Xew York was only $6,000, but the sums received from seizures mounted up to $30,000, and even $50,000 a year; but in 187-4 the salary was increased to $12,000 and the proceeds of seizure were taken away from the Collector, Naval Oificer and Surveyor. By the new enactment of 1874, the informer can only have what the Secretary of the Treasury sees fit to allow." " Under the old law the court charged the jury, that the Government must prove its whole case affirmatively, and prove that the invoice had 'knowingly and intentionally' been made false or tliere could not be a verdict of condemnation; but in 1874 the law was altered so as to declare that the jur}^ must, before they could render a verdict of for- feiture, find 'as a distinct and separate proposition ' that the acts alleged were 'done with an actual intention to defraud the United States.'" WHY WAV SEIZURES WERE MADE SINCE 1874. "What was the effect of the charge, and why? In the first place, the Collector, having no pecuniary inducement to nuike seizures, became natur- ally unwilling to incur the odium of persecuting merchants. In the next place, informers became unwilling to go before the Treasury Department with an exhibition of their methods and devices. Clerks refused to in- form on their principles. And, finally, prosecuting officers saw it was not easy to get juries to find specially that the person making the invoice or tlie entry 'intended to cheat or evade the Revenue Law.'" " But were not the customs frauds as frequent and as large before 1874 as aftenvard? " " Probably they were; but if the sum of an invoice was $20,000, and only one item of $100 was forfeitable, tlu' total (pumtity of condemnation would be diminished, of course, and the forfeiture prize be less, and then, too, Ijefore 1874, the District Attorney had two [)er cent. of the forfeiture, but he has had nothing since 1874. So his zeal naturally slackened in hai-assing importers by suits aiul threats of suits. And, besides, the Law of 1874 properly curtailed the power of a Collector to enter an importer's counting-room and seize, and carry oil' his books and papers for inspection." " Do you think that customs frauds have really increased since 1874?" "Possibly. And why not? Smugglers, makers of false invoices or entries and briljcrs of Consuls, weighers, measurers, inspectors and a})iu-aisers are proverbially the omnipotent regulators of tariffs. Our preseiit tariff is so complex, and so bedeviled by its double rates on the same article — one 20 EECOED IN COXGRESS. ad valorem and one specific — as to tempt men. In the severe competi- tion of importing a little evasion of duty turns the scale. An absurd and unnecessary war tariff has tended to drive Americans out of the import- ing business and leave it to foreign manufacturers, who consign their products to New York for sale at their risk. It is by law a State prison offense to offer and give to an inspector of luggage from an arriving foreign steamer a gift of any kind, and a State prison offense for the customs officer to receive it. But who cares? Is not paying on the wharf notorious in New York? Why is not some one indicted and imprisoned and the law enforced ? " EEMEDY FOR THE EVIL. " But if you concede the existence of the frauds on the revenue, how would you remedy the evil?'' " I would begin by putting a decent and workable tariff law on the statute books, and then I would have intelligent and honest Consuls, appraisers and customs officials to execute it." "What have Consuls to do with invoices and executing tariff laws?" " They, under the American system, are the most important persons, as my observation while on the Foreign Affairs Committee has taught me. They are, too, many of them, broken down and useless clergymen, or physicians, or lawyers, or politicians, instead of wide-awake and com- petent merchants familiar with trade and commerce. If you will look at the Eevised Statutes, and especially title 18, and to the Consular Eegu- lations issued by the State Department, you will see that there is pro- vision made for an American Consul in every foreign district from which merchandise is sent to us; that an invoice can not be entered at our custom- houses unless it has been first presented to an American Consul at the place of shipment for his examination and verification, and that it is a crime for the Consul to certify that the invoice is true unless he finds it true. The Consul is empowered and bound to demand samples. If a Consul is intelligent and honest at the manufacturing centers how can the frauds take place, which, the Treasury says, the Consul describes after he has certified the invoice? Why does not the Consul refuse to certify the invoice, and so prevent the entry at the custom-liouse? If at Basle or Zurich there are undervaluations in American invoices, and the Consul knows of them, why does he declare by his certificate that the invoice valuations are correct and true? American Consuls are, by American law, examining and appraising officers in foreign countries, bound to be familiar with the quality, character, and value of the goods whose invoices they pass on. Else of what use are the Consuls, excepting to collect $2.50 RECORD IX CONGRESS. 21 on each invoice from the shipper? Mr. Folger says truly in his recent report to the House: " ' ^Yhen such practices go unpunished, the foreign shipper is practically enabled to make his own tariff, subject only to the contingency of having the rate in- creased by the appraisers' advance upon his invoice valuation. It thus happens that when Congress enacts that the rate of duty on certain goods shall be fifty per cent, ad valorem, it is tound that, perhaps, only thirty or forty per cent, is actually paid, according to the boldness and skill of the shipper and his American agent in falsifying market values and deceiving the ai)praislng officers. " • It is no reflection upon the integrity or ability of appraising officers to say that they are unable, unaided by the penal laws, to cope with this evil. The most skillful expert can not be depended upon to fix values with absolute correctness; and where, as is now the case with many classes of iniport(>d goods, the true market values are studiously concealed by I<]uropean nninufacturers in order that no i»roper criterion for a])praisenients may be obtained, the dithcidties confronting the appraisers are well-nigh insuperable.' " " But shouhl not the American Consul in the ]ilaco where tlie merchan- dise is made be able to ascertain the price at wliicli the maker holds his merchandise for sale? " " Of course, lie should and can. All the invoices of every American consignment from that place must pass under his eye. He can call the manufacturer before him and can refuse to certify the invoice, and can stop the importation until his inquiries are satisfactorily answered. The manu- facturer, of course, sells similar goods to somebody. Xot all of his product is likelv to be consigned to Xew York. Rival manufacturers can easily he appealed to. American buyers can offer to i)urchase, and so fix prices. In Xew York the difficulty may be greater, but it is arrant nonsense to say that it is ' insuperable,' unless it l)e that every dealer in the article is in a conspiracy against the tariff', and, if that be so, the tariff had better be reformed, so as to get a little sympathy from somebody in Xew York familiar with values." SECRETARY FOLGER'S PROPOSED T.AW. " What do you say to Secretary' Foiger's proposed law? " " He proposes to remedy the defect recently disclosed by Judge Brown, and authorized a suit to recover of the person making entry the ' value ' of an imported article invoiced falsely when the article can not be seized. That is well enough! He proposes to yiay, as an informer, anybody who is not a customs official one-fourth of the proceeds of the condemnation, which is the sum allowed under the old law. He also proposes to repeal the Jiaw of 18T4, as to special findings of ' intent ' to defraud, and if a mer- chant's property has been seized, to compel the claimant to prove his own 22 EECOED IN CONGEESS. honesty affirmatively, or suffer condemnation, which would he simply monstrous. Secretary Folger would first inspire informers to make charges against our merchants hy promising one-fourth of the swag, and then, if a seizure be made, the seizure is of itself to be prima facie evidence of guilt, and put every claimant on the defensive to prove a foreign market value which, it is intimated, does not exist. " But, after all, who is to make the seizure in the name of the United States? It won't do to allow every informer to seize. The seizure must precede the filing of an information or indictment in court against the property, and it must be an executive and official seizure, upheld by the Treasury. If customs officers get no share of the plunder, whv should the collector run the risk, if he make a seizure, of punishment for an umvar- ranted seizure? I notice also that Mr. Folger asks that all merchandise be invoiced at its ' actual cost ! ' But how can there be a ' cost ' price of a thing if nothing like it has ever been sold? Or are goods consigned by a maker to be invoiced at the ' cost ' of manufacture, which must neces- sarily be less than the selling price and less than the price at which a buyer must invoice? The report made by Secretary Folger is a terrible condemnation, not only of the existing tariff, but of its execution, and speaks volumes for ' tariff reform ' and the sweeping away of war taxes of every sort." EECOKD IX COXGEESS. 23 FEDEKAL TAXATION AXD SURPLUS. (From the Lonisvillo Courier-Journal, Jaunary 28, 1SS4.) Washixgtox, January 27, 1884. Your enrrespondent takes pleasure in sending to the Courier-Journal the following interview with Tlon. Pony Belmont: :Mr. Belmont at first alluded to liis recent intcr])retation in the New York Jicrald of .January 20. 1881, which was as follows: " So far as concerns constitutional or Democratic doctrine, there is little difference among Democrats in the Ifouse. The doctrine im- plied in this phrase ' tariff for revenue only,' is a necessary consequence and result of the iirst clause of the eighth section of the Constitution, which confers on Congress all the power it has to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports and excises. The interpretation of that phrase is that Congress in arranging tariff tables should not exceed the sum total of the revenue limit demanded hy an honest, efneient and economi- cal administration of the Covernment. If. for example, $200,000,000 he thus demanded from duties on iini)orts, then to lay and collect a larger sum total, in order to give an indirect Ijonnty to any industry, would he a disregard of the revenue clause of the Constitution, and violate Democratic doctrine. All agree that the phrase 'a tarilf for revenue onlv' does not ])rescril)e or indicate what foreign articles shall he i)ut on the free list, and what shall he dutiable. No more floes it prescribe what rates shall be laid and collected on each article that is not i)ut in the free list. A tariff for revenue only simply for- bids an elf(u-t by Congress to exceed a revenue limit in the sum total. The Democratic tariff platform condemns unequal burdens and monopolies, and demands a tariff limited to the legitimate needs of the Government — in other words, a tariff for revenue. The lJei)ublican platform demands a tariff for protection, with incidental revenue, and makes an incident that which the export section of the Constitution proclaims as the chief thing. No one will pretend that Congress should lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises under the commercial clause, which is the third clause of the eighth section, or ]iroliibit and exclude importations under the revenue clause, which is the first clause of that section. Eevenue comes under the import clause, and exclusion comes under the commercial clause. Mr. Belmont's oi)inion is that ' under the Democratic doctrine of a tariff 24 EECOED IX CONGRESS. for revenue only Congress can put as few or as many articles on the free list as it pleases, provided the needed snm total of money is collected from imports, and can also lay Avhat rates it pleases on each of the articles which are to he diitiahle, provided also that the snm total of revenue to be col- lected will ]"iot exceed the revenue limit. Within those conditions and limitations neither the Constitution nor Democratic doctrine imposes re- strictions o]i Congress or on Democratic members.' " Mr. Belmont then said of the Democratic i^hrase "tariff for revenue only: " " The Courier-Journal does well to iterate and reiterate the fact that Democratic doctrine demands a tariff for revenue, with such inci- dental protection as flows therefrom: but tliat Republican doctrine de- mands a tariff for ])rotection with such incidental revenue as naturally comes therefrom. No one can safely deny the genuine correctness of that statement. Owing to the rivalry and colUsion of local interests, there is, no doubt, a real diversity of opinions among Democratic mem- bers of Congress, both as to the proper time and the proper way of apply- ing the Democratic rules to tariff' tables; but 1 do not think it can be fairly said that there is a serious difference of opinions among Democrats in the House of Representatives over the proposition that the tariff tables wlien rearranged sliould ])e limited to revenue. As to the time, Democrats say, and I am one of them, that an annual surplus of revenue and taxation, amounting now to nobody can say precisely how many millions, is un- necessarily cruel to the taxpayers, dangerous to the public welfare, and should 1)6 immediately stopped. Democrats also say, and I am one of them, that more raw materials must be straightway put on the free list in aid of manufactui-ers, in order that l)y thus cheapening American pro- duction they may be enable to get easier access to foreign markets. There are also Democrats equally loyal and patriotic who say that the present distribution of party power between the House on one hand and the Presi- dent and Senate on the other hand, is unfavorable to such a rearrange- ment of tariff' tables during the present session, and that to attempt it now with the probability of obstruction to the Senate or a veto by the President, would be an aimless and useless disturbance of business and industry." " The first question,"' said Mr. Belmont. " to be definitely decided is this, what sum of money is needed for all the annual expenditures of the Government? The Democratic party, holding power only in the House, can not l)e supreme over that question as it would be were the Senate and the President Democratic. Last year some two hundred and fourteen and a half millions came from the tariff and some one hundred and forty-four RECORD IX CONGRESS. 25 and a half millions from the internal revenue. Shall all or only a part or none of the internal revenue taxes be stricken from the statute book, and the needed revenue be supplied by duties on imports?" That is a very grave question about which wise and farseeing men, in botli parties, are in perplexity. There is a most powerful tendency of Democratic inheritance and tradition, that actively resists every form of internal revenue tax. Democrats announced such a tax during Washing- ton's administration, wliieh culminated in the Pennsylvania whisky re- bellion. When Jefferson's administration came into power, in 1801, the tax was abolished. The exigencies of the war of 181-^ compelled its re- vival; but in 1817 it was again swept away by Democrats, not to return again till our sectional war of 1861 came. '•' There are very many Democrats," continued ^Mr. Belmont, " who feel that the present whisky tax on the capacity of the still is unconstitu- tional, because a direct tax; but, on the other hand, there are a great manv Democrats wlio feel tliat. in a fiscal sense, a FecU'ral internal tax on distilled spirits and grog should not be al)andoned, and if that internal tax is niaintaiiK'd, certainly the dnly on Scotch and Irish whiskies must be adapted to it. " I do agree with the Courier-Journal in thinking and saying that there is needed a vigorous, long-continued, intelligent and forcible dis- cussion of that question, which lies at the threshold of the tariff question. " It is of course true," said Mr. Belmont, " that if all internal revenue taxation were swept away, the sum total to be raised by duties on imports would be greater. The average rate of percentage on the dutiable articles would be greater. Inhere would Ije more hindrance to the importation of those articles. The price of them, in this country, would be enhanced, and the domestic manufacturer of similar articles would thereby and to that extent be benefited, which would be incidental protection; but a change in tlie snni total of money to be raised l)y a tariff" does not impose a modification of the Democratic rule that the tarilf tables should be ar- ranged only for revenue. " Jt has been plausibly said in the Xew York Sun that Mr. Carlisle and his friends liold tliat. in raising revenue by import duties, regard should bo had exclnsively to the capacity of each imported article to pay a greater or a less amount of duty, and no regard should be paid to the question whether the same article can or can not he produced in the United States; and that, on the other hand, Mr. Kandall and his friends hold that in framing the tariff' it is Just and wise to so apportion the duties as to afford to the American producer a suflicient protection against the competition of foreign producers, and so they would get rid of the 4 26 EECOED IN CONGKESS. present surplus income of the Government by first abolishing the internal revenue system. Possibly that may be a literally exact exposition of the opinions of those Democratic leaders, but I do not so understand them. But even if Mr. Carlisle and his friends be correctly represented, it would certainly be difficult to raise either $250,000,000 or $200,000,000 by duties and not afi^ord a great deal of protection to domestic producers of similar articles. If I am not mistaken, Mr. Carlisle and his friends hold that in framing a tariff for revenue only it will l)e wise, just and proper to so arrange the free list and apportion the sum total of duties as to give the American manufacturers all the protection against the cheaper labor and the competition of foreign producers that the sum total will naturally afford. ' A tariff for revenue only ' means, as I interpret the phrase," said Mr. Belmont, " that only such a sum total of money shall be raised by tariff as is demanded by the wants of the Government, when honestly, efficiently and economically administered." " Will it, in your opinion, be possible for the Democratic leaders to suppress the tariff question and refuse to deal with it?'" " Of course not, unless the Democratic party proposes to retire from the control of the House, abdicate its position in the Senate, and yield the Executive Department in perpetuity to the Kepublicans. The fiscal system of a country like ours needs constant vigilance and adaptation to a new environment. To-day the system of Federal taxation brings in an annual and useless surplus of $130,000,000 or thereabouts, more or less. A few years from now and there may be a deficiency." " How can the Democratic party," said Mr. Belmont, " aspire to con- trol the Federal Government and yet shrink from dealing with the most pressing problems of administration? The suggestion made by certain Democrats that it won't do for the party to attempt to reduce the surplus taxation and revenue for fear of making a blunder and meeting con- demnation in November next, is not calculated to inspire much confidence in Democratic statesmanshi]) or miicli enthusiasm for a Democratic ticket. It seems that State interference with industry had already been carried far enough; but yet the levying of taxes and the expediture of money to maintain the Federal Government can not be evaded by a party in power. The Democratic party has asked and obtained control of the House. Tlie Constitution declares that all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Eepresentatives. How, then, can the Democratic House evade, or dodge, or straddle, the imperative necessity for dealing with $130,000,000 of annual surplus, l)e it more or less? The Democratic party must now again, since it has control of tlie House, take the burdens and risks along with the benefits of power. EECOED IX COXGEESS. 27 "Here is a tabulated exhibition of the annual surplus since 1879: Actual appropria- Receipts from tions made. taxes levied. 1880 $308,284,901 $333,526,010 1881 298.055.097 369,782,292 1882 325,555.963 403.525,259 1883 3:1,689,388 398,287,281 1884 305,448,587 343,000,000 Actual amount ex- pended. Surplus. 1880 $267,642,957 $65,883,653 1881 260,: 12,887 100,069,404 1882 257,981,439 145,543,810 1883 265,408.137 132.879,444 1884 258,000,000 85,000,000 " If the ])einoeratie ])arty of the present House refuses or fails to mature and carry throujjh the House during the present session a hill to stop such a sur])lus in 1884-1885, what tongue will be eloquent enough to shield it from condemnation in November? Everybody, actually every- body but the plunderers of the lobby, condemns the quantity and quality of the taxation which produces such a surplus. As only the Democratic House can initiate reform in taxation, as the Senate can not begin it, the Democratic House stands naked and alone in its responsibility for a con- demnation of such a sur])lus?" "Do you think that the voters are interested in the tariff question?" " Yes, intensely interested. I saw an amusing illustration of it in Philadelphia the other evening at ilr. Carlisle's reception. Two gentle- men, one a revenue reformer and the other a protectionist, were speaking with eacli aiiotlicr. One said, casuallv. that it was unwise now to agitate the tariff question or even talk about it, and the other assented, but the two straightway began an earnest conversation on the tariff, w^iich finally became very hot and peremptory on both sides, and rather too earnest for a social occasion." "Why," asked Mr. Belmont, "should not voters be interested in the question of questions? which is this: 'How can honestly be obtained the most riches at the cost of the least lal)or? ' Which is Professor Jevoirs definition of the science of political economy. Can or ought any problem to interest voters so much as that of taxation and expenditure? Do patriotic Americans desire anything so much in a national way as to see their country rich, great anjl poAverful in all manufactures not less tlian in agriculture, mining and commerce? The American voter is practical as he is intelligent, and wliat he wishes to hear about is the actual outcome of fact, as the economic result of the association of labor in the new w^orld. 28 EECOED IX CONGEESS. How do men act in the pnrsuit for wealth? What rule can be safely clednced from their conduct? What legislation can best aid the economic tendency of Americans and increase their individual and national wealth? " The conditions of production in the United States hare greatly changed within the last twenty, and even ten, years, and our system of taxation must straightway be conformed thereto. Steel is substituted for iron now, as iron was years and years ago for wood. Under the tremen- dous stimulant of the war our manufactures have so increased that there must now l)e a foreign outlet instead of receiving the surplus and debris of foreign manufacturers. American manufacturers should be enabled and assisted to dump, when occasion calls, their surplus of production on the foreign markets. "American manufacturing industries are now so large," said Mr. Bel- mont, " that they really need the care and regard of the Federal Govern- ment, to the end of more raw materials on the free list and cheapened production. Let the Democracy begin the national canvass of 1884 by theoi"}', turning those rascals out who impede the growth of our national industries, who reduce the volume of our exports and who place fiscal burdens upon the backs or rather the neck and around the legs of the people that are grievous to be borne. Let us have a national tariff, sensil)ly and patriotically limited to revenue." " You propose, then, hy ' tariff for revenue only,' to aid and benefit manufacturers, instead of diminishing their profits?" " Certainly I do, and in this way, each product of industry is the instru- ment or raw material of other and more advanced industries. If Congress, by any State aid, increased the price of that first product, it enhances the price of the next in the series of products. If Congress makes paper scarce and dear, it will enhance the price of books and newspapers. If tools and machinery are made expensive, then everything that they pro- duce must rise in value, and the foreign markets be to that extent closed to x\mericans. Protection travels in a various circle, in which nearly every industry is plundered. The tariff' problem for Democrats is very diiferent in 1SS4 from that in ISdtG. The American maiiu- faeturiiig industries, stimulated and encouraged up to this time by war taritl's, should ]iow l)e objects of Democratic regard. In 1846 or ISCO no Democrat would have legislated to force capital into these industries as it was forced after 18G1. Yet, now that these indus- tries have tlius come into beino- and tlius exist, thev must be considered. Their trials to-day come largely, first, from bad location relatively to other similar American industries, and, secondly, from overproduction and a consequent excess of supply over demand. With the first difficulty Con- gress can not deal; but with the second difficulty Congress can be of use EECORD IX CONGRESS. 29 by so cheapening the cost of prodnction, through the free list, as to enable the oversupply hereafter to be dumped upon European or South American purchasers and consumers. " I do not at all believe in a general welfare theory of constitutional interpretation which would permit Congress to levy taxes in order to raise money in time of profound peace with which to pay bounties to particular trades or manufactories. I am willing to aid and benefit each by tearing away Government restrictions on freedom to purchase their raw materials in the clieapest market." " Do you say that Congress has not the constitutional power to tax solely in order to get money with which to aid private enterprises for the benefit of individuals, even though in a remote and collateral way the local public may be thereby possibly benefited? I think the Supreme Court at "Washington has repeatedly said substantially the same thing. In the case of a Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wallace, (555, the Su- preme Court said that the State of Kansas could not authorize a town to issue its bonds in aid of the manufacturing enterprise of an individual, because taxes to pay the bonds woiild be a transfer of the property of individuals not for public use, but to aid tlie business projects of an individual.'' " 'I'lie o})inion in that Topeka case was given by ^Fr. Justice ]\rillor. The doctrines there laid down by the Supreme Court fly in the face of the contention of the Protectionists, wbo woiild luive Congress, by duties on imports, increase the price of certain articles in order to aid certain domestic ])roducers of similar articles." "Which do you think, ^Mr. Belmont, are the most serious inipodinu'uts in the way of reducing taxation and preventing the accumulation of a demoralizing surplus?" " T would say that first of all there are Whig Protectionists in tlie Demo- cratic ])arty wlio have fastened a free trade laltel on the phrase 'tariff for revenue only,' and made sujierficial, uninformed thinkers believe that Speaker Carlisle and his friends aim at an immediate destruction of all eustom-liouses and a raising of all needed l-'ederal revenue by internal revenue taxes, or direct taxes, or taxes on income. That is the first impediment, and it can be removed only by discussion and explanation, showing what Speaker Carlisle and his friends mean l)y ' revenue reform.' The next impediment is the fear felt by politicians in both parties that if the tarilT is reformed and the sur])lus is sto))i)ed during this session of Congress, the more uneducated of laborers in factories and foundries, especially the latter, can be deluded in Xovember next into voting against the Congressmen who promote a reform of the tariff so as to stop the surplus. I believe that those of the manufacturers who are well-to-do 30 RECOED IN CONGRESS. would be glad to see the tariff reformed in the sense of cheapening the price of raw materials and production, and so opening up new foreign markets. But some of them fear that an attempt in that direction will carry the most ignorant laboring vote over to the Protectionists, and thus fasten on the country another ruining protective tariff in the interest of bankrupt manufacturers. The successful manufacturers do not complain of American high-priced labor, or wish protection against cheaper Euro- pean labor. They know that American high-priced labor is more in- ventive, intelligent, productive and hard-working. The inteUigent laborer knows that ' a tariff for revenue only ' will benefit him in the end by benefiting the manufacturers. He knows that wages vary in different nations and different States and towns of our own country, according to the place and character of the service. The cost of labor to a manu- facturer depends on the cost of the laborer's living, which, in turn, de- pends on the conditions of the laboring men in the particular place, whether it be Louisville or New York. Unhealthy business must pay more wages than healthy business; an educated man will get higher wages than an illiterate man; a man Avill get more than a woman; mental power will earn more than mere force. " Look at these tariff declarations in the several Democratic platforms since 1800. I offer you the record for publication. It is true that the word ' only ' was first inserted in 1876; but the doctrine of 1876 is really identical with that of 1868 and 1800. It is known that the platform of 1876 was written by Mr. Manton Marble, under the inspiration and careful revision of Mr. Tilden. Why will the Courier-Journal not print this Democratic tariff record of ever eighty years? In 1800 the first platform was adopted by the party then called the Eepublican, as dis- tinguished from the Federalist party, in a Congressional caucus at Phila- delphia in 1800, the year in which Jefferson was first elected to the Presi- dency. It demands free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. "The Democratic platform, known as the Locofoco platform, of 1836, was adopted by the first national convention for nominating candidates for the Presidency. It proclaims hostility to any and all monopolies by legislation, because they are violations of the equal rights of the people. The true foundation of a republican government is tlie e([ual rights of every citizen, in his person and property and in its management. "In 1840 the platform said: " ResnJrrd Thnt justice and sound policy forbid the Federal Government to foster one branch of industry to the detriment of another, or to cherish the in- terests of one portion to the injury of another portion of our common country. EECOKD IN CONGRESS. 31 "Resolved, That it is the duty of every brauch uf the Goverumeut to enforce aud practice the most rigid ecouomy iu couductiug our public affairs, and that 110 more revenue ought to be raised than is required to defray the necessary ex- penses of the Goverumeut. " In 184-i — The Democratic Convention of 184i reaffirmed the fourth and fifth resolutions of the Convention of 1840. In 1818 it said: " Resolved, 'Iliat it is the duty of every branch of the Government to enforce and practice the most rigid economy iu conducting our public affairs, and that no more revenue ought to be raised than is required to defray the necessary expenses of the Government and for the gradual but certain extinction of the debt created hy the prosecution of a just and necessary war, and that the results of Demo- cratic legislation iu this and all other financial measures upon which issues have been made by the political i)arties of the country, have demonstrated to careful and i)ractical men of all parties their soundness, safety and utility in all business pursuits. *' RC'Olved, That the fruits of the great political triumphs of 1844 have fulfilled the hopes of the Democracy of the Union in the noble impulse given to the cause of free trade by the repeal of the tariff of 1842. and the creation of the more equal, honest and productive tariff of 184G, and that in our opinion it would be a fatal error to weak(>n the bonds of a political organizatiDU by which these great reforms have been achieved, and risk them iu the hands of their knuwn adversaries with whatever delusive appeals they may solicit our surrender of that vigilance which is the only safeguard of liberty. ''In lSo2 it said: I • " Re.HolC'd, 'I'hat it is the duty of every branch of the (iovcrnment to enforce and practice the most rigid economy in conducting our public affairs and that no more revenue ought to be raised than is required to defray the necessary expenses of the Government, and for the gradual but certain extinction of the public debt. " Resolved. That in view of the condition of popular institutions in the old world, a high and sacred duty is devolved with increased responsibility upon the Democracy of this country as the party of the people to uphold and nuiintain tlie riglits of every State and thereby the Union of States, and to sustain and advance aniong them eonstittitional lil)erty by continuing to resist all monoi)olies and ex- clusive legislation for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many. '•'Ill IS.'iG the platform said: "Resolved. That justice and sound policy forbid the Federal Government to foster one branch of industry to the detriment of another, or to cherish the in- terests of one portion of our common country. "It also repeated verbatim the first resolution quoted above of the Convention of 18~)2, and then it resolved finally that there are questions connected with the foreign policy of this country which are inferior to no domestic questions whatever. The time lias come for the people of the United States to declare themselves in favor of free seas and pro- gressive free trade throughout the world, and by solemn manifestations to place their moral influence at the side of their successful example. 32 EECOED IX CONGKESS. " In 1860 Loth the Douglas and Breckenridge platforms reaffirmed the resolution of 1856, quoted above. "In 186-1, the continuation of the Civil war, which made imprudently high duties necessary to raise sufficient revenue, precluded the necessity of discussing the extraordinary and willingly-endured burdens imposed by it on the people of the Northern States, and nothing was said about the tariff. " In 1868 it called for the payment of all the public debt of the United States as rapidly as practicable — all money drawn from the people by taxation, except so much as is requisite for the necessities of the Govern- ment, economically administered, being honestly applied to such pay- ments, a tariff for revenue upon foreign imports, and such equal taxation under the internal revenue laws as will afford incidental protection to domestic manufacturers, and as will, without impairing the revenue, im- pose the least burden upon and best promote and encourage the great industrial interests of the country. "In 18T2, the Democratic Convention, so called, at Baltimore, which was in fact a Greeley and not a Democratic Convention at all, did not adopt any Democratic resolutions, but indorsed the platform of the Liberal Eepublican Convention held at Cincinnati, which contained the following curious declaration making the tariff' a local issue: " We remit the discussion of tlie subject of protection and free trade to the people in their Congressional districts and the decision of Congress thereon wholly free from Executive interference or dictation. "In 1876 it said: "We denounce the present tariff levied upon nearly four thousand ai-ticles as a masterpiece of injustice in ecpiality and false pretense. It yields a dwindling, not a yearly rising revenue. It has impoverished many industries to subsidize a few. It prohibits imports that might purchase the products of American labor. It has degraded American commerce from the first to an inferior rank on the high seas. It has cut down the sales of American manufactures at home and abroad, and depleted the returns of American agriculture, and industry followed by half our people. It cost the people five times more than it produces to the Treasury, obstructs the processes of production and wastes the fruits of labor. It promotes frauds, fosters smuggling, enriches dishonest oflicials and bankrupts honest mer- chants. We demand that all custom-house taxation shall be only for revenue. "In 1880 it said: " Home rule, honest money, consisting of gold, silver and paper convertible on demand, the strict maintenance of the public faith. State and national, and a tariff for revenue only." EECOED IX COXGEESS. 33 IXSPECTIOX OF AMEEICAX PORK. (House of Representatives, February 8, 18S1.) Mr. BELMOXT submitted the following resolution, which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs: Rfsolred, That the Committee on Judiciiiry he direi'ted to imiuire mid repjrt whether or not Congress has the power to reguhite commerce between the States and foreign nations by tlio imposition, in the form of P^ederal inspection laws, of any prohibition, hindrance, burden or tax on American pork destined for ex- portation from any State, the said inspection laws being only iiitondcd t<> ascertain and attest the quality of such xVmcrican pork, and not to enforce the inspection laws of any State of tlie United States or the general revenue and navigation requirements of the Federal Government, at the sev(>ral ports of export, applicable to all merchandise to be exported; and, also, whether any State of the United States may by its inspection laws, absolutely necessary for the purpose, require pork intended for exportation from that State to be inspected and marked by officers of such State, and levy a proper tax to defray the expenses of such in- spection and marking. ME. IIISCOCK'S TARIFF STATEMENTS. ; (INTERVIEW IN SYRACUSE DAIIA' COCRIEU.) AVasiiixc'I'on, I). ('.. February ^9. Your correspondent asked !Mr. Perry Belmont to-day. if he had read the report of a conversation with IMr. Iliscock ahout the taritl' that was published in the Xew York Herald of the 9th iiist. Mr. ]k'lmont re- plied that he had read it with care as setting forth the views of a very prominent Xew York Republican wlio is a memljcr of the Ways and Means Committee, and for whose opinions he lias great respect. "Mr. Hiscock puts the surplus for 1883-1884 at a small figure," said Mr. Belmont. " He estimates it at $59,000,000." Mr. Belmont can not see how it can be less than $120,000,000, unless appropriations are to be enormously increased. These are the receipts for January, 1883 and 1884, and since Julv 1, 1883: 1883-1884. Government receipts from — For January. Since July 1. Customs $16,338,223 74 $117,287,33(3 03 Internal revenue 8,490,918 95 69,807,213 48 Miscellaneous sources 2,991,003 30 19,070,003 05 Total receipts $27,820,144 99 $206,164,552 56 5 34 EECOED IN CONGRESS. 1883-1883. Government receipts from — For January. Since July 1. Customs $17,1G9,577 08 $130,778,990 80 Internal revenue 11,584,319 04 8(3,329,077 46 Miscellaneous sources 3,391,540 11 21,737,985 40 Total receipts $32,045,46G 23 $238,846,653 GQ " But," said 'Mv. Belmont, " you vill observe that Mr. Hiscock concedes tliat ' the real issue of to-day is relief from needless taxation.' Ho is right. Mr. Hiscock agrees with Mr. Morrison that Federal taxation should he reduced during the present session. But how shall it he re- duced? There the two part company. Mr. Hiscock says that he Svould leave the tariff untouched for the present.'" "But why," Mr. Belmont asks, "if taxation must he forthwith reduced?" 'Because," says Mr. Hiscock, ' the present is a time of widespread depression of business and labor, which has ' greatly weakened our home manufacturers.' ' They have sunk under this continued agitation,' says Mr. Hiscock, ' into a con- dition of exhaustion.' Therefore, in the opinion of Mr. Hiscock, they should now be exempt from any modification of tariff rates, and have a period of tranquil repose. ' AVhen we are once more prosperous as a people it may l)e well,' says Mr. Hiscock, ' to remedy these mistakes and abuses in the tariff.' " " But," continued j\Ir. Belmont, " it seems to me that Mr. Hiscock does not ' stand by his guns,' and i)robal)ly for the reason that he sees clearly how hard these excessive taxes are to bear in a time of such depression as this. Hence, Mr. Hiscock advises a repeal of the duty on sugar which last year gave to the Treasury, he says, about $50,000,000, or the sum that, according to his estimate, Avill. under existing laws, be the surplus of 1883-1884. He would put the whole strain and stress of reduction on the sugar industry." " Undoubtedly," said Mr. Belmont, ''' New York would be glad to have cheaper sugar, but would New York like to put the whole burden on sugar planters ? " " Public attention should be especially called," said Mr. Belmont, " to the premises of Mr. Hiscock's argument, which is, that the Democratic tariff' reformers have agitated the country, and from that agitation has come the existing prostration of business and labor. ' The evil,' says Mr. Hiscock, ' has been caused by Democratic discussion of the tariff question, and the remedy must be a cessation of such discussion.' That is the warp and woof of Eepublican assertion and declamation in Congress, and in the newspaper press." " What," asked Mr. Belmont, " are the facts? " RECORD IX CONGRESS. 6o " In 1873 came the paper money panic and depression, whicli continued till the resumption of specie payments in 1ST9, when business of every sort and kind he^^an to revive. During the year 1880 the pendulum swung back, and about the middle of 1881 it reached the highest point of apparent business prosperity. The slackening of speed, to use another figure of speech, happened to be coincident with the period of the assault on President Garfield, his languishing and death. Does any intelligent merchant, banker or manufacturer really believe that the tariff agitation was, in 1881, the cause of the beginning of the change from general busi- ness prosperity to the business adversity which now so afflicts and tor- tures the country? To ask the question is to answer it. And yet it is the keynote of Republican condemnation of Speaker Carlisle and of Mr. Morrison. "• In 18T9 and 1880," contiiiucil ^li-. Belmont, '' tlie industrial invention, energy and enterprise of Americans were at tlieir very highest point. "What had been repressed since 1873 then burst forth with dazzling splendor. Everywhere were buoyancy and confidence. Imports and ex- ports were never before so large; crops never so abundant. The Now York Stock Exchange was a thermometer of current opinion. Gold poured in upon us from Europe. Railroad building and earnings were never hi'fore so large. I'-.w into 1881 the amazing I)usiness ])rosperity con- tinued which begun in 18T*J. Tlie gross product of 1881 in manufactures were unprecedented and so was the volume of imports. There came (399,- 431 immigrants in the last-named year. In 1881, there were nine thou- four hundred miles of new railways built, and, as a result of those then projected, there were eleven thousand miles constructed in 1882. r)ut during the years 1882 and 18S3. the dejjression in commercial, financial and manufacturing business steadily increased. ]\Iercantile failures were unprecedented in number and size. The losses in speculative operation were gigantic. Every manufacturing enterprise began to fiag. The enormous falling oil' in railway construction made a decline in the price of steel and iron fabrics, imports decreased, and so did immigration. J\len and women know too well what, in 188;], befell railway shares and bonds dealt in on the New York Stock Exchange. How and why did all this sudden transition from business buoyance to the ojiposite, affect manufacturing corporations? Mr. Belmont went on to say that the tariff in force since 18(52 had been a ])rotectivc tarilT. ('a|)ital rushed into the business of manufactures under the nllurement of the high ])rices of flush times. The percentage of profit was enormous. Any sort of business faculty was then caj)able of success in manufacturing. Jlnw materials and wages advanced in prices under the tremendous demand for manu- factured products created by buoyant times. With the increased cost of . 36 RECORD IN CONGRESS. American manufactures, foreigners were able to come hither with their goods and compete. Pretty soon production overtook and even outran consumption. Then the least-favored mills began to show signs of dis- tress. Next came in 1883-1883 a persistent decline m values, lower wages, and consequent embarrassment. Tlie abnormally high prices of manufactured goods in this country, caused by the protective tariff and increased cost of production, invited imports. In ten years from 1873 to 1883, new manufacturing corporations traversed tlie whole circle from adversity through prosperity round to adversity again. By and by, Avhen the present supply has been exhausted, production must and will begin again. But with a protective tariff and high prices there will follow, in a natural way, excessive importations, and there will be a period of sharp adversity not far behind. " Now, it so happened," said Mr. Belmont, " that the Presidential year of 1880 was a year of great business prosperity. It was the year when a Democratic National Convention demanded a ' tariff for revenue only.' General Garfield was elected. In November, 1882, a Democratic House was chosen, which met not till December last, and made Mr. Carlisle Speaker. But, in the previous May, 1883, a Republican Congress and a Eepubliean President created the Republican Tariff Commission, which, in December, 1883, made a report urging an average reduction in tariff rates of from twenty to twenty-five j)er centum. And, what is most sig- nificant, the business arrangements and financial depression in the country took on a tremendously-increased volume when commercial men saw that Congress intended to evade, or resist, even the half-way measures of re- form urged by President Artbur's Commission." " Is it wise, or safe," asked ]\Ir. Belmont, " to say that Democratic advocacy of tariff reform has been the cause of the existing business depression? Or if it has been, and tariff-reform be postponed, as Mr. Hiscock advises, till prosperity returns, then will not a similar cause produce again a similar effect?" EECORD IX CONGRESS. 37 OUR COMMERCIAL INTERESTS. ' Responding to the toast " Onr Commercial Interests/' at a banquet of the Xew York Free Trade Club, March 15, 1884. Mr. BELMOXT said: " Mr. President. — It seems hardly necessary for me to address you gentlemen of the Free Trade Club upon the subject of tarilT, or. in other words, to come here ' carrying coals to Newcastle.' I came merely to listen to what the club ,jtself would have to say, and also to hear from our hon- ored Speaker, for that we can not do in Wasliington; since, in electing Mr. Carlisle to the Speakership, we have lost from the floor of the House a trusted leader. But, Mr. President, you have asked me to say a word about ' Our Commercial Interests.' Our commercial relations rest upon tlic legislative power of the Government and also upon its treaty-making power. The legislative power, when properly exercised in times of })eace, with respect to commerce, looks inwardly to the raising of revenue only, and outwardly to the freedom of exchanges. Legislation can not create a commerce; it mav, however, aid, encourage and foster it; it may even impede or destroy it. With us, war tariffs, continued beyond the period of war necessities, have deprived this country of its rightful share of the world's commerce. The peo])le, however, have long been restive under the stifling restrictions of such legislation. Even in 18?5 the treaty- making ])o\\-er was compelled to open a little door to tlie west, when the treaty with the Hawaiian Islands was signed. There may ho defects in the treaty; nevertheless, it was a step in the right direction, and during this session of Congress it has been decided that the treaty should remain in force. And, as your President lias already told you, only a few days ago a very large door was opened to the st)uth, when tlic Senate ratified the reciprocity treaty with j\Iexico. Soon we may look fo the north for Canadian reciprocity; and who among iis liere may not live to see an American Commercial Union, when this country Avill receive into its manufacturing centers the ])roduels of the whole continent. Surely, American manuracturers will never object to that? The treaty- making power looks to reci])rocal advantages; to agreements of mutual benefit to all nations, commercial interests being founded in reciprocity. " We may assume that our Protectionist friends have finally recognized til is fact, for, while they talk of protection, in tlie House of Representa- 38 EECOED IN CONGRESS. tives, the President, with the consent of a Eepuhhcan Senate, has entered into treaty, relations, admitting into this country, free of duty, certain very important articles. If, then, their political argument is true, that high duties produce high wages, why is it that they promote freedom of exchanges hy treaty? While the treaty-making power has its duty to per- form to the country, the legislative branch has already moved forward slowly, as all legislative bodies should move, with conservatism, keeping steadily in view the great commercial and industrial interests of the country. The Democratic House of Eepresentatives has before it a most grateful task, in removing restrictions from commerce, in lightening the Ijurdens of taxation now resting upon the people, in restoring to the Hag its proper j)lace upon the ocean, and to the great Republic the commercial relations belonging to it in the family of nations. a In this movement, ]\Ir. President, the people will not permit a step backward; we may well look with confidence to its successful termination, and the great benefits which will surely result therefrom to our country." EECOED IX CONGRESS. 39 SPEECH ox THE TAKIEE, AT TA:\IMAXY HALL. (New York Herald, March, 1884.) The groat tariff meeting was held iu Tammauy Hall last uight. * * * it was, indeed, the grandest meeting that Tammauy has held fur years. Long before the hour of opening every inch of space in the hall was crowded to overaowing. At eight o'clock lion. Sidney 1'. Nichols, Chairman of the General Committee of Tam- many Hall, oiiencd the meeting amid enthusiasm. Hon. John Kelly was heartily cheered as he came in view, followed by Con- gressman Dorsheimer, Hon. IVrry Belmont, Hon. deorge H. Forster, General John Cochrane, Hon. W. Bourke Cockran, Hon. Thomas F. Grady, Hon. John W. Browning, Kx-Judge Spencer, Ex-Congressman Benjamin H. Vvillis, Judge Monell, and other well-known Democrats. A number of letters and telegrams from distinguished Democrats, regretting their inability to be present, were then read by Secretary Gilroy. Among the writers were: Hon. .lohn (J. Carlisle. Speaker of the House of Uepresentatives; Senator T. F. Bayard, Hons. Abrani S. Hewitt. S. S. Cox, August Belmont, H. A. Herbert, Frank Ilurd, O. B. Totter, F. B. Thurber, Governor Abbott, of New Jersey; Manton Marble, and many others. Speeches were made by Hon. W. A. Dorsheimer. Hon. I'(Mry Belmont, Hon. W. Bourke Cockran, Hon. (Jeorge H. Forster and others. * * * When ]Mr. Dorsheimer had concluded, Chairman Nitiiols introduced Mr. Bel- mont, who said, in part. "This is the first time I have ever addressed a meeting in Tammany Hall; but, after what I liave seen here to-night, I may be allowed to ex- press the hope that it will not be the last time. You have nothing to fear from a discussion of the tariff question. Xo party has ever been repudiated by the people for endeavoring to justly reduce taxation, and it is this which tlie Democratic i)arty has set out to do and will do. "In discussing questions relating to the tariff, there is some difficulty, of course, in adjusting the different rates of duty upon separate articles so as to produce a given revenue. 1'his is a matter of detail in admin- istration as in the case of any other tax levied. As to the ]irinciple in- volved, there never can be a clearer or more simple political issue to present to the people than the one now raised. The Democratic propo- sition is simj)ly to reduce taxation to the needs of the (Jovernment. The Republican proposition is to maintain taxation beyond the needs of the Government. " Xo political party in any country ever lost political support by de- manding a reduction of taxes. The Democrats do not ask it unreason- ably or for mere partisan purposes. We ask that taxes shall be reduced 40 EECORD IN CONGRESS. because the people of this country are even now, in 1884, taxed under laws enacted in 1861; laws enacted for the piirpose of carrying on a great civil war long since ended. The Government now has no war expendi- tures, and the public debt is being rapidly extinguished. The framers of the Morrill Tariff Law in 1861 have declared publicly that it was a temporary measure, intended only to raise money for the Avar expendi- tures of the Government, and for the payment of the public debt, and that, when the necessity would cca-se for such heavy taxation, the laws would be repealed. It was upon that ground they were enabled to pass their bill through Congress. But they have not fulfilled their pledge which they tlien gave to the country as economists and legislators. On the contrary, they have maintained the so-called system of protection which, in truth, is a system of organized bounties to the few. Even on the plea of protection the industries which have been benefited by their legislation no longer needs its privileges. " The manufacturers who have grown rich under this system now ask the removal of the restrictions from commerce and a reduction of the high customs duties in order that the cost of production may be cheap- ened and to be enabled to sell their goods in foreign markets; the only manufacturing interests which now clamor for bounty privileges are those wliose business is unprofitable and badly managed and wlio deliberately ask the Government to assist them and ])laee them on a prosperous foot- ing. AVe have nothing to fear and everj'thing to gain by proclaiming our position to tlie people of the country. The Eeiniblican party must ever remain on the defensive, continuing burdensome and unnecessary taxes. Who asks that they shall be continued? Do not the people of the United States demand that the surplus in their Treasury shall be removed? Do not the people of this country demand that in times of peace war taxes shall be abolished? And do not the people of the United States demand the removal of the restrictions upon commerce in order that now, after a long peace, America shall resume her place among the commercial nations of the -world, and command the supremacy upon the sea which belongs to her? We ask upon what ground the Republican party undertakes to maintain this system of taxation? Our commercial interests are against it; manufacturing interests no longer desire it; but, on tlie contrary, insist upon foreign markets for the sale of their surplus productions. The burdened and taxed consumers are against it. Th(>re seenps to be 'left to our Republican friends but one argamient, and tliey are making the most of it. It is, in fact, a mere political argument. They tell us that high rates of duty produce high rates of wages for labor. Our system of taxation is uniform and the same duties are levied in all our ports. The same duties are leA'ied at the New York Custom House RECORD IX COXGRESS. 41 as are levied in New Orleans or San Francisco, and yet the rate of wages is different in each of these cities. The rate of wages in New York is different from that in Albany and that in Jersey City. There is" a differ- ent rate according to the difference in the cost of living. It is a question of competition in demand and supply. " But we feel justified in saying that the Eepublican leaders no longer believe in the political argument that high rates of duty produce high wages. It was only last week that the treaty-making power of this Gov- ernment, now in the hands of the Eepublican party, entered into a treaty witli Mexico admitting certain articles free of duty into this country. Here they are: "Animals, alive, spofially importpd for breeding purposes; barley, not pearl; beef, coffee, eggs, esparto and other grasses, and pulp of, for nianufacture of paper; flowers, natural, of all kinds; fruits; all kinds of fresh fruits, su •h as oranges, lemons, pineapples, limes, bananas, plantains, mangoes, ete.; goatskins, raw heniquen, sisal, hemp, and other like substitutes for hemp; hide rope; hides, raw or uucured, whether dry-salted or pickled, and skins, except sheepskins with the wool on; Angora goatskins, raw, without the wool, and asses' skins; India rubber, crude and milk of; indigo; ixtle or Tampico fibre; jalap; leather, old scrap; logwood, berries, nuts, archil and vegetables for dyeing or used for composing dyes; molasses; palm of cocoanut oil; quicksilver; sarsaparilla, crude: shrimps and all other shellfish; straw, unmanufactured; sugar, not above No. l(i Dutch standard in color; tobacco in leal", unuianufacturcd ; vegetables, fresh, of all kinds; wood and timber of all kinds, unmanufactured, including shii) timber. •• I tliiiik it a very fair (luestion for Democrats to ask linw it is that tlieir protectionist friends of the Eejmblican party explain their position upon the reciprocity treaty with Mexico. Tlie I'residcnt of tlie United States, a member of the Republican ]iarty, with the consent of the Senate, has entered into this treaty. Will Republican orators, during the coming Presidential cam]>aign, undertake to argue that high rates of duty pro- duce high wages, and, at the same time, (Icrciid thu ^Fexican reciprocity treaty? It seems to me that we will no longer hear that statement. The restrictions placed upon commerce by this system do, in fact, stand in the way of a more extensive employment of labor. For instance, this very treaty with Mexico will give new emi)loyment to American labor. It will open new mai'kets for Amrrican manufactures, and I am very free to say that it is good policy, and as Democrats we may congratulate our Republican friends for having come over to our side of the question. While they have under their control the treaty-making power of the Gov- ernment, we have the legislative hranch. The Democratic i)arty, having a majority in the House, present to the country a measure of relief from taxation in what is called the Morrison bill. G 43 RECORD IN CONGRESS. " The Democratic Morrison bill of the House is more conservative than the Republican Mexican treaty, and while under the bill we ask a certain reduction of taxes, that bill itself is a protection bill. We do not pretend that it is anything else, because, while we are endeavoring to bring about a reform in the tariff, Ave propose no revolutionary or sweeping changes, while opposed to the principle of a protective tariff beyond the neces- sities arising out of the war, we must accept the system as a legacy and we are compelled to recognize it. The manufacturing interests have grown steadily with the country and during the low tariff period of Demo- cratic ascendency between 1850 and 18G0, their progress was remarkable. Upon this subject I will refer to a vahiable work, ' Bishop's History of American Manufactures.' This author says, referring to the decade from 1830 to 1840: ' We are now approaching a period when the manufacturing industry of the country, established on a solid and permanent foundation, has attained such wonderful expansion that it is no longer possible to trace its progress in detailed statements or isolated facts. In spite of temporary checks and adverse legislation, the Anglo-Saxon steadily wi- dened the circle of his enterprises until the sound of his hammer rung throughout the whole extent of the populated portion of the Republic' " Speaking of the decade from 1840 to 1850, he says: " The astounding fact was revealed that the capital invested in manufactures, not counting any establishment that produced under ^500 a year, exceeded $550,000,000, and that the annual product reached $1,019,000,000. " Vast as this production is, we find ten years later an increase of more than eighty-six per cent., and if to this amount was added the very large amount of productions below the value of $500 (of which no official cog- nizance is taken), the result would, indeed, be one of startling magnitude. From 1850 to 1860 the wealth of this country increased, as estimated, one hundred and twenty-five per cent. During the same period the capital in manufactures increased ninety per cent., the product eighty-six per cent., and the profits on cajntal forty-seven per cent. It is stated by Mr. Bishop that in this period the capital in pig iron increased nearly fifty per cent., and the product over fifty per cent. In bar, sheet and railroad iron capital increased over forty-five per cent., products over one hundred per cent., and profits rose from eighteen per cent, on capital to thirty per cent. Steel products rose during the same period tenfold. In the same decade the capital of woolen and worsted manufactures increased eighteen per cent., products, forty-one per cent., and profits rose from forty-three to nearly fifty per cent. I am indebted for these figures to EECOED IX COXGEESS. 43 the able and exhaustive speech Ijy a distinguished gentleman from Vir- ginia, 'Sir. L. Randolph Tucker. " It may be interesting to show how the State of New York stands in respect to its manufacturing to-day, in comparison with the rest of the country. The yearly value of the manufactured products of Xew York is more than twice and a half as large as that of the whole of Xew England. Indeed, it bears the relation of the value of the manufactured products of Xew England and Pennsylvania combined, of $1,080,696, oOG to $1,219, 841,464, or of 108 to 121. The total population of Xew York, as given by the last census, was 5,082,871. Of these, 377,460 were agri- cultural labors, 537,897 were engaged in professional and personal ser- vices, and 339,419 were engaged in trades and transportation. So that out of nearly two millions of persons in the State of Xew York engaged in all kinds of occupations about one-fourth were manufacturers, me- chanics and miners. " In reducing taxes we have done nothing to disturb, but, on the other hand, everything to promote the interests of American manufacturers, for it can not be too often repeated that only those manufacturers come to Washington to ask Government bounties wlio, in their own private busi- ness, want Government assistance. Well-to-do inamiracturers stay quietly at liome and attend to their affairs. We are often told that the great body of consumers are represented at Washington, and that their interests are safe in the hands of the Democratic majority of the House. " The reason I had for giving my support to ]Mr. Carlisle for the Speak- ership and now to ^fr. Morrison for the bill which he has prepared, is that I hoped these questions would be thoroughly discussed and understood before we came to tlie heat of tlie Presidential battle, when the poojjle have but little time to argue. Our disastrous experience in 1880 was owing only to the fact that the tariff discussion was postponed until we were in the thick of the fight, when reason could not make itself heard on either side." 44 EECOED IN COXGEESS.. TARIFF EEFOEM AND EECIPEOCITY TEEATIES. (Houte of Representatives, May 2, 1884.) The House being iu Committee of the Whole to consider the tariff bill — Mr. BELMONT said: Mr. Chairman. — ■ I have asked the attention of the House because I desire to_ place mj^self clearly on the record in support of the bill now under consideration. I believe, Mr. Chairman, there is notliing more certain in the political situation than that we are fast approaching a low tariff period in our history. "War tariffs will be relegated to the past as surely as there are intelligence and patriotism in the land. Many of the more clear-sighted and independent of the Eepublican leaders have recognized the fact and are already showing signs of a change of front upon this question. There are members, however, of the minority upon this floor who from long association, and perhaps conviction, are faithfully engaged in an endeavor to ujjhold and perpetuate a war system of taxes which, with all due respect to them, is jDlainly unsuited to the changed condition of the country. iUit if they are consistent Protectionists, what will tliose gentlemen say to the declared policy of the administration of President Arthur — a policy which it has been compelled to adopt in deference to the demand of the country for freer commerce and foreign markets? A policy abat- ing the j)rinciple of protection, one which will affect the revenues accruing from customs duties, and it is in harmony, so far as the treat3'-making power goes, Avith the legislation proposed in this bill by the Democratic party in the House. The reciprocity treaty already negotiated with Mexico and the com- mercial agreements foreshadowed with Spain and other powers are in accord with the policy of this bill. The effect of these reciprocity treaties is to reduce the revenues arising from duties on imports and to open new markets for our products and manufactures. And the Mexican treaty, in certain respects, goes further than this bill, by admitting articles free which enter into competition with our own products, a list of which articles I submit in an appendix. The prosperity of commercial nations, ]\Ir. Chairman, depends upon reciprocity, and to this end is dirceted the tariff policy of the Democrats of the House. Those opposing this policy stand in the way of the com- EECOED IX COXGRESS. 45 mercial progress of the United States; and it will be cnrious to note the attitude of Republican members upon the subject of the proposed treaties should any of them require the legislation of this Congress. And what will be said of the messages of President Arthur? In 1881 the President declared — In view, however, of the heavy load of taxation which our people have alioady borne we may well consider whether it is not the part of wisdom to reduce the rev- enues, even if we delay a little the payment of the debt. It seems to me that the time has arrived when the people may justly demand some relief from their present onerous burden, and that by due economy in the various branches of the public service this may be readily afforded. In 1882 the President said: I heartily approve the Secretary's recommendation of immediate and extensive reductions in the annual revenues of the Government. It will be remembered that I urged upon the attention of Congress at its last session the importance of re- lieving the industry and enterprise from the pressure of unnecessary taxation. It is one of the tritest maxims of political economy that all taxes are burdensome, however wisely and prudently imposed. And though there have always been among our people wide differences of sentiment as to the best methods of raising the national revenues, and indeed as to the principles upon which taxation should be based, there has been sub.stantial accord in the doctrine that only such taxes ought to be levied as are necessary fur a wise and economical administration of the Ciovernment. Of late the public revenues have far exceeded that limit, and unless checked by appropriate legislation such excesses will continue to increase from year to year. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 1881, the surplus revenue amounted to $100,000,000; for the fiscal year ended 30lh of June last the surplus was more than !pi45,000,000. The report of the Secretary shows what disp.jsition has been made of these moneys. They have not only answered the requirements of the sinking fund, but have afforded a large balance applicable to other reduc- tions of the public debt. It was made apparent in the course of the animated discussions which this question aroused at the last session of Congress tliat the policy of diminishing the revenue by reducing taxation commanded the general approval of the mem- bers of both Houses. I regret that because of contlicting views as to the best methods by which that policy should be made operative none of its benefits have as yet been reaped. What will gentlemen on the other side say to tlio reports of the Secre- tary of the Ti-casuiT, which demonstrate that tlie surplus revenues are too great and that the taxes are too high and ought to be reduced? . This bill is but the direct answer to the information coming from the Treasury. It was so stated at the outset of this debate by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means when the measure was introduced to the House, and during this long discussion I have not heard that state- ment questioned. 46 RECORD IN COXGRESS. No one on either side undertakes openly to quarrel with the proposi- tion that taxation should be reduced, but some of the objectors to this measure declare for a reduction of taxes only upon spirits and tobacco — taxes voluntarily paid upon articles which are in the nature of luxuries. Others would go so far as to postpone any attempt at reduction as inop- portune owing to alleged political considerations of a Presidential year. The best politics assuredly is a faithful performance of duty to the people at all times. There is now upon us a time of business adversity, during which industry and labor are made to suffer. It is now, if ever, that overtaxation bears heavily and demands the attention of the representa- tives of the people. Eleven years ago came the paper-money panic and the depression which continued till the resum]^tion of specie payments in 1879. Then trade began to revive. In 1880 the pendulum swung back, and about the middle of 1881 the country reached the highest point of business prosperity; but during the year 1882 and 1883 the depression in commercial, financial and manufacturing business steadily increased. Imports decreased, and so did immigration. Production has now in 1884 overtaken consumption, trade languishes, the least favored mills begin to show signs of distress — hence lower wages. And is it at such a time as this that Congress will refuse to reduce unnecessary taxes? And have gentlemen noticed the recent communication of the Secre- tary of State in relation to the bill for the support of the diplomatic and consular services, in which he says, among other things: "With a prf)dnction greater than m'c can consume, which must seclv foreign mar- kets, it is vitally important to sustain a sutiii-ient and well-compensated diplomatic and consular service. A Eepublican Secretary of State says: " With a production greater than we can consume, which must seek foreign markets." This, Mr. Chair- man, is indeed a concession coming from a Eepublican State Department. Which section of the Republican party more properly represents the needs of the country? Is it the administration, speaking through its President and Secretary of the Treasury, and now through the Secretary of State, or the minority in this House? It is apparent to the country to-day that the only branch of the Govern- ment in the hands of the opposite party and having relation to com- mercial regulations - — I mean the treaty-making power — is now under- taking a revenue reform by treaty, while the House, the only branch of the Government now in the hands of the Democratic party, is proposing a similar and more effective reform by legislation. This means, Mr. Chairman, that the spirit of tariff reform has gone beyond the control of either party, and can only be repressed for a time by combinations of minorities. EECOED IX COXGEESS. 47 THE EFFECT ITOX WAGES. The alleged harmful effect of tariff reform upon wages has been a political argument long in nse, and I suppose will continue to he em- ployed hv politicians. It is in fact a political argument merely, having no "foundation either in common ex])erience or the teachings of political economy. Suppose, however, it be true — which it is not — that Ameri- can wages are to bo injuriously affected by the reduction of duties or the admission of articles free of duty, why, then, does the Eepublican party undertake to accomplish that very thing by treaty? The trutli is tliat the rate of wages can not be raised or lowered by legislation any more than by treaties. The American rate of wages was higher than tlie l-hiropean rate under tlie Walker revenue tariff period between 1S4T and 18(i0. just as it has remained comparatively higher under the Morrill war tariff between 1801 and 1S84. England's rate of wages under tlie most absolute free trade has remained higher tlian the rates on the continent of Europe. There is no system of taxation, whether protective, low tariff, or free trade even, that will ever reduce the Ameri- can wages to the level of the English or continental rates. This is not a matter to be regulated by customs laws. In every country an infinite variety of causes contributes to fix the rate of wages, the character of its institutions, as well as the con.litions, customs, and r('(|uii-ements of the peoide, and al)ove all tlic powci- of or- <>-anization and association among workintrmen. r)ut we have a familiar example constantly before us which emphatically contradicts the state- ment that tariffs establish the rates of wages. It is this: Under a uni- form system of tariff duties a])plying to every port of entry in the country, and although articles are admitted at the same rate of duty in New Orleans and in New York, and l^oston as in San I'rancisco, there are in each of tlies(^ ])laces different rates of wages, varying in each case with the cost of living in the locality. Cheajier cost of living, resulting from freer counuerce and foreign mar- kets, diversifying the emiildyment of labor, stimulating national indus- tries, would indeed be beneficial to wages throughout the country. EEVEXUE T^EFOTOr P.Y T.EGTSLATTOX PEEFEB ABLE TO KEFOEM 1?V TREATIES OF HEriPEOcrrY. It is with a certain satisfaction that Democrats are witnessing the De- l)artment of State return to the ])olicy of Democratic Presidents and Secre- taries of State and undertake the negotiation of reciprocity treaties; but it must be remembered that those treaties were negotiated when tariffs were low. and now it is important that general legislation reducing duties should precede any such treaty stipulations. 48 EECOED IN CONGRESS. To carry out the policy of reciprocity treaties under our present system of high protective duties woukl only produce inequalities, discriminations and wars of tariffs. The benefits expected from such a policy are not to be looked for unless there shall be legislation in harmony with it. Better still than the hard and fast lines established by international commercial agreements is the natural reciprocity founded upon the laws of trade. The American trader and merchant may be trusted to make his own reciprocity treaties if only his Government will remove the present restrictions upon commerce. But how long are these restrictions to con- tinue? Are we forever to be shut out by war tariffs from competition with our commercial rivals? Are we forever to surrender to England — the greatest of these — the share of the world's commerce which right- fully belongs to us? It remains to a Democratic administration, acting in full accord with a Democratic Congress, to accomplish the great reformation, and to give to the country what it is now generally admitted it must have — a relief from burdensome and unnecessary taxes, tariff reform, and freer com- merce with the rest of the world. APPENDIX. Schedule of Mexican Articles to he Admitted Free of Duty into the United States of Americ i. (2) 1. Animals, alive, specially imported for breeding purposes. (9) 2. Barley, not pearl. (8) 3. Beef. (G) 4. Coffee. (17) 5. Eggs. (13) 6. Esparto and other grasses, and pulp of, for the manufacture of paper. (14) 7. Flowers, natural, of all kinds. (15) 8. Fruits. All kinds of fresh fruits, such as oranges, lemons, pineapples, limes, bananas, plantains, mangoes, etc. (26) 9. Goatskins, raw. (16) 10. Heniquen, sisal, hemp, and other like substitutes for hemp. (10) 11. Hide ropes. I (11, 27) 12. Hides, raw or uncured, whether dry-salted or pickled, and skins, except sheepskins with wool on. Angora goatskins, raw, without the wool, and asses' skins. (18) 13. India rubber, crude, and milk of. (3, 19) 14. Indigo. (20) 1.5. Ixtle or Tampico fiber. (21) 16. Jalap. (12) 17. Leather, old scrap. (24) 18. Logwood, berries, nuts, archil, and vegetables for dyeing or used for composing dyes. (23) 19. Molasses. RiiCOED IX CONGEESS. 49 (1) 20. Palm or cocoaiuit oil. (4) 21. Quicksilver. (30) 22. Sarsaparilla, crude. (7) 2.3. Shrimps and all other shellfish, (25) 24. Straw, unmanufactured. (5) 2.5. Sugar, not above No. 16 Dutch standard in color. (28) 20. Tobacco in leaf, unmanufactured. (29) 27. Vegetables, fresh, of all kinds. (22) 28. Wood and timber of all kinds, unmanufactured, including ship timber. Schedule of United States Articles to be Admitted Free of Duty into Mexico. (1) 1. Accordeons and harmonicas. (74) 2. Anvils. (8) '3. Asbestos for roofs. (12) 4. Bars of steel for mines, round or octagonal. (22) jj. r>arrows and hand-trucks with one or two wheels. (3G) G. Bricks, refractory, and all kinds of bricks. (38) 7. Books, printed, unbound or bound in whole or in the greater part with paper or cloth. (73) 8. Beams, small, and rafters of iron for roofs, provided that they can not be made use of for other objects in which iron is employed. (19) 9. Coal of all kinds. (21) 10. Cars and carts with springs. (23) 11. Coaches and cars for railways. (24) 12. Crucibles and melting pots of all materials and sizes. (25) 13. Cane-knives. (03) 14. Clocks, mantel or wall. (20) 15. Diligences and road carriages of all kinds and aimensions. (27) 10. Dynamite. (14) 17. Fire-pumps, engines and ordinary pumps for irrigation and other purposes. (40) 18. Faucets. (47) 19. Fuse and wick for mines. (53) 20. Feed, dry, and straw, (29) 21. Fruits, fresh. (37) 22. Firewood. (54) 23. Fish, fresh. (30) 24. Ouano. (G) 25. Hoes, mattocks and their handles. (10) 20. Houses of wood or iron, complete. (17) 27. lines, common agricultural knives without their sheaths, scythes, sickles, harrows, rakes, shovels, pickaxes, spades, and mattocks for agriculture. (66) 28. Heniquen bags, on condition that they be used for subsequent expor- tation with Mexican products. (31) 29. Ice. (32) 30. Iron and steel made into rails for railways. (.34) 31. Instruments, scientific. (68) 32. Ink, printing. (72) 33. Iron beams. (15) 34. Lime, hydraulic. (39) 35. Locomotives. 7 50 EECOED IN CONGEESS. (56) 36. Lithographic stones. (7.46) 37. Masts and aiu-lidis. for vessels large or small. (41) 38. Marble in blocks. (42) 39. Marble in flags for pavements not exceeding forty centimeters in square and polished only on one side. (4.j) 40. Machines and apparatus <>f all kinds for industrial, agricultural, and mining purposes, sciences and arts, and any separate extra parts and pieces pertaining thereto. The extra or separate i)arts of machinery and the apparatus that may come united or separately with the machinery are included in this provision, compre- hending in this the bands of leather or rubber that serve to communicate move- ment, but only Avhen imported at the same time with the machinery to which they are adapted. (48) 41. Metals, precious, in bullion or in powder. (50) 42. Money, legal, or silver or gold, of the United States, (49) 43. Molds and patterns for the arts. (51) 44. Naphtha. (9) 45. Oats in grain or straw. (64) 46. Oars for small vessels. (5) 47. Plows and plowshares. ' (52) 48. Paper, tarred, for roofs. (57) 49. Plants and si'eds of any kind, not growing in the country, for cultivation. (58) 50. Pens of any metal not silver or gold. (59) 51. Petroleum, crude. (60) 52. Petroleum or coal-oil and its products for illuminating purposes. (62) 53. Powder, common, for mines. (10) 54. Quicksilver. (70) 55. Rags or cloth for the manufacture of paper. (67) 56. Roof tiles of claj' or other material. (11) 57. Sulphur. (13) 58. Stoves of iron for cooking and otlier purposes. (28) 59. Staves and headings for barrels. (33) 60. Soda, hyposulphite of. (43) 61. Steam-engines. (44) 02. Sewing-machines. (01) 03. Slates for roofs and pavements. (65) 64. Sausages, large or small. (20) 65. Teasels of wire, mounted on bands for machinery, or vegetable teasels. (35) 66. Tools and instruments of steel, iron, brass, or wood, or composed of these materials, for artisans. (69) 67. Types, coats of arms, spaces, rules, vignettes, and accessories for print- ing of all kinds. (71) 68. Vegetables, fresh. (2) 69. Wire, telegraph, the destination of which will be proven at the respective custom-houses by the parties interested. (3) 70. Wire of iron or steel for carding, from No. 26 and upward. (4) 71. Wire, barbed, for fences, and the hooks and nails to fasten the same. (IS) 72. Water-pipes of all classes, materials, and dimensions, not considering as comprehended among them tubes of copper or other metal that do not come closed or soldered with seam or with riveting in all their length. (55) 73. Window-blinds, painted or not painted. EECOED IX CONGRESS. 51 JEFFERSOX CELEBRATIOX. letter to the iroquois club, of chicago. House of Eepresentatives, Washixgtox, D. C April 11, 1884. I I can not be abvSent from Washington next -week. Every Democratic vote in the House may be needed in aid of ^Ir. ^Morrison's measure of tariff reform. If the proposed bill were more vigorous and comprehensive in placing on the free list the raw materials produced abroad which enter so largely into our diversified American manufactures, and in reducing at the same time the cruel burdens of more than $100,000,000 of unneces- sary annual taxation, I should like it even better. But it does look in the direction of the first Democratic platform adopted by a Congressional caucus at Philadelphia in 1800, the year wlien Tliomas Jefferson was elected to be President. That platform demanded free commerce with all nations, political connection with none. For that reason, if for no other, should Mr. Morrison's proposed bill be upheld by Democrats on the birthday of Jefferson. Free commerce witli all nations was the i)arty cry of Dcmocratie-Kepub- licans of the era of Jefferson. It was the party cry of Democrats of the era of Polk, Pierce and P)Uchanan, our last Democratic Presidents. It was thirty years ago this very year that AYilliam L. ]\Iarcy, of New York, one of the greatest, if not the greatest, in the long line of illustrious men who have conducted the foreign affairs of the United States, negotiated with the Earl of l-'lgin a reciprocal treaty looking to free trade between the United States and British Xorth America in articles of the growth and produce of one another which was so beneficial to both countries. free commkrce by treaty. The Democrat's idea of using the treaty-making power to promote "free commerce witli all iintions." has been applied in Mexico by Presi- dent Arthur's administration, and is now foreshadowed in pending nego- tiations with Spain. J\Iay it not l)e useful for Democrats to reflect whether, or not it can Ije wise, either in the sense of patriotism or states- manship, or even of partisanship, to so deal in 1884 -^ath the "burning questions " of the reduction of taxation and of tariff reform as to invite and enable a Republican President and a Republican Congress in 1885 52 EECOED IN CONGRESS. to perpetuate the Eepiiblican party in political power for another quarter of a century by carrying out those two great reforms as Eepublican meas- ures which the Democratic party resisted and rejected? How happens it that while Eepublicans in the House of Representatives seem to be re- sisting " free commerce with all nations " the Republican leaders who wield the treaty-making power seem resolutely and steadily stepping in the direction of freer and fuller trade with Mexico, Cuba and South America? The policy of protecting American manufacturers by levying duties on similar articles made abroad, not merely for revenue but in order to impede their importation and to increase their American price, has recently led to startling consequences in Germany, France and Eng- land. In each and all three of those countries there have been efl:orts by retaliatory acts of Government to exclude the agricultural products of the "Western States of America, for which Chicago is a great market. In a recent interview at Berlin with the New York Herald correspondent the American Minister (Mr. Sargent) declared that the movement not long ago begun in Berlin against American pork, contemplated in the end the exclusion of American cereals from Germany. France has replied to our American protective system by a decree banishing from her terri- tory American pork. England occupies herself in arrangements for new railway facilities in India, and for appliances of American elevators and other machinery on the Black sea, which, if perfected, may make Mark Lane in London and all Great Britain independent of the wheat of America. Is it patriotic for the Democratic party or the Republican party, or any other party professing to call itself "American," to sit silent and motionless in the presence of this desolating war of tariffs and exclusive commercial legislation which has already begun? Can Chicago and the jSTorthwest afford to see foreign markets thus closed to the products of the farm, the mines, the spindles, the hammers and the chisels of America? How can America hope to sell to Europe if America refuses to buy of Europe? LETTER TO THE JEFFERSON CLUB, OF NEWARK, N. J. House of Representatives, ) Washington, D. C, April 11, 1884. f My Dear Sir.— I regi'et extremely that I can not leave Washington so as to be in Newark on the occasion for which you so kindly invite me. EECOED IX CONGRESS. 53 On any day there may next week be presented to the House that question of questions in our present politics, which is, whether or not this Con- gress will adequately reduce the existing rate and amount of surplus Federal taxation under which every industry in the land now labors. Since the year 1881, in which President Garfield was assassinated, the depression of well nigh all of our great industries and of exchanges has steadily increased. It began long before there was a Republican move- ment in Congress to reduce taxation by a reform of the tariff through that Eepublican contrivance known as a " Tariff Commission." The members of tliat Commission, selected by a Eepublican President from those supposed not to bo unfriendly to the protective system, urged Con- gress to make reductions in the rate and amount of duties which a Re- publican Congress refused to grant even to the extent which President Arthur desired. The consequence has been apparent to every one. Manufactures have languished, wages have been reduced, prices have steadily fallen, and ])o\verful foreign nations, with whom llie rnitcd States Iiave been on the most friendly footing, have cnteivd, in a time of profound peace, upon a policy looking to the exclusion of some of our most valuable and important agricultural products. Our great agricul- tural interests are menaced and assailed abroad by France and (Jcrniany, and our manufacturers, for whom this protective system is maintained, are in jjerplexity and distress at home. The depression of 18T3 continued till specie payment came. The de- pression of 1881 has endured as long, and there is no sign of relief. It is to be assumed, however, that in time the surplus stock of manufacturers will be consumed, and importations and manufactures will revive again. Importations will surely come with the demand of consumers, and wdien the demand and our present excessive American taxation shall carry the cost of American ])roduction up to a point at which the foreign manu- facturers can pay the duties and compete. Then, before long, like causes will produce like effects, and the dreary circle will once more be traversed. This present excessive taxation must be reduced. One party or the other of present political parties or else a new party will surely make the reduction and will earn the lasting gratitude of the taxpayers. The manufacturers of New Jersey must, as well as the farmers of the West, have access to the foreign markets of the world for their surplus products, and to aid those manufacturers Congress should put more of the foreign raw materials that they use on the free list. American consuls and American diplomatic agents in foreign countries must learn to cease to 54 EECORD IN" CONGRESS. be advocates abroad of tbe protective system and the tariffs of war. In its foreign intercourse tbe United States must retnrn to the Democratic policy of Mr. Marcy — but not to its absurd " jingo " imitation attempted by Mr. Evarts's immediate successor — and must return to that Demo- cratic poHcy in order that, among other things, our influence and prestige among the Spanish-speaking nations and peoples on this continent, which suffered so much in the days of the " Landreau claim," may be restored and re-established. • Your obedient servant, PEREY BELMONT. M. C. Eaton, Esq., Secretary of the Jefferson Club, of Newark, N. J. EECOED IX CONGRESS. 55 COM]^rEECIAL EELATIONS WITH CAXADA. I Frona the Congressional Record, July 5, 1884.) Mr. BELMOXT, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, submitted the following report: The Committee on Foreign Affairs, to whom 7^'as referred H. Res. 33, hare had the same under consideration, and subniit the foUowi)ig report: This is a joint resolution requesting the President to negotiate with the Government of Great Britain for the renewal of tlic reciprocity treaty of 18.54. It is not a proy)osition to enter upon a discussion of commercial relations with a view to their modification in the best manner which, under the present conditions of the two countries, would be most ad- vantageous to both. Tbe resolution would confine tlie negotiations strictly to the terms of the particular treaty of 1854. The treaty-making power is lodged by tlie Constitution primarily in the Executive, and it may be said generally that the legislative branch of the Govern iiiciit was not expected by tlic framers of that instrument to take the initiative in (b"[)lomatic negotiations, certainly not so far as to prescribe in advance the jirecise terms and conditions of such nego- tiations. Sucli a method would be injudicious, as it would hamper the Depart- ment wiiieli must be charged with th(! duty of carrying on the discussion. In international transactions of this nature there is in some sense a struggle of strength and skill between the representatives of the respect- ive Governments, to secure on either side all the advantages fairly due. It soon becomes a contest over details. It is, therefore, manifestly un- advisable to lay down- in formal legislative resolution the exact condi- tions to be inserted in any contemi)lated agreement. The treaty of 1854 proposed to be renewed was thoroughly tested by twelve years of experience and found to lie unsatisfactory to the United States, and was terminated because of our necessities. It provided under reciprocal agreements for the admission free of duty of the common products of the two countries, thus including the articles produced by Canada, an agricultural country sending abroad })roducts of the soil, of the forest, and of the mines, while it failed to include the manufactures of the United States. ' 56 RECOED IN CONGRESS. During the operation of the treaty it did not seem to work equitably to the farming interest in many places along our border; it was, however, continued, largely owing to tlie lilieral sentiment with which our people regard every extension of commerce with their neighbors. During and at the close of our Civil war there was pressing need of greater revenue, owing to our enormous expenditures and stronger disposition to render the country independent in its internal resources; and under this change of circumstances, the treaty and its effects upon the business of the country, and the origin of its resources were subjected to a colder scrutiny. Then it was seen that during the twelve years of its operation $229,000,000 of Canadian products had found a free market in the United States, whilst scarcely more than half that amount had been purchased by Canada from us free of duty. The schedule of articles relieved from tariff duties was found to work unequally; more than ninety-five per cent, of what was sent to this country from Canada being free of duty, while of the articles exported by us to Canada forty-two per cent., or nearly one-half, were still bur- dened by their tariff exactions. Time and the progress of the two countries have produced many changes, but there is no reason to believe that the treaty of 1854, if renewed, would not again prove unsatisfactory. The arguments thus far presented have reference to a renewal of the treaty of 1854 as demanded by the resolution under consideration. Both countries have made immense progress in population, wealth and activity, and above all in manufactures. The increase of commercial intercourse by water channels and great railways across a line extending thousands of miles has made the arti- ficial restrictions of the tariff more sensibly felt by the people. There are great and manifest inducements to both countries to remove these restrictions altogether, or to readjust them upon terms fair to all inter- ests, and which would be mutually beneficial. It is claimed that the complete and unimpeded interchange of business, the sales to this country of whatever Canada can furnish us, and 1\y our people to the Canadians of all that we can produce to supply their wants without hindrance from a tariff or any form of burden upon either side, would be of inestimable benefit to all; a stimulant to every industry; a source of mutual pros- perity, and a guarantee of peace between us and our northern neighbors. Following in the line of this policy we are about to conclude a reci- procity treaty with Mexico, and one is also in course of negotiation with Spain in regard to our commerce with Cuba. It would tend, by the in- EECORD IN COXGEESS. 57 evitable logic of interest, to the negotiation of similar treaties with other neighbors. How great would be the effects of a commercial union with Canada ! The erasure of the imaginary barrier to traffic that stretches across the continent on our northern line; a freedom of trade with the people of Nova Scotia, Canada, ]\Ianitoba and British Columbia, such as exists between the States, with a common tariff and custom-house fol- lowing the line of the sea, the revenue being divided in proportion to the population, as was done in the case of the Zollverein. These are considerations which have become worthy the attention of this Government, but the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House having in view the proper relations existing between the legislative branch and treaty-making power do not recommend the adoption of the resolution as submitted for its consideration. The committee, however, in recognition of the fact that the Constitution has prescribed that all measures affecting the revenues of the Government should originate in the House, consider it eminently fit that the House should give expres- sion to its opinion regarding international agreements which may affect such revenues. The committee can not but believe that such opinions, expressed by the representatives of the people, will tend to strengthen and aid their diplomatic agents as to the general principles and policies which should be tlie basis of such negotiations, and to this end recommend the adoption of the followine: resolution as a substitute for the one re- ferred to them: Rcsok'cd, That in opinion of the House, closer commercial relations with the other States on the American continent would he of mutual advantage, and that, should the Executive see fit to consider propositions for freer commerce with the Dominion of Canada, such negotiations would be viewed with favor. 8 NATIONAL CAMPAIGN OF 1884. MR. CLEA'ELAXD'S XOMIXATIOX. (New York Ilenild. July 11, 1SS4. \\'e have received the following dispatch from Mr. Perr)^ Belmont: Chicago, July 10, 1884, To the Editor of the Herald : I liavo just sci'ii the Herald of July 9th. Tho intorviow orodltod to me never took place, and contains statements never uttered by me. PERRY BELMONT. The interview in question was telegraphed to the Herald from Chicago. It made ]\[r. Belmont abuse Governor Cleveland in terms which amazed us, and also made him predict that, if nominated for President, Governor Cleveland can not earn," the State of Xew York. In our desire to be perfectly fair to all varieties of sentiment at Chicago, and in execution of the Herald's practice never to distort news, however it may militate against our editorial opinions, we printed it as it came to us. At the same time we expressed editorially our " special surprise at the language which is imputed to Mr. Belmont," and our " trust that he is misrepre- sented." We are very glad to have the surprise warranted and the trust con- firmed l)y ^Ir. Ik'lmont's dispatch al)ovo (pioted, and we hope that he will pursue the responsible author of the forgery with the same vigor and success witli wliich another libeler of an eminent and respected member of his family was pursued and punished. "We refer to the case of Devoy, whose failure to receive a pardon from Governor Cleveland is alleged as a reproach against the Governor l)y Messrs. Kelly and (Ji-ady. We are very glad also to expose so speedily this instance of the in- numerable falsehoods which Governor Cleveland's enemies have scattered at and from Chicago, and wish they all might be detected and counter- acted with equal promptness. So far as concerns the transmission of the false interview to the Herald, it shall be made a subject of rigid investigation. 60 NATIONAL CAMPAIGN" OF 1884. ADDEESS AT HEMPSTEAD, L. I. (Summary of report in New York Herald, Julj' 19, 1884.) A Cleveland and Hendricks campaign club was organized Thursday night at Hempstead, L. L, and owing to the presence of Congressman Belmont, an impromptu meeting was held. * * * Mr. BELMOXT said: " I consider myself fortunate to have chanced to he in your neigh- borhood this evening and that I can be present at the organization of what I believe is the first Cleveland and Hendricks campaign club established in this Congressional district. It is the more grati- fying to me, because I am enabled thus early, after my return from the Democratic Convention just held in Chicago, to say to you, and through you to others of our Democratic associates, that we Democrats of the First Congressional District intend to give Mr. Cleveland not only an old-time Democratic majority, but to that majority will be added many and many a vote hitherto cast for Republican candidates. And why do we all speak with such confidence as to the result of this contest? It is because there is but one plain issue presented to the country since the Presidential nominations have been made — tariff reform — and upon that issue, as your representative, I deemed it my duty to take a decided position; but it sinks into comparative insignificance as a public que's- tion, and must remain in abeyance until the one supreme question is de- cided whether the executive authority of this great Government of ours shall be permitted to fall into the grasp of a reckless ambition, which has long since forfeited the confidence of the country, or whether the Presidency of the United States shall be represented in the true American manhood and patriotic integrity of Mr. Cleveland. This is a very simple issue, one that shall not be evaded, and the country will decide it very positively. " THE LOGIC OF FACTS. "Nor is it proposed that the Democratic campaign shall be of that nature ordinarily termed aggressive, in which passion rules and injustice plays havoc with reputations, but it is intended and insisted that facts shall be well and calmly considered by the electors, and it is the inevitable Nemesis of facts which is to overwhelm in ignominious defeat the Repub- lican party, or rather that section of it which so rashly invited criticism XATIOXAL CAMPAIGN OF 1884. 61 ■when it placed in nomination its candidate for the Presidency. I prefer to leave to others the pursuit of these criticisms; nor did I imagine I should ever have occasion to review the testimony taken before the Com- mittee of Foreign Affairs of the Forty-seventh Congress. I do not now intend to do so; but, amazing as appears to be the trust in popular for- getfulness, there will be no misunderstanding as to the dangers to the countr}^ by the threatened continuance of the policy at that time indicated by the Department of State. " But let us turn from the contemplation of such subjects to a brighter future for our Government. "WTiat is to be expected from Democratic rule was shown in the list of candidates presented to the Democratic Con- vention. There were Mr. Bayard, ilr. Cleveland, Mr. Tliurman, Mr. Carlisle, Mr. Randall — of such men we may all well be proud. My preference was openly given to Senator Bayard. Mr. Cleveland was chosen, and we are now here to pledge him our hearty support, for in him w^e find truly represented the aspirations of this country for an honest administration of affairs, and into his safe hands will the people wilhngly intrust their Government." 62 NATIONAL CAMPAIGN OF 1884. BLAINE AND THE SUSPECTS. SPKEOH AT A DEMOCEATIC MASS MEETING AT KIVEEHEAD. L. I- (Summary of report In New York Herald, August 1, 1884.) * * * Congressman Belmont began by saying tliat he brought cheering news from Albany, where he had been present at the notification of Gov- ernor Cleveland of his nomination to the Presidency. There he had met Democrats from all parts of the Union, who with one accord spoke of the favor with which the nomination had everywhere been received. He also referred to Mr. Cleveland's speech, which made a profound impres- sion upon those present. It was the speech of a sincere and earnest man, who regarded oiSce as a public trust. It was this idea, expressed in the words and in the personality of Governor Cleveland himself, which con- stituted the leading issue of the campaign. After briefly referring to the distress among laboring men, Mr. Belmont went on to say: '■' The two greate political parties of this country have, in the present contest, proclaimed that the overproduction of manufactured articles and the interests of the great farming communities of tlie West demand foreign markets, and a closer commercial relation with the other States of this continent is insisted upon. " You will, perhaps, remember that at the close of the session of Con- gress just ended I presented to the House a resolution on the part of a Democratic Committee on Foreign Affairs suggesting negotiations for a closer commercial treaty with Canada and a closer commercial union with all the States of this continent. While it is generally admitted that such are the true interests of the country it is also well known that m all our history nothing has ever occurred more hostile to our proper position among the South American States than the effort to make the owner of a fraudulent claim a party to a treaty of peace between two powers up to that time friendly to this Government. As the leading power on this continent our Government was naturally looked to with the respect which national power always inspires. It is the abandonment of the policy undertaken at that time by the present candidate of the Republican party which has enabled us to maintain the ascendency to which we are entitled. NATIONAL CAMPAIGX OF 1884. 63 '' BLAIXE AXD THE IMPRISONED IRISHMEN. " But I will pass from the consideration of this subject to a matter which was recalled to my mind when listening to the very able speech of Mr. Collins, delivered at the ratification meeting in Albany. Mr. Collins, like every true Irishman in this countr}^ is, first of all, a good American, and there are some of you here, men of Irish birth and descent. I am sure none of you would ever expect me, as your representative in the House, and especially as one serving upon its Committee of Foreign Affairs, to encourage in the slightest degree any interference in the poli- tics of foreign countries. [Applause.] ls\v. Collins was right when he said that American citizenship abroad received under Democratic admin- istration the full protection which all Americans, whether native-born or naturalized, have a right to demand from their Government. Such, ho^y- ever, has not been the case in later years, and it came in the course of my duty, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, to consider a resolution calling for the correspondence between our ^Minister in London and this Government. And, let me remind you just at this point, that the present platform of the Eepublican party declares: 'AVe believe that everywhere the protection of citizens of American birth must be fecured to citizens of American adoption.' " In June, 1881, several naturalized American citizens — Michael Boyn- ton, Daniel AlcSweeney, llcury O'Maliony. Dennis O'Connor and John McIIenry and others — were arrested under the Coercion Act, passed in March, 1881. These persons at once made ap])lication to our Consul, Mr. Brooks, at Cork, and through him to our ]\[inister, complaining that no reason had been given for their arrest and imprisonment; that they had neither committed nor intended to commit any crime, and asking for a speedy trial. Mr. Lowell, in answer to Mr. Brooks, in August, 1881, says of this law: 'The Coercion Act, so called, is an exceptional and arbitrary measure. Its chief object is to enable the British authorities to arrest persons whom they suspect of illegal conduct without being able to })r()duce any ])roof of their guilt. Its very substance and main pur- pose are to prevent suspected persons of the speedy trial they desire. This law is, of course, contrary to tlie spirit and foundation principles of both English and American juris])rudence, but it is the law of the land, and it controls all persons, whether they are Britisli citizens or not, and it is manifestly entirely futile to claim that naturalized citizens of the L'nited States should be excepted from its operations. Unless I am instructed to the contrary by the Department of State, I must take this view of my duties, and it is proper you should give this information to the parties interested.' 64 NATIONAL CAMPAIGN OF 1884.' "The present candidate of the Eepublican party, then Secretary of State, approved the action of his Minister, and it is proper now to ask how far the principles of the jDresent Eepublican platform were main- tained at that time. There is a principle of international law which our Government recognizes — namely, that our citizens in a foreign country should abide by the ordinary operations of the laws of that country. But it can hardly be assumed that, unless there is an insurrec- tion, rebellion or invasion within the borders of a foreign State — such as certainly was not the case in Ireland in 1881 — citizens arrested on suspicion merely, and claiming the protection of this country for a speedy trial or release, were not justified in their demand. The whole question presented under these circumstances was one simply and solely of the right of American citizens, without reference whatever to the Irish ques- tion, abroad, and I would not have you understand me as holding this opinion on any other ground. The Department of State, however, did not see fit to take any action during the whole of that period. It is a question interesting to all Americans and very proper to be considered now, especially with reference to the Eepublican platform and its pro- fessions." (New York Herald, August 8, 1884.) One of the arguments advanced by Mr. Blaine's supporters in behalf of his election to the Presidency is this — that he would, if elected, " assert the dignity of American citizenship abroad by extending to citi- zens, native or naturalized, who might be sojourning abroad such pro- tection as this Government might reasonably be expected to afford." This is a subject well worthy of investigation, particularly at this time. There is probably no better way of studying it than by considering Mr. Blaine's actual conduct in the cases of the American citizens who were imprisoned as "suspects" in Ireland in 1881, when that gentleman held the portfolio of Foreign Affairs in Garfield's Cabinet. The circumstances of the time will be readily recalled. To check the disturbances which prevailed in the island during the period of the growth and greatest activity of the Land League the English Government enacted a " Coercion " Act for Ireland, one feature of which was the suspension of the operation of the Habeas Corpus Act. Under this Coercion Act the English Government, of which Mr. Forster was then the representative in Ireland, claimed and exercised the right to arrest all persons whose acts or utterances were deemed to imperil the public peace, and hold them in confinement for indefinite periods without trial or examination of any sort. Several Irish members of Parliament XATIOXAL CAMPAIGX OF 188-4. 65 were among the prisoners made under this act. They were held in prison for considerable periods. Several American citizens were also arrested in various parts of Ireland and held in prison without any examination or hearing, without even having any precise charges advanced against them. They naturally ap- pealed to the American Minister in London, Mr. James Eussell Lowell. Mr. Lowell corresponded with his chief at Washington, Mr. Blaine. Sev- eral minutes and memoranda were drawn up and dispatches were sent to and fro, and there the matter ended. Presently Mr. Frelinghuysen became Secretary of State, and the im- prisonment of American citizens without the form of trial became a matter of pul)hc notoriety. Congress took it uj) and passed resolutions of unmistakable import. More diplomatic correspondence ensued, and in a short time the American citizen " suspects " were released. FACTS BEFORE CONGRESS. One aspect of the proceedings in Congress was a demand made on the Executive in 1882 for the correspondence which had taken place between Mr. Blaine and Mr. Lowell anent the imprisoned citizens' cases. This, as well as sundry resolutions that were from time to time proposed, v/as referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Kepre- sentatives. This committee carefully considered tlie whole subject, and made a report to the House in 1883. In the correspondence, in the report and in tlie debates to which these gave rise, the nature of the protection which ~S\v. P)]aine furnished to the imprisoned citizens was very tlioroughly revealed. One of the members of this Committee on Foreign Affairs was Con- gressman Perry Belmont, of the First District of this State. In his speech on Wednesday evening at the inauguration of a Cleveland and Flendricks club at Riverhead, L. I., ^Ir. Belmont devoted some time to a discussion of the cases of the American " suspects." Mr. Belmont reminded his auditors of that clause in the platform of the Republican ])arly which says: " W'c believe that everywhere the protection of citizens of American birth must be secured to citizens of American adoption." ^Ir. Belmont next quoted a passage from one of Mr. Lowell's dispatches in which the latter, speaking of the Coercion Act, says: " It is manifestly entirely futile to claim that naturalized citizens of the United States should be excepted from its operations." Then Mr. Belmont commented thus: ''The present candidate of the Republican party, then Secretary of State, approved the action of his jMinister, and it is proper now to ask how far the principles of the present Republican platform were main- tained at that time." 9 6G NATIONAL CAMPAIGN OF 1884. MR. BELMONT INTERVIEWED. A Herald reporter sought from Mr. Belmont yesterday, at his house in this city, some further information upon the subject of Mr. Blaine's foreign policy, and the utterance of the Eepublican party in its platform. " Upon the former topic," said Mr. Belmont, " I have nothing to say. As to the platform and its professions, I have not the slightest objection to giving you the documents upon which my remarks at Riverhead were founded; but you will find in the Congressional Eecord pretty much every- thing relating to this question." The reporter asked Mr. Belmont to point out in the Record, which was at hand, the passages alluded to. " The question of the imprisonment of American citizens abroad," Mr. Belmont said, " came up in the Forty-seventh Congress, and certain reso- lutions were referred to the House Committee on Foreign Relations. One of the most characteristic cases, perhaps, was that of Dennis H. O'Connor. That case was brought to the attention of the Department of State about November, 1881. On the 14th of February, 1882, Mr. Cox, of New York, brought it to the notice of the House. The facts then appeared to be these: Dennis H. O'Connor was naturalized as an American citizen in 18T5. He had lived for some time in Ireland and was in business there, when in 1881 he was arrested as a ' suspect.' He was in ill health, and his imprisonment was likely to prove very injurious, if not fatal, to him. " Mr. P. C. O'Connor, the brother of the prisoner, in November, 1881, laid these facts in writing before the Department of State. In doing so, he was supported in his request by the Mayor of Baltimore in a note of introduction" — and Mr. Belmont, turning to the files of the Congres- sional Record for February, 1882, indicated the following note, ^vhich was read by Mr. Cox in the course of a speech: Dear Sir.— Permit rue to present to your kind attention Mr. P. C. O'Connor, of this city, who desires to see you relative to his brother, a citizen of this coun- try, who is under arrest in Ireland. I commend him as a gentleman of honor, character and intelligence. With kind regards. Very sincerely yours, WILLIAM PINCKNEY WHYTE, Mayor of Baltimore. Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. "Under date of November 25, 1881," Mr. Belmont resumed, "a reply was made by the department to Mr. O'Connor's statement of his brother's case. Here it is: " MR. Blaine's reply. Mr, Belmont pointed to the appended letter, which appears on the same page of the Congressional Record as that just given. It bears Mr. NATIOXAL CAMPAIGX OF 1881. 67 Blaine's signature, and the most significant passage of the document is the following: The case of your brother, Mr. Dennis H. O'Connor, will take the same course as those which have preceded it, and I can only express the hope that the efforts in his behalf may result in his early liberation. In this connection I must, however, remind you that the act of Parliament under which Mr. O'Connor is held is a law of Great Britain, and it is an elementary principle of public law that in such case the Government of that country in the exercise of its varied functions ^ judicial and executive — administers and interprets the law in question. The right of every Government in this respect is absolute and sovereign, and every person who voluntarily brings himself within the jurisdiction of the country, whether perniancntly or temporarily, is subject to the operation of its laws, whether he be a citizen or a mere resident, so long as in the case of the alien resident no treaty stipulation or principle of international law is contravened by the proceedings taken against liim. In stating this familiar principle no more is conceded to Great Britain than every country may of right demand, and it is one of the sovereign rights that the Government of the United States has always insisted upon and maintained for itself. "The whole point is whether or not a 'principle of international law was contravened ' by the proceedings taken against ^Ir. O'Connor. There can be no doubt that a principle of international law was contravened, and such appeared to be the view afterward taken l)y the Department of State under Mr. Frelinghuysen. On the 14th of ]\[arcli, 1883, the Senate Committee on Foreign Ilelations received from Secretary Frelinghuysen a reply to a communication asking him what steps had been taken for the relief of the American citizens arrested in Ireland under the Coercion Act. ]\Ir. Frelinghuysen said that on March 4th he had directed JMinister Lowell, by cable, to ask that Americans detained under the Coercion Act should be brought to a speedy trial. ]\Ir. Lowell, the Secretary said, had re})lied by cable that he had carried out these instructions. This shows what even a very conservative Secretary of State might do for citizens imprisoned abroad. L) rcjioi'ting the reply just given the Herald stated the law of the case with great clearness and precision. If you turn to the liles of your paper you will find the statement in the \Yash- ington correspondence." THE LAW CORRECTLY INTERPRETED. The statement of the law to which Mr. Belmont alluded appeared in the paper of March 15, 1882, and read thus: " Foreigners going into a country in a state of war, rebellion or revo- lution do this at their own peril, and voluntarily take the chances of being temporarily inconvenienced or put to loss. If they have violated 68 NATIONAL CAMPAIGN OF 1884. no law, then for sueli loss or inconvenience the Government causincr it is held jnstl}' liable afterward, and the British Government will no doubt be required to pa}' satisfactory damages to those American citizens whom it shall prove to have unjustly arrested or otherwise maltreated. Mean- time, the United States have a right to require that whatever course the British Government may choose to pursue toward its own citizens it shall not needlessly detain Avithout trial Americans whom it has put under arrest, but shall give them speedy access to court, so that it may be de- cided whether they have violated the laws, and in case they have not, to set them free at once." A CASE IX POINT. " I see Mr. Blaine claims, in his interpretation of the law," said the reporter, " that no more is conceded to Great Britain than every country may of right demand, and that the United States has always held the same to be one of its sovereign rights." " In that connection," Mr. Belmont answered, " it might be well to mention the English view of such cases and the action of our own Govern- ment. You will remember an incident mentioned by Senator Vest in an interview published in the Herald in 1883. If you will look it up you will find it applies very aptly just now." The article alluded to by Mr. Belmont appeared in the Herald of May 26, 1883. The incident in question was described in these words: " Senator Vest recalled an instance within his knowledge of an English citizen who was arrested in St. Louis and sent to Johnson's Island durina; the first year of the war. ' We were in the throes of a mighty struggle,' said the Senator, ' a struggle for national existence, and there was every excuse for arbitrary action; yet within twenty-four hours the English Minister at Washington had interposed in behalf of the imprisoned man and he was released before the end of the second day. We want this rule applied in the case of any American citizen whose just rights are in- fringed, native or naturalized. Our naturalized citizens make up a large part of our population. What affects any one of these affects all, whether of Irish, or German, or French or English birth. Mr. Lowell failed grievously in asserting the rights in the case of American citizens, im- prisoned for months without trial, and he should be recalled at once.' '* " What the opinion of the House of Kepresentatives was," Mr. Belmont went on, " respecting the view of international law taken by the Depart- ment of State in 1881 can not be better shown than from tlie text of the resolution which was passed in behalf of the ' suspects ' in June, 1883." XATIOXAL CAMPAIGN OF 1884. 69 Mr. Belmont, turning to the session of June 28th, jjointed out the following resolution: Whereas, This House has information from the State Department that American citizens are deprived of their liberty under the authority of the Government of Great Britain, by being imprisoned in jail in Ireland; therefore, Resolved, That the President be and is hereby requested to forthwith demand of the Government of Great Britain the reasons of such imprisonment, if he be not now in possession of such reasons; and if it shall appear to him that such Imprisonment is wrongful nnd in violation of the rights of American citizenship, that he shall forthwith demand the release of such citizens; and if the release so demanded shall be unreasonably delayed or refused, that he use such measures as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effect such release, and that he report all the facts and proceedings relative thereto as soon as practicable to Congress. TEOYIDKn FOR BY STATUTE. "But in reality," Mr. Bclinoiit commented, "no such resolution was necessary. The situation was amply provided for by the general law." Mr. Belmont, as he spoke, turned over the leaves of the volume of Eevised Statutes, finally indicating section '3001, cluipter 2~), on "Citi- zenship." The section reads thus: Whenever it is made known to the President that any citizen i>f the I'nited States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that go\ernnient the reasons of such imprisonment: ami if it api>ears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of .Vmcrican citizenship the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen; and if the I'ldease so de- manded is unreasonably delayed or refused, the President shall use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate the release; and all the facts and jM-oceedings relative thereto shall, as soon as practicable, be conimunicMted by the IM-(>sid('nt to Congress. "This law was enacted in 18()8," said ^Ir. lu'lmont. "'Its jiurpose and intent were to place naturalized citizens u])on the same footing as native-horn citizens, making it inqjerative upon the President and De- partment of State to so regard them. AXOTHER IXSTEUCTIVE CASE. " But it will be interesting to look into another case, and the one that I will select will serve to phtce the practical foreign ])olicy of the Re- pul)lican i)arty in full contrast with the professions outlined in the re- cently-adopted platform of tluit party. "On the .'kl of A})ril, ISS-^, Senator Yoorhees, of Indiana, offered a resolution in these words: Resolved, That the conduct of the State Department of this Government in relation to the arrest and imprisonment of Daniel McSweeney and other Ameri- 70 NATIONAL CAMPAIGN OF 1884. can citizens by the authorities of Great Britain is in violation of American law, inconsistent with the value of American citizenship and derogatory to the honor of the United States. " This resolution came up for consideration on the 14th of April, and after a long debate was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. The facts in McSweeney's case were these: On the 2d of June, 1881, he was arrested, and he Avas still a prisoner when Mr. Voorhees's resolution came up for debate. That was over ten months, during more than six of which the present candidate of the Republican party was Secretary of State. On the 3d of August, 1881, as Mr. Voorhees pointed out in speaking to the motion, Julia McSweeney, the prisoner's wife, wrote to the Secretary of State from the County Donegal, Ireland, stating her husband's case. Her letter was received in Washington on the 16th of the same month. Here are some passages from it." And Mr. Belmont, turning again to the Congressional Record, pointed out the following: Some four years ago 1 came with my family on account of my husband's failing health to reside temporarily in this country (Ireland). I was aware that England claimed this island, but 1 was under the impression that Americans might venture to travel or reside abroad, protected by their flag, but in this I was mistaken. * * * It was not alleged that he [her husband] committed any crime or vio- lated any law. He, being an American citizen, immediately forwarded his nat- uralization papers, together with a solemn protest against this British outrage, to the American INIinister at London. That gentleman answered that the matter would be laid before Lord Granville, and that inquiries would be made as to the ground of his arrest. ME. MCSWEENEY's COMMENTS. " On December 12, 1881, Mr. McSweeney Avrote a letter to his daughter in California, which Senator Voorhees also presented to the Senate. " In the course of that letter the prisoner says: 'All efforts on the part of your mother and all our friends failed to discover the cause of my arrest. I appealed to Mr. Lowell, United States Minister at London, for protection.' Again, the prisoner says: ' Your mother wrote to Mr. Blaine about my case, but that gentleman did not deign even a reply. I heard nothing whatever from him. I am now in jail going on seven months, charged with no crime, and not even a shadow of suspicion .that I violated any law.' " " People may be anxious to know what sort of a man this McSweeney was. There is no better way of judging of his character and standing than by referring to the letter to the Secretary of State in which the entire California delegation — both Senators and four Congressmen — joined." XATIOXAL CAMPAIGN OF 1884. "^l Tills document also appears in the pages of the Congressional Eecord, and reads as follows: Washington, D. C, February 16, 1882. The undersigned respectfully transmit for your consideration and such action as the case may require a joint letter to us, numerously signed by our best citizens, representing that Daniel McSweeney, now in a British prison, is a citizen of the United States, and was for twenty-five years a resident of San Francisco, and asking that he receive from our Government that protection which law and jus- tice in his case require. We beg to say that we share in those wishes and desires, and hope that your department will do us the favor to assure us that what is right will be promptly and effectively done. " The whole question is so interesting, in view of the policy advocated in the Eepublican platform, that it may be well to take into consideration the letter of "Sir. Lowell to "Sir. McSweeney and the answer of the latter thereto." MR. LOWELL DECLINES TO ACT. With this remark, :\Ir. 15elmont pointed out tlie following letter in the same volume as the extracts heretofore given: Legation of the United States, [ London, September 22, 1881. i Sir.— I have to acknowledge your letter of the ITth instant. T ha^x- not thought it proper to make any application for your release from prison for the following reasons: The Coercion Act, however exceptional and arbitrary and contrary to the spirit and fundamental principles of both English and American jurisprudence, is still the law of tlie land, and controls all parties domiciled in the proclaimed districts of Ireland, whether they are British subjects or not. It would be manifestly futile to claim that naturalized citizens of the United States should be excepteil from its operation. The only case, in my opinion, in which I ought to intervene would be when an American citizen who was in Ireland attending ex- clusively to his own business and taking no part whatever in public meetings or political discussions should be arrested. Under these circumstances it would be proper to appeal to the courtesy of the Government here on the ground of mis- take or misapprehension, and :isk for the release of the prisoner. I have communicated these views to the Department of State, and have received so far no instructions in a contrary spirit. It does not appear to me that the reasons above given for intervention exist in your case, so far as I understand it. I am, sir, your olxMlient sorv.nnt. J. K. LOWELL. Mr D. McSweeney. In Mr. McSweeney 's reply was the following passage: Then T learned for the first time that there is a distinction between naturalized and native-born citizens of the United States regarding their right to claim pro- tection abroad, but, sir, it is evident you are laboring iiiider a misapprehension 72 NATIONAL CAMPAIGN OF 1884. as far as my case is concerned. I did not claim to be excepted from the operation of coercion or any otlier law. My claim was based on the fact that I violated no law. A CONTKAST. " In contrast with the spirit of all this negotiation," Mr. Belmont resnnied, " and in proof of the assertion made by Congressman Patrick E. Collins, in his recent speech at Albany, that under Democratic ad- ministrations very different views from those just illustrated were held as to the rights of American citizens, it may be well to quote a passage from a dispatch of a Democratic Secretary of State, Mr. Marcy, written in September, 1853;" and Mr. Belmont read the following extract: "Whenever, liy the operation of the law of nations, an individual becomes clothed with our national character, be he a nntive-liorn or naturalized citizen, an exile driven from his early home by political oppression or au emigrant enticed from it by the hopes of a better fortune for himself and his posterity, he can claim the protection of this Government, and it may respond to that claim without being obliged to explain its conduct to any foreign power, for it is its duty to make its nationality respected by other nations and respectable in every quarter of the globe. * * * international law looks only to the national character in determining what country has a right to protect. If a person goes from this country abroad Avith the nationality of the United States, this law enjoins upon other nations to respect him in regard to protection as an American citizen. SUMMING Ur. " Now, SO far as I am concerned," said Mr. Belmont, " I would like you to say that this is purely a cjuestion of the rights of citizens, and in no way involves the politics of foreign countries. It is a matter in which you and I and all Americans, naturalized citizens as well — be they of German, Irish, French or English birth — have an interest. It is also a matter in which the dignity of tbe Government is involved. It seems very strange that the Eepublican ])latform should have raised this issue in view of the facts which appear on the pul)lic records, showing a distinction made by Eepublican officials between native-ljorn and naturalized citizens, and a disregard of the statute, quoted above, which was intended to remove such distinctions. "^ You will also observe that no report upon the cases of imprisonment was made to Congress in compliance witli the. statute until the publicity which the matter obtained through other channels led Congress, at the instigation of Democrats in the Senate and in the House, to demand in- formation and to dictate the more vigorous measures hy which the release of the prisoners was finally accomplished." From the files of the Herald the re])orter ascertained that Mr. Mc- Sweeney was released on August 18th, following the agitation of the NATIONAL CAMPAIGN OF 1884. 73 matter by Senator Voorhees, no charges having ever been preferred against him as grounds for his arrest. Meanwhile, as said, he had been in prison ten months, six of which had been under the administration of the State Department by Mr. Blaine. (The Evening Post, August 9, 18S4.) PROTECTING AMERICAN CITIZENS ABROAD. Mr. Belmont's interview published in the Herald yesterday recalls some facts relating to Mr. Blaine's treatment of the "suspects" in Ireland in 1881, which Avill be curious reading to those who are now urged to vote for him as the great protector of the naturalized citizen abroad. Mr. Blaine, who is now angling for the Irish vote, would, of course, like t(j have it believed that he is a staunch •friend of the rights of American citizens, and accordingly he inserted in his letter of acceptance the following passage: '" Citizenship of the Republic must be the panoply and safeguard of him who wears it. The Anun-ican citizen, rich or poor, native or naturalized, white or colored, must every\vhert> walk secure in his personal and civil rights. The Republic should never assume a lesser duty, it can never assume a nobler one, than the protection of the humblest man who owes it loyalty — protection at home and protection which shall follow him abroad, into whatever land he may go upon a lawful errand." The natural inference from this of course is that were ^Ir. Blaine in a position in which he should be called upon to protect Anu>rican citizens abroad, he v.onld do so most energetically; that he would probably vie with Marcy himself and the Democratic statesmen of the last generation in asserting the rights of Anu'ri- can nationality wherever they were interfered with. His friends even go so far as to ask for the Irish vote on the ground that he will in some way, by protecting American citizens, help the dynamiters, and the articles in favor of Cleveland which have appeared in the Ihiglish newspapers are explained as caused by the terror inspired among the lOngHsh by Blaine's announcement of his intention to protect the citizen abroad as well as at home. Of the merits of his bid for the vote of dynamiters we have nothing to say, but the record of what .Mr. I'.laine actually did for the protection of Anu'rican citizens abroad while Secretary of State is of interest, not only to the Irish, but to every Anu>rican, to every native-born as W(dl as to eveiy naturalized citizen — for there is no distinction between those classes in their riglits abioad. .Mr. Iilaine''.Si present declaration of liis intentions must 'be judged in the light of his past performances, ;ind it is evident from the readi- ness of his supporters to advocate his claims to an election on this ground that they have forgotttui what he did do. Aiul yet there is ample material for the formation of a fair o|)inion. While .Mr. I'.laine was Secretary a (lueslion of great importance arose between this counlry and England, involving the rights of our citizens in that country, and Mr. Blaine has left behind him a very peculiar record on the sul)ject. On .Miirch 2, 1S81, the Knglish rarliiiuuMit passed a l.iw " for the better i)ro- tection of isersons and property in Ireland," which provided that an.y person declared by the Lord Lieutenant to be " reasomibly susi)ected " of having been guilty oi" treason, treason felony, tendier 30, ISSO, or of "any crime," of "violence or intimidation, and tending to inttn-fere with or disturb the nuiintcnance of law and order," since the same date, if conunitled in a "prescribed district." might be arrested and 10 74 NATIONAL CAMPAIGN OF 1884. thrown into jnil nnd kept there, at the pleasure of the Lord Lieutenant, without the privilege of bail or trial. By this act, passed in time of profound peace, the right of habeas corpus was destroyed, and any American citizen traveling or living in Ireland was liable to arrest and incarceration at the caprice of an individual. No state of belligerency or rebellion was pi-oclaimed to the world, but the act was passed in the exercise of the same species of absolute authority w^hich justi- fies torture in Turkey and sentence without trial in China. We do not say that the act was not justified under the circumstances — that is a matter of which foreign nations can hardly be judges: but it was a dangerous measure, of a sort not ordinarily resorted to except in time of war, and then with much hesitation. When it is resorted to it is needless to say that the vigilance of nations, the rights of whose citizens are affected by it, are usually aroused. At the time of the passage of the act a number of persons alleged to be Ameri- can citizens wei'e arrested in Ireland by order of the Lord Lieutenant, and thrown into jail as suspects. They were denied trial, and the question immediately arose, What was to be done about them? One of the first cases called to the attention of Mr. Blaine was that of a man named O'Connor. It was brought to his notice by the prisoner's brother, who had a letter of introduction from the Mayor of Baltimore, Mr. William Pinckney Whyte. On November 25, 1881, as appears from the Congressional Record, Mr. Blaine undertook to reply to this application, and his reply was simply that the incarceration of O'Connor without trial or hope of one was a matter of strict right. " The act of Parliament," he said, " under which Mr. O'Connor is held is a law of Great Britain, and it is an elementary principle of public law tliat in such case the Government of that country, in the exercise of its varied functions — judicial and executive — administers and interprets the law in question. The right of every Government in this respect is absolute and sovereign, and every person who voluntarily brings himself within the jurisdiction of the country, whether permanently or temporarily, is subject to the operation of its laws, whether he be a citizen or mere resident, so long as in the case of the alien resident no treaty stipulation or principle of international law is contravened by the proceedings taken against him. In stat- ing this familiar principle no more is conceded to Great Britain than every country may of right demand, and it is one of the sovereign rights that the Government of the United States has always insisted upon and maintained for itself." Such is the last authoritative utterance of Mr. Blaine on this subject of the rights of American citizens abroad. He retired from the Cabinet the next month. On April 5, 1892, the President transmitted to the Senate copies of correspond- ence relating to American citizens in Ireland, which showed that on .June 2, 1881, Mr. Blaine had instructed Mr. Lowell that this Government would " insist " that they should " innnediately upon arrest be informed of the specific crime or offense upon which they are held, and be offered an opportunity for a speedy trial before an impartial court and jury." This was Mr. Blaine's view of the matter in June. After deliberating upon the matte^' nearly six months, we find that he changed his mind, and came to the conclusion that the Coercion Act Avas just as binding on us as on an English subject: and that if the English Govern- ment, "in the exercise of its varied functions." chose to bastinado American citizen " suspects," we could not interfere. That he did come to this deliberate conclusion is proved conclusively by the fact that he never got a single suspect out of jail. They were liberated by Mr. Frelinghuysen, who insisted that they must 1)0 either tried or given an opportunity to leave tlie Cduntry. Is a man who " protects " American citizens in this way a fit person to be intrusted with the Presidency? XATIOXAL CAMPAIGX OF 1884. ''5 SPEECH AT XEWPORT, E. I. (Summary of report in New York Herald, August 21, 1S84.) Newport, August 20, 1884.— The Democrats of Ehode Island have every reason to be proud of the success of the open-air meeting held liere to-night. * * * The principal speech was made Ijy Congressinan Belmont, who was introduced by ^h'. Bell. Uv. Belmont only consented to speak after tlic committee were informed that Governor ]\rcLane, of Mar}-land, was unable to be present. :\Ir. Belmont spoke as follows: I thank you very heartily for your kind reception. I believe I must attribute it cliiefly \o the fact that you know I stand here an earnest sup- porter of Cleveland and all that his election implies to the proper adminis- tration of public affairs. My associations with Newport are very pleasant ones. I may use a stronger phrase: they are very dear to mo and date back to my earliest recollections, and I am, therefore, very glad to be among you to-night. I have just come here from the New England shores of Long Island. You of Rhode Island, you New England men, will under- stand it and appreciate it when I tell you tliat in (liese last days vud weeks I have heard from Bong Island people the quiet, deep-sounding ex- pression of the determination that this Government of the United States, our country, must and shall be honestly administered. I knew it. I knew I should find here the re-echo of that demand, and I have just now heard it from you. No man shall tell me that patriotism is not tlie inspiration of every true iVmerican, and it is that inspiration which will sweep before it the destructive elements now threatening the country. I leave it to thinking men — and in America thinking men are in the majority — I leave it to such men to determine for themselves whether the dangerous forces destructive of honest government and sound policy are or are not leagued against the Democratic party of to-day. The issues debated in both Houses of Congress, and questions hitherto occupying the public mind, have been as dust before the storm in the face of the absorbing issue of this campaign. FOK HONKST GOVERNMENT. We, therefore, stand here leagued together for honest government. Upon this overshadowing issue I understand the Democratic party of Newport is united, and you, my Democratic friends, you, my party asso- 76 NATIONAL CAMPAIGN OF 1884. ciates, whose services I have performed in the House of Representatives, will not take it amiss from me if I do not address this meeting as a Democratic meeting only, for there are here many Republicans who have come to join us in this noble cause. I address you as citizens anxious that public offices shall be administered as public trusts. We have learned from the history of our country the universal truth that a party too long intrusted with power becomes neglectful of its responsibilities. In our modern politics the longest term of power allotted to any party was twelve years only. Tlie first quarter of the century Avas divided I^etween the administrations of Jefferson. Madison and Monroe, but at tne end of Monroe's first administration there were no issues to divide the parties and he was re-elected by an almost unanimous vote. It was called :he era of good feeling. That can hardly be said of the present period. This is the " era of change " now that the Republican party has been in power also for a quarter of a century. I don't say this in the sense of a political argument simply because I Avish it as a partisan. Partisanship is too often a flag to cover all goods contraband of political warfare. The '•' era of change " has come, irrespective of the control of the political parties. It is no longer a matter of doul)t. I know from my personal experience in the communities of Long Island liow important is the drift of Repub- licans to the Democratic standard. I have heard at the National Demo- cratic headquarters that the same thing is true in all parts of the country. REPUBLICANS FOR CLEVELAND. Here I find such men as these: Edmund Tweedy, Francis B. Peckham, Darius Baker, Charles Acton Ives, Samuel R. Money, Frederic Sheldon, Lucius Davis, Wolcott Giljhs, James Eddy Mauran, Howard Smith, George Gordon King, Leroy King, Arthur B. Emmons, John Hare Powell, John Hare Powell, Jr., Samuel C. Powell, James Langly, J. Truman Burdick and a long list of others whom I have hitherto known as Republicans who are with us in support of Cleveland and Hendricks. It wAW be interesting to all of us, perhaps, to recall the issue raised by the Repub- lican party when it first came into power in 1860, and I will read to you the sixth resolution of the platform adopted in May of that year. " That the people justly view with alarm the reckless extravagance which pervades every department of the Federal Government; that a return to rigid economy and accountability is indispensable to arrest the systematic plunder of the public treasury by favored partisans; that the startling developments of fraud and corruption at the Federal metropolis show that an entire change of administration is imperatively demanded." I am certain that our Republican friends who are here with us to-night will join us in the readoption of the same resolution at this time. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN OF 1881. 77 DEMOCRATIC PROMISES. And what is the promise of the Democratic party? I think I can not answer that question better than hy naming its leaders. The highest_ office under the control of the Democratic party in recent years lias been the Speakership of the House of Eepresentatives. The Democratic S])eak- ers have been Mr. Kerr, Mr. Eandall and Mr. Carlisle. I leave it to you to make the comparison between such men as these and the Speakers of the Eepublican Houses — Mr. Colfax, the present candidate of the Republicans and Mr. Keifer. Between these two parties the country is now called upon to decide, and we will await its verdict with patience and confidence. OTHER SPEAKERS. Among the other speakers were 'Mr. W. D. Beacli, ^Fr. James ^kfonahan, Mr. David Baker, Jr., and Mr. P. H. ^lulholland. Tiicy were repeatedly applauded. ^Ir. August Belmont ami ^Ir. George Till'any, of New York, occupied seats on the platform. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN OF 1884. SUMMAEY OF EEMARKS AT A CAMPAIGIs^ MEETING AT BABYLON. August 28, 1884. I have just arrived from a somewhat foreign State, for surely Rhode Island denies so many of its citizens the right to vote we can have little in common with it. * * * An important question to-day is whether American citizens ahroad were protected by a Eepuhlican State Department in 1881. The apolo- gists of the State Department declare that a citizen going into a foreign country must abide by the laws of that country, but the Coercion xVct in Ireland created no new crime, but suspended the Habeas Corpus Act simply. The Irish " suspect " prisoners, O'Connor, McSweeney and others had violated no law. They were arrested on suspicion. Now, the habeas corpus can not be suspended and the resulting ab- sence of law be made applicable to the citizens of a foreign country unless three conditions exist, namely, a state of war, revolution, or an invasion. The reason in these cases is that in any one of them the courts are not in condition, usually, to carry on trials. But in 1881 none of these conditions existed in Ireland, and the prisoners who were American citizens migkt have been and would have been tried if the proper demand had been made, such as in fact was successfully made in 1882, owing, in a great measure, to the earnest action of Democrats in the House of Representatives and Senate. CLEVELAND IN THE EIGHT. The agitation of these questions was general in the country, and one of the most important meetings was that at which Governor Cleveland himself so correctly stated the rights of this Government and so clearly indicated the proper action which the State Department should take. The Democrats in the House did not feel that it was proper to embarrass the State Department in any manner, but they did think it necessary finally to move and passed an important resolution calling on the State Department to act. The resolution itself was merely the reiterating in terms the statute of 1868, which makes it incumbent upon the President to ask of a foreign government the trial or release of American citizens arrested under conditions similar to the cases of the prisoners of 1881, The apologists of the State Department also say that during our Rebel- XATIOXAL CAMPAIGX OF 1884. 79 lion British subjects were arrested in a similar manner; but this is not quite correct, as is proved in the case of Johnson, a British subject, ar- rested in Missouri, for he was released at once by Secretary Seward upon the demand of Lord Lyons. Besides, this was in time of rebellion, one of the times in which the suspension of the Jiabcas corpus might well have been recognized by British subjects and by their home Government without anv international contravention. SPEFriT AT A COLLEGE POTXT KATIFIGATTOX. (Suniiiiarj- of rciiort in Flushing Daily Times, Scpteniber 1, 1S84.) * * * ]\Ir. Belmont began his remarks Ijy saying that ho was pleased to be witli bis College Point friends in tlie good cause, and that it was the first time he had ever had that pleasure. During his remarks he said: " In discussing this question I shall not attempt fireworks, for I know the earnestness of your people and am sure tliat it is not necessary. I know your earnestness for the ticket we have made. I trust there are some Republicans and some ]kitler men here, for I have a word to all. In such a question there are many opinions, but only one issue. Even should the platform declare certain issues tlie cause changes some things. We all know the present issue. It is wlu'tlier or not we shall have an honest government in "Washington. My friends, there is no question about getting an honest one now. Look at Cleveland's record and look at the record of Mr. Blaine. There is no comparison. The Eepublioans have had control now for six successive terms and tliey ask now for the seventh. The answer must be in the negative. A cliange is necessary and was demanded by the people in 1880. "An unfortunate misunderstanding exists regarding the tariff, but you know, the workingmen know, that the Democratic party is always looking out for the interest of every workingman. We ^\'ant more emplo3Tnent for the people and we must have it. The two parties are going exactly in tlie same direction concerning the taritf question and I for one will not allow it to be said. that I am a Free Trader. This is only a party war cry and we will not allow it to continue to our detriment. There are certainly more important questions than this. We have presented to the country a candidate who is not only entitled to the support of all Demo- crats, but of all Republicans. I know Butler and have nothing to say against him, excepting that he looks upon politics as a game. He asks votes, not because he expects to be elected, hut he thinks he can organize a new party. Don't vote for him, as you will certainly be throwing away your vote. With Mr. Cleveland as vour President we mav feel satisfied." 80 NATIONAL CAMPAIGN OF 1884. ADDKESS AT NEWARK, X. J. (Summary of report in Now York World, September 23, 1884.) Newark, N. J., Sept. 24. — • Newark was al>laze last night from the torches of Cleveland and Hendricks campaign clubs carried in the grand parade in which thousands of men participated. * * * The open-air demonstration was followed bj' a rousing ratification meeting in the Grand Opera-house, held under the auspices of the Jeffersonian Club. Among the active workers present were Judges McCarter, Henry, Lomax, Led- with. Drew and Hood, County Clerk Vanderveer, Surrogate Zulic, Register Egner, Assemblymen Harrigan, O'Connor, Armitage and Arbuckle, Col. Fleming, John Dooley, the Mayor of Franklin, Dr. Wrightson, ex-Assemblyman Murphy, State Labor Inspector Fall, Assistant Inspector Dowdell, Aldermen James Dunn and Geo. Smith, James M. Seymour, Daniel Whitlock, President of the Common Council Wcidenmayer, Dr. English, Chairman of the Essex County Democratic Committee: Theo. J. English, President of the Essex County Democratic Club; Public Prosecutor Keene, Assistant Prosecutor Crane, Superintendent of Water Board George R. Gray, William Johnson, William Yolk, Chancery Clerk Duree, Major Samuel Klotz, W. Ryerson, Col. William II. Hamilton, S. R. W. Heath, William H. Righter, John McGregor, Andrew Albright, Dr. Brentnal, Capt. Kennedy and a number of men who have hitherto acted with the Republicans; Major Haynes, Julius Isaacs, Franklin Marks, .Jerome B. Ward, R. S. Osborne and Dr. Henry were also present. United States Senator John R. McPherson, who presided, was introduced by George H. Lambert, President of the CluV). Congressman Belmont was tlien introduced, and, after referring to liis inability to be present at the meeting to which he was invited last April, read a portion of the letter which he bad written at that time from AVash- ington to the Cbairman of the Xewark chd). in which he said that "in its foreign interconrse the United States mnst return to the Democratic policy of Mr. Marcy, but not to its absurd ' jingo ' imitation attempted by Mr. Evarts's immediate successor, and must return to the Democratic policy in order that, among other things, our influence and prestige among the Spanish-speaking nations and peoples on this continent, which sulfered so in the days of the Landreau claim, may be restored and re-established.'^ "This letter was written on the 11th of April, 188-1," he said, "and at the time I wrote the letter I did not suppose that the outcome of the Republican Convention would be the nomination of the ex-Secretary, but at that time the worst that the Republican party might do seemed to be the nomination of some candidate who, by the appointment of Mr. Blaine to the Secretaryship, would nndertake to restore to the State Department the unfortunate and unsuccessful policy inaugurated in 1881. XATIOXAL CAMPAIGX OF 1884. 81 But now that the candidate of the Chicago Convention was "Mr. Blaine himself, it seems hardly fair to hold the Eepublican party responsible for a nomination made by those who assumed to represent it in Chicago, especially in view of the manner in which the nomination has been re- ceived by a large portion of the Eep^^blican party and the liepublican press. I insist, so large was the Eepublican revolt against the nominee of the Chicago Convention that the campaign to-day has become Mr. Blaine's own contest rather than that of his party, and the success of Mr. Cleveland would be the victory of the honest sentiment of The whole country, irrespective of party. I do not propose to prophesy aliout tlie result, but of one thing I am certain, and that is, should sucb a candidacy as that of Mr. Blaine be successful in this countr}' the presumption against any man holding public office would be very great. It would also be a doubtful honor to hold a position in the public service should the Tresi- dency have been attained after the record of Mr. Blaine up to this time. I have avoided any direct reference to the Eepublican candidate, l)ecause it seemed to me unnecessary^ after having expressed a Judgment during the course of an examination of certain public questions in which he was concerned and in which it became my duty to take part. The last publi- cation, however, of the correspondence with Warren Fisher exhibits a degree of personal debasement, such that I feel it would be supertluous to observe with any greater strength in respect to this candidate for the Presidency than I would for any pul)lic offender. I am not of those who believe that the moral sense of the people of this country is a low one; on the contrar}', I think the standard is high, but we so often cry wolf that when the wolf is at the door it is difficult for the people to believe it; in other Avords, the heat of political controversy and the excited tones of the speakers and of the press during political campaigns is such that often charges are made Avhich have no basis. Therefore it is that the people of the country to-day are loath to realize the one question which they are called upon to decide in this contest, and that question is whether they intend to have for their President a man who has disqualified himself from holding any public office whatever, or whether they shall have for the President a man who has honestly administered every office hitherto held by him. The American people are a thinking people or it would be useless to reiterate the reasons of the unfitness of the ex- Speaker and ex-Secretar}' of State. " THE FISHER LETTERS. " The Fisher correspondence alone contains his own written testimony to that unfitness. The letter containing his })lan for the distribution of 11 S3 NATIONAL CAMPAIGN OF 1884. the surplus revenues contained his own written testimony to that elTect. His correspondence while Secretary of State, concerning the boundary between Mexico and Guatemala, would in itself he sufficient. I prefer, liowever, to speak only of what became known to me in the performance ■of my official duty in the House of Eepresentatives. It is quite true that questions concerning our foreign aff'airs are comparatively uninterest- ing to most of us, although the day has been and the time assuredly Avill return when such questions are of supreme moment to every American. ■Our general indifference to the conduct of the State Department, except in isolated cases of American citizenship abroad, is probably owing to the fact that we have been almost exclusively concerned with home affairs ever since the Civil war, and what was termed the reconstruction -period. I may add that on the 5th of July of this year I had the honor to present to the House, on behalf of a Democratic Committee of Foreign Affairs, the following resolution: Rcsokrd. That, in the opinion of the House, closer commercial relations with the other States on the American continent would be of mutual advantage, and that, should the Executive see tit to consider propositions for freer commerce with the Dominion of Canada, such negotiations would be viewed with favor. " President Arthur's administration has recently brought about the rati- fication of a commercial treaty with Mexico and negotiations for a treaty with Spain bearing upon our trade with Cuba. All this I juention as proof of the growing importance of our foreign relations as being cjues- tions in our politics. " BLAINE AS A SECEETARY. " Let us see, then, how injurious to these growing American interests has been the questionable and erratic course of the Department of State in 1881. Mr. Evarts's administration bequeathed to ^Ir. Blaine a finan- cial scheme for the settlement of the difficulties l)etween the South Ameri- can States of Chili and Peru which, if carried out, would not have received the approval of this country. Mr. Blaine, upon entering the Department of State, at once began to promote the interests of this enter- l^rise with his accustomed energy. A French company of bondholders, •called the Credit Industriel, desired the mediation of the United States between Chili and Peru in behalf of their OAvn interests, and they wislied this Government to induce Chili to receive a money indemnity amoanting to $40,000,000, which the company was ready to furnish; that Chili should receive this $40,000,000 instead of the portion of the Peruvian territory which it occupied by conquest and which it proposed to hold. The territory contained large deposits of guano and the nitrates upon NATIONAL CAMPAIGX OF 1884. 83 which the value of the property of these foreign bondhoklers depended. The early instrnctions of Mr. Blaine to our Ministers in Chili consisted of energetic appeals made in accordance with the wishes of the foreign bondholders who, at the time these instructions were sent, were repre- sented in Washington by special agents. The whole course of this di- plomacy was injurious in its ultimate effects and threw discredit upon our position by reason of the hesitating yet arrogant tone in which our Ministers were instructed to communicate the wishes of this Government. But much more reprehensible was the course taken in regard to anotlier attempted financial operation on the part of still another company having interests in Peru. " The Speaker of the House, who wrote to Warren Fisher, was still the same man who wrote the dispatch of August 4, 1881, at the suggestion of the notorious Shipherd, who actually, in the Department of State itself, supervised the sending of tliat dispatch, which was written in accordance with his wishes and interests. That dispatch contains the following in- structions to our Ministers: 'You will take especial care to inform both the Chilian and Peruvian authorities of the character and status of the claim, in order that no definite treaty of peace shall be made in disregard of the rights wliich Landrcau may be found to possess.' " It is proper to say here that in a previous dispatch the Secretary of State had already acknowledged tliat the executive, legislative and judicial functions of Pervi were in abeyance and there could be no adjudication of the claim in advance of the negotiations for peace which were then going on. '^I'he demand thus made was for the ])aynient of the claim, and a, demand in this nuinner was an obstacle to the signing of a treaty of peace. That tliere may l)e no (l()ul)t as to this proposition I will recall the testimony of Mr. Jilaine himself when asked as follows: ' If Chili had refused to make such stipulations, would not our ^Minister have been bound to resist to the extent of his interest the signing of a treaty of peace without the stii)ulation? ' Answer, 'Yes, sir.' "the chili STIIMLATtOK. "The stipulation which was here expected of Chili was that if in that treaty of peace it should be decided by the IVM'uvian (iovernment that J. C. Landreau had a lien upon any territory ceded to Chili, Chili should thereujjon recognize that lien. But the one great \)()\\\\ in all this matter is that the claim itself was never the claim of an American citir^en, but of a Frenchman, who had in vain appealed to the l"'reneh (Jovernment and that Government had instructed its diplomatic agents in South America to have nothing to do with it. This nuin Landreau had also 84 NATIONAL CAMPAIGN OF 1884. brought his case to the notice of the Peruvian Government, and, naturally, was denied any consideration for the following reasons: The Peruvian Government had issued a decree to stimulate discoveries in guano deposits, and under this decree the discoverer of any new guano territory or islands was entitled to a third of the proceeds. Landreau bought a small vessel and, sailing up the coast of Peru, he pretended to discover a large guano tract, but the Peruvian Government decided that his claim was a baseless fraud, since the territory was already known to Peru. Failing to estab- lish his claim in Peru, he concluded to try what could be done at Wash- ington. For that purpose his brother, J. C. Landreau, with whom it was never pretended the Peruvian Government had any contract whatever, applied to the Department of State after having organized an enterj)ris- ing company of speculators. Even had J. C. Landreau been an American citizen, the fraudulent character of the claim and the fact that the claim was wholly that of the brother, it should have been clear to the depart- ment that our Government had no business with it whatever. Im.ma- terial as the citizenship of J. C. Landreau is, it is at best doubtful. The courts in New Orleans, at the time which he claims to have been natural- ized, kejit a record with great care, and an examination of the record does not disclose any evidence of his having become a citizen. " But the Landreau claim can not, under any possible construction, be termed an American claim. Certain speculators were interested in its prosecution by Landreau himself, a foreigner, a Frenchman who had been repudiated by his own Government, which had refused any diplo- matic interference in his behalf. The sum and substance of it all is that, during that whole period, the State Department became the tool of specu- lators interested in South American territory, and instead of holding our traditional attitude of friendly neutrality to the States of South America our authorities were instructed to use their influence to import false and foreign elements into the negotiations for peace between two belligerents, both of whom were friendly to the United States, and our political and commercial position in South America received a blow which Avas only modified by a subsequent complete reversal of the policy then inaugurated. The distrust created in South America as to the wisdom and honesty of our policy opened the door to the diplomatic agents of European powers, and European influence was thus strengthened upon this continent. " SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. " I merely submit this for the thoughtful men to consider, and those voters who are satisfied with the present condition of the country from an industrial point of view or business point of view, who are satisfied NATIONAL CAMPAIGX OF 1884. 85 with the fact that there are strikes all over the countr}' and failures in business; who have heard of the maladministration of certain public officials in Washington; who have heard Avhat is said of the Eepublican candidate; who have read what he says of himself — I say, let the voters who are satisfied with the present condition of things vote to continue them under an administration of which Mr. Blaine would be the head, thus establishing a seventh Eepublican administration after a rule of twenty-five years. But those to whom a demand for the reformation of tlie administration of public affairs is not a mere empty political war er- fect measure. It was hoped that it would go through the House and would be considered and amended. But no. The politicians said they would stop it. ^ly friend is not a Democratic politician; therefore, wliy should he find fault with the Morrison bill. When I say that 1 am not a Free Trader, don't let my friend say to me that I experienced any change in o])iiiion. Do not let him say that, or that I in any way depart fi'cm my associations in the House or with my party. [Loud cheers. J Why, if you have read tlie papers, you have seen that very lately Mr. Kandall himself said in a pul)lic speecli — ]Mr. Handall, the opponent of Mr. Carlisle for tlie Speakership — said tiiat he never heard Mr. Carlisle make a free-trade speech. I see that my friend makes a note. [Laugliter. | If I am wrong he will correct me. Mr. Carlisle, at a diuntjr in New York, the I'ree Trade Clul/s dinner, made a speech. I heard the speech. It was not a free-trade speech. It was a speech such as is made in the House, such as Democrats make in the House. Now, I do not pretend to say anytliing else than tliis: I do not make any professions, I do not ])roniise anytliing. but I do say to my friends here, be they Republicans or Democrats, that I am a Democrat and nothing else. [Prolonged applause.] And when I came to consider this (piesiion of taxation I acted as a Democrat. That means, if I understand anything about DemocracT, that means that the question of taxation must be viewed first from the standpoint of labor. [Cheers.] What do we say in our platform? I have the two platforms here. ]\ly friend. Judge Armstrong,, told me the other day, I think it was in Albany, that he presented re- cently the two platforms to a Pepnblican, but he did not tell him wliicli was the Democratic and which the Kepublican platform, and that the man made a mistake. He — [Prolonged laugiitei-.J 1 think it- was a very natural mistake, because if I read them to you, unless you remember, you will hardly know which is which on this question. That shows what politicians will do. [Laughter.) The Pepuhlican ])latrorni, the plat- form of the jiarty which now agaiji asks you to helieve, as it did four years ago, that should their ])ower he continued labor would be better off. That is what they said when they were trying to elect their Con- gressman four years ago. They said, if you elect Republican (Jongressmen and a Republican l^resident. why you are going to have better times ! I do not see that these times have come. [Mr. Plait here stated that,, perhaps, that was because a Republican Congressman was not elected.] 92 THIRD CAMPAIGN FOR CONGRESS. Continuing, Mr. Belmont said: Tliat is a very broad answer, and yet I did not expect my friend would indulge in a matter so trivial, because, after all, a Republican Congressman Avould not bave turned tbe House into a Republican Congress. Now, wliile my friend spoke of tbat, be will pardon me, and I would not in the sligbtest degree say anything to offend bim, nor do I propose to bave any personal discussion whatever and especially in regard to his candidate, nor to express my opinion in that regard tbat I bave formed in the course of my duty and in my en- deavor to represent this district. But be seems rather dissatisfied as I expressed my opinion, in the course of my duty, in regard to his candidate for the Presidency. I say, I hoped we would not bave anything about that. But now that he speaks of tbe election of a Republican Congress- man, which is, of course, a matter to be considered, I do say I think tbat his action, as a representative of this district, should he be elected Speaker of a Republican House — because, if the election of a Republican Con- gressman is to make so much difference in tbe House, why, then, be inigbt be Speaker of the House — and in tbat case I do believe it would not be such a Speakership as his condidate indulged in. [Cheers.] But still, we bad better come back to this question which seems to have absorbed tbe gentleman so much, although, as he says, I am not a free trader. This discussion of mine, therefore, as I tell you, is a voluntary one to you, as my constituents, and not in answer to his argument, because bis argument is not against me. It is against somebody else, some professor, I believe. I speak to you as a man trying his best to do what be thinks right in respect to taxation. I tell you tbat I not only believe that it is wise legislation to begin at tbe foundation of all our wealth and prosperity when we commence to levy taxes- — I mean labor — but it is also necessary to look upon this question from a point of view of administration. When such an administration as President Arthur's tells us ibat there is a surplus, and that we must reduce it, then the members of tbe House should undertake at least a trial. We were sent to do this thing. The Yevy first duty of the House is to provide money, money for the (jovern- ment by taxation. We Democrats intend to provide it through tbe Cus- tom House. If my friends want to know, that does not mean free trade. He speaks of comparative free trade. I do not know what that means. [Cheers.] As long as a Custom House remains he must not talk to me of comparative free trade. [Applause.] He must tell us when it was proposed to abolish the Custom House. The commercial view of the question and the one to which I referred when I spoke of this great principle of Jefferson's, was one which is being THIED CAMPAIGN FOR COXGRESS. 93 carried out now by President Arthur. It is necessary for the connti7 tliat we must have a market. AVho is to benefit by foreign markets? AYho first is to benefit? Does not the laboring man know himself that it is for his good if articles are sold, whether at home or abroad? .My friend speaks of importation and so on. But we want to sell what we produce and we can not do it. That is what is the trouble. [Cheers.] Why the home competition is such that many people have to go out of business ard men can not be employed. ]\Iy friend asked me last night if I was so much in favor of what Mr. Arthur was doing, would I vote for him had he been nominated — something like that. ]\Iy friend (turning to j\Ir. Piatt) says he is going to make a note. I want yoii to make a note. It is this: that I was perfectly willing, and I am still, to take all the disadvantage of my position in this joint debate. I certainly have nothing to gain by such a discussion, because my friend opens and closes it. AVhat his last words, what he is going to sav about me I do not know, and I do not know how it is possible to answer him. 1 think, then, tliat it is very proper that our last meeting — in which he has most excellent opportunity to pass judg- ment upon me — that this last meeting in which 1 have gone before liini and you on trial as it were, should be here in the courthouse. For I certainly feel that I am here on trial wlicn my friend finds such fault with me, as the llepresentative of this district, that a few days after his nomina- tion lie bids me come before him and give liini an account. [Applause and laughter.] I know that my time is short. This western and southern jnethod is one which I do not know anything about. Perhaps I would have learned something about it if we had commenced earlier in the campaign or if the campaign had been longer. I might have said to him: '"Why, there is no use discussing these things for nights with each other." I might have passed all sorts of excuses to my friend so that he would not have the opportunity to pass judgment upon all that I said. J>ut I thought it had better go on record, the stand I took in President Arthur's administration; and let me say, while for the few more months as your Eepresentative, I will go back to finish out this term which remains to me. [A voice: " You will go back again,"' and applause.] I intend to sup- port the tariff policies exhibited in the commercial treaties. 1 believe that this country of ours must have the commerce at least of this western hemisphere. Just before I left the House I introduced a I'esolution which was passed by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, perhaps a Protectionist committee, 94 THIRD CAMPAIGN FOR CONGRESS. of which "William Walter Phelps is a member. The resolution A^as as follows: '■ Resolved. That, in the opinion of the House, closer commercial relations Avith the other States on the American continent would be of mutual advantage, and that, should the Executive see fit to consider propositions for freer commerce ■with the Dominion of Canada, such negotiations would be viewed with favor." Yet the Committee of Foreign Affairs, composed mainly of Protec- tionists, with Governor Ciirtin as Chairman, passed this resolution unanimously. They did not see any free trade in that. [Applause.] There is another treaty. Last night, or the night before last, the evening papers had a reference to a treaty with Spain. Another one with ]\Iexico. Xow I think I will be doing my duty as a meml^er of the House and as a Representative, as I am, of this district, if I do in some way carry out this policy. ]\Iy friend would have to do so if he were faithful to his own platform (at this point the speaker was interrupted by some one who called for "three cheers for Perry Belmont'" which were given with a will), because the two platforms, let me tell you, the two platforms declare that it is to the interest of this country to have ■closer commercial relations with all the States of the continent, both north and south. So that the platforms we are on, so far as they relate to ■ that question, are similar, and if we are to find any difficulties it will be on the score of politics. As to these two platforms. I have time enough to read at least a portion of them to you. [Reading.] Democratic Platform. — " In making reduction in taxes it is not proposed to in- jure any domestic industries, but rather to promote their healthy growth. " Many industries have come to rely upon legislation for successful continuance, so that any change of law must at every step be regardful of the labor and capital thus involved. " The necessary reduction in taxation can and must be enacted without depriv- ing Americans of the ability to compete successfully with foreign labor without imposing lower rates of duty than will be ample to co^er any increased cost of production which may exist in consequence of the higher rate of wages prevail- ing in this country." There is the Democratic platform. I am sure it is satisfactory to my friend because it is so much like his own. This is the Republican plat- form. [Reading.] " We demand that the imposition of duties on foreign imports shall lie made not for revenue only, but that in raising the requisite revenues for the Government, •such duties shall be so levied as to afford security to our diversified industries and protection to the rights and wages of the laborer, to the end that active and THIRD CAMPAIGN FOE CONGRESS. 95 intelligent labor, as well as capital, may have its just reward, and the laboring man his full share in national prosperity. " The Republican party pledges itself to correct the inequalities of the tariff and to reduce the surplus, by such methods as will relieve the taxpayer without injury to the laborer or the great productive interests of the country." Now then upon this question of hihor. After what he has said and after what I have said perhaps it wonld be safe to leave the matter. He tokl yoti that if yon voted for nie there was going to he trouble, and a sad state of affairs, and so, of course, you will not do that. I can not ask you to vote for me after that. [Cries of '"' Yes we will."] Well, then. I will go to another subject, because this was not in answer to his arguiiicut, as he said since tliat I was not a Free Trader. I want to go to another })liase of this question relating to labor, indirectly it is true, but it is recalled to my mind by the fact that the labor of this country is performed mostly by men of foreign birth or origin. I mean that when the appeal u])on this tarilf question was made by tlie Kepublican politicians they coupled it with another tiling. They tell you that if Mr. Blaine is elected President [.\])plause followed by tbree cheers for Cleveland, and uproar], they tell you if Mr. Blaine is elected President of the United States that American citizens abroad will be protected. As a Democrat in the House, one who was placed on a subcommittee, the only one in fact i)laced ujion that subcommittee to examine this matter, I declare to you — I am sorry to do so in the presence of my friend, 1)ecause he takes another view of it — 1 declare to you it is not a correct deduction should Mr. I>laine continue in the same course lie ado})ted while lie was Secretary of State. There has been a great deal of talk al)out the case of Mc- Sweeney, but it is not the only case. There were others. In considering this question, my friend read a dispatch of Mr. Blaine's of June 2d. I asked him the date hut he did not remember it at the time, lie did not tell me it was the dis[)atcli of June 2d. It has since been jjublished in the Trihune and used in the canvass for Mv. IMaine. IJut that dispatch was not followed up l)y any demand. It set foiHi the principle, and was a beautiful dispatch to go on the record, l)ut there was no action taken. ^Ir. Lowell was not ordered to do anytliing in regard to j\lcSweeney until after Mr. Frelinghuysen was Secretary, and he, [Cheers] acting upon the inspiration of the Democrats in the House, took up this matter. Another thing. The princijth' laid down in tliat dispatch of June 2d, should my friend read it to you, was not the ])rinciple taken in dispatches afterward written. Those are the ones we must go by. ^Ir. P>laine set forth the principle in the case of O'Connor. | Clieers. | A\']R'lher that should have been taken u]) on j)rincii)le, the fact remains that durin" 96 THIRD CAMPAIGN FOR CONGRESS. the whole time of his administration onr citizens remained in prison; were not tried; nor were they released. That is the fact. The principle enunciated was that they must abide by the laws of the country in A\hieh they went for any business whatever. I find that the apologists of the State Department attack these men. They condemn McSweeney. They say that, after all, "McSweeney is not to be considered as much of a man; that he had no right to go over there and take part in politics." But he broke no law. He had a right to do what he did. They tell you that he Avas to, and did give up his allegiance to this country. It is not so. He never did. They tell you so because he Avas elected seven months after he was in prison, to a local office — poor law guardian or something of that kind, which amounted to nothing; that that was the reason for alloAving him to remain in prison. Let me draw a contrast between this apology, this wretched quibbling with our citizens who Avere suffering — a contrast betAveen that and the policy of a Democratic Secretary of State, Marcy, who acted in behalf of a man AAdio AA^as not yet a citizen but Avho had only declared that he intended to become one. But that Avas enough for a Democratic Secre- tary. [Applause.] But O'Connor's case is one to take the greatest in- terest in because it shoAvs Mr. Blaine's course. If they Avant to go into Avhat sort of a man O'Connor Avas, and pitch into him as they did McSweeney, why O'Connor Avas recommended to the department by his brother, Avith William Pinckney Whyte of Maryland. Nothing could be said against McSweeney. Mr. Blaine AATote the folloAving letter to the brother of O'Connor: " In this conuection I must, however, remind you that the Act of Parliament under which Mr. O'Connor is held is a law of Great Britain, and it is an ele- mentary principle of public law that in such case the Government of that country in the exercise of its varied functions — judicial and executive — administers and interprets the law in question. The right of every Government in this respect is absolute and sovereign, and everj' person who voluntarily brings himself within the jurisdiction of the country, whether permanently or temporarily, is subject to the operation of its laws, whether he be a citizen or a mere resident, so long as in the case of the alien resident no treaty stipulation or principle of inter- national law is contravened by the proceedings taken against him. In stating this familiar principle no more is conceded to Great Britain than every country may of right demand, and it is one of the sovereign rights that the Government of the United States has always insisted upon and maintained for itself." These are Mr. Blaine's Avords and they need little comment. I don't know how the evidence of a Eepublican can be better tested than quoting Eepublican evidence against it. You can not expect to do it as a Demo- crat. [Cheers.] We are all wrong, God help us, and especially on tariff. THIRD CAMPAIGX FOR CONGRESS. 97 As to this question of international law it is very simple. All that we say is that if our citizens go into a foreign country, of course they must abide by the laws of that country. But if there is a condition of things such that the courts are not in operation, why then Lord Granville, if he happens to be at the head of foreign affairs, might say to a ^finister making a demand: " You must tell your Government that we can not try these people; we have no court in operation." But they could not say that to Mr. Lowell because the courts were in operation. [Loud cheers. J Mr. Lowell ought to have insisted that they be tried or released. [Cheers.] I will endeavor to go a little into detail in this matter. He says that no more is conceded to Great Britain than every country may of right demand, and it is one of the sovereign rights that the Government of the United States has always insisted upon and maintained for itself. Now there is a very prominent case of a British citizen having been arrested during our Eebellion, in Missouri, where there was martial law. That was a case in which the Government itself was in great danger and was not as in the case of England and Ireland. The Queen did not claim that there was any such condition there. Yet Mr. Seward gave iiim up at once, the first time the demand was made upon us. That was comity between nations. Mr. Lowell took up a position whicli seems very strange to me in view of the fact that the Eepublican platform says that " there shall be no distinction between native-born and foreign-born citizens." The Democratic party not only says that but maintains the principle. [Applause.] Mr. Lowell said in regard to these cases it " woukl be maiiifostly futile to claim that naturalized citizens of tlie United States shouhl he excepted from its operation." He means the operation of the Coercion Act. He draws a distinction as clear as language can inake it that it is entirely futile to claim that naturalized citizens of the United States should be excepted from the operation of the act. That is what Mr. Lowell said, and then they tell you to vote and elect Mr. Ulainc President, as my friend is intending and tries to do. "WTiy this policy of protection to American citizens abroad was a Democratic idea! The liistory of the Democratic party, the record of the State Department under Democratic Secretaries shows this, and to prove my asscftion we can ])oint to the record of Secretary Marcy. [Applause.] He wrote a dispatch which we consider good Democratic doctrine. Far Ijctter tlian Mr. Lowell's dis- patch which says that naturalized citizens should not be exempted from the operation of an act which he himself describes as contrary to ordinary jurisprudence. He describes the act in very severe terms and says that 13 98 THIED CAMPAIGN FOE CONGEESS. naturalized citizens should not be excepted from it. Secretary Marcy says this in the case of a man who only intended to become an American citizen. Mr. Marcy wrote: " Whenever, by the operation of the law of nations, an individual becomes clothed with our national character, be he a native-born or naturalized citizen, an exile driven from his early home by political oppression or an emigrant enticed from it by the hopes of better times for himself and for posterity, he can claim the protection of this Government, and it may respond to that claim without being obliged to explain its conduct to any foreign power, for it is its duty to make its nationality respected by other nations and respectable in every quarter of the globe, * * * International law looks only to the national char- acter in determining what country has a right to protect. If a person goes from this country abroad with the nationality of the United States, this law enjoins upon other nations to respect him in regard to protection as an American citizen," Secretaiy Marcy would not have found fault with this matter of ours. If he defended any neglect he would not have said, if a citizen had been made a prisoner, that " perhaps he had given up his allegiance " and so on; or " he had been elected poor law guardian," or some other quibble of that sort. [Loud applause.] My friend would not do any such thing as that, I am sure. [Ironical cheers.] As to making any defense, if he made any, it would be upon good, strong reasons, I know, because my ex- perience with him during this little contest has given me great confidence in his sincerity if he takes up any of these questions. But I will only speak of the manner in which the newspapers have de- fended the course of the State Department, and of a good many politicians who have found themselves in straits in discussing this question. The dispatch of Secretary Marcy's goes on to speak of a man who only intended to become an American citizen. [Mr. Belmont here read the whole dis- patch, which was loudly applauded.] Now this language calls forth your approval. And should my friend read the dispatch of Mr. Blaine of June 2d, I have no doubt 1jut that it would call forth approval. The dispatch of Secretary Marcy A\'as fol- lowed by action which compelled the foreign government to recognize the man, and what was said, whereas the Blaine dispatch of June 3d was followed by inaction [ Ai^plause] , or no action that amounted to anything. Mr. Lowell, our Minister in London, never had his heart in this matter, never. [Cheers.] So much so that when Mr. Frelinghuysen took the ground, he felt as if he had to give some reason to Mr. Lowell for com- pelling him to go on and do what he should have done at the outset. My friend said last night that his candidate had taken part in legislation which benefited our naturalized citizens. Yes, taken part in it. No THIRD CAMPAIGN FOR COXGEESS. 99 man goes to Congress without taking part in pretty mncli all the legislation that goes on. But on the day when you had the power and the responsibility of the Government, when the Secretaryship of State was in the hands of Mr. Blaine, at a time when the President was disabled, at a time when he was the sole power to act, why did he not act ? Is there anything in the defense in the fact that he once did take part in certain legislation? I do not see it. [Cheers.] Because when he was judge with the sole responsibility in regard to these matters he neglected them. If the Department of State had not been doing anything all that time no one could complain that these matters should have suffered. But we know well enough that during those months of the President's dis- ability many important acts occurred. We know that the question went so far as to be one of peace or war with many people. We know that a dispatch was written which went so far as to make a demand upon a friendly State in a form which might have endangered our friendly rela- tions, only it was a small State. If then the Department of State was able to take such important action in regard to South American States, there is no excuse for saying that it could do nothing for American citizens because tbe department was not in an active condition. The depart- ment was in a very active condition then. [Cheers.] Certainly it was in active condition when dispatches to our Ministers in Chili and Peru were sent out. It was very active. [Cheers.] I do not want to go over that again. It is, perhaps, too familiar to most of you. But as we have been talking about our commercial relations to the States upon this continent I only spoke of it in that way. I will not go into a good deal of what might be of some interest but I will only go into that part of the embarrassment which does seem to me important in view of these great commercial treaties. My friend read the other night in answer to all this criticism a])out Mr. Blaine's foreign policy in South America, a letter which I have also seen in the New York Tribune, and that dispatch was similar to the language used very often by Mr. Blaine himself, lately, at the dinner at Delmonico's I think, and certainly at Xew York within a few days. There is a constant declaration on his part that we need never be but in the most friendly relations to South America. The dispatch which my friend read the other niglit was an invitation to the South American States to meet in a congress. I have seen in ]le|)iil)li(aR text-books this dispatch quoted in refutation of all there is said about South America, just as the dispatch of June 2d is read in refutation of the records and all there is said about the condition of our citizens in Ireland and in the British provinces. The diplonuitic dispatches are written for record. 100 THIRD CAMPAIGN FOR CONGRESS. Go through the Foreign Commercial Eelations, as it is called, a l)ook printed every year, and you would suppose if you read one dispatch that a certain policy was outlined; turn a few pages over and you will find something else. [A voice " Say something further on the tariif ques- tion."] Well I am perfectly willing to speak upon the tariff question. As I said awhile ago, that my friend had described me to some extent when he averred and explained that I was not a Free Trader [Applause], and I said further and described my own position as I preferred to do. [A voice: "You voted for Carlisle."] I did, decidedly. The gentleman who asked that question was perfectly sincere in his query, when he said that I voted for Mr. Carlisle and asked an explanation, for he evidently believed that such a vote was hostile to his interest and affairs. He would not have found fault in that way; I believe if he should consider this matter, he might change his opinion. There is a reason, and I prefer that my opponent should have stated it. I want to convince him at this stage, and I certainly feel it my duty to myself to say to him that Mr. Cai'lisle is one of the most conservative men in public life, otherwise he would not have received my support. He is most consei-vative in his opinions upon all questions. At present, however, the tariff is not the only one question which occupies public men. He has taken positions upon other questions, notably the currency. Upon that he has had the approval of the most competent judges all over this countiy. And when he came to consider the tariff question, the same temperament, the same method, the same fairness was exhibited. I can say to my friend that my experience in the House is such that I can tell him that there is no man there who, when he rises to address the House, is listened to Avith such respect on the part of members of both parties and there is no one else who holds such a position as Mr. Carlisle. [Cheers.] As Speaker he is recognized in the same manner. In making up my judgment, therefore, upon the Speakership I knew that I was safe in voting for Mr. Carlisle. He was elected by a large majority of the Democratic party. [A voice: " And will again."] My friend can hardly be a Democrat, but if he is, he certainly ought to be to some extent influenced by the fact that Mr. Carlisle holds such a position in his own party and is held in such high respect by the Eepublicans. As to his opinions, you must remember that in this matter of opinion there is not a great deal of difference in the platforms. Mr. Carlisle went through the contest for the Speakership and it is now over. The hostilities which had l)een excited by tliat contest have been appeased. Mr. Eandall has said within a few days that he had never heard Mr. Carlisle make a free trade speech. The hostilities are now over and men are doing each other justice. THIRD CAMPAIGX FOR CONGRESS. 101 The other day I was in Xew Jersej', and upon the same phitform an audience was addressed by Congressman Eaton, of Connecticut, a strong Protectionist. The old gentleman whom I have known for years im- mediately came to me during this contest and said, " Are you not mak- ing a mistake?" I saw he was very earnest and very positive, for he is a Protectionist. Yet I was more Protectionist during that contest than he was, because in his speech, addressing an audience in Newark, a place where there is a great deal of manufacturing, he made statements that were in accord with my own. There is a coming together of Democrats on this question since the great contest has been removed. What I mean to say is, that there is not so much a distinction, and we men coming to- gether mean to go to work and legislate. Mr. Eaton said to that audience, in speaking of the question where they produced axes — for instance axes which suffer a duty of fifty per cent. These axes are made in this coun- try of course, and mainly in Connecticut, where better axes are made than in any other part of the world. Xow j\Ir. Eaton, though he is a Protec- tionist, says that he wants that duty removed. ^Miy? Because then Con- necticut wdll be able to compete with other nations of the world. The axes which are produced there go to England; they are stamped with the English stamp, and the English people get them and they are sent to various markets that we can not get. We mean to get those markets if we can. [Cheers.] AN AMERICA X REPRESENTATIVE. They speak about British free trade: I consider it an insult if any one charges mo with being a Free Trader. I am an x\raerican Representative in Congress. [iVpi)lause.] I do not ])ropose that any man shall say that I do not consider the interests of my own country. Consider them in this way. In regard to this South American matter I happened to know the important part of it. That is what I referred to a little while ago before my friend interrupted me. I mean to say that the United States should have the trade of all the States upon this continent and shall take it away from Great Britain, France and Germany. [Loud cheers.] It is not a mere question of theory. It is a policy of the American Government, whoever is elected. It is established already. It is under way. That is what these treaties mean with Mexico. That is what my resolution in regard to Cuba and Si)ain meant which went tlirougli the committee. We want to drive iMigland and I' ranee and tlie rest of them off tliis continent commerciallv. [lioud cheers.] We would like to go furtlicr. hut we do not ])ro])oso to do any such thing. My IVicnd refci-rcd to JoU'erson's 102 THIED CAMPAIGN FOE CONGRESS. statement with regard to coiiinierce with all the world. ITe meant that our Government should look forward into the future. He believed that at some time in the future we could compete successfully with all the world. But at jsresent the great production in this country, the great skill, the intelligence, labor and the combination of capital fail to attain their true results, and especially upon this western hemisphere. The Democratic platform declares that we must hold closer political and com- merical relations with the States of the western hemisphere. [Cheers.] This 23olicy is a complete and harmonious one. I might state here that I feel perfectly well satisfied with the part that I was called upon to serve on the Committee of Foreign Affairs, because I think that that committee, instead of being an ornamental one as it has been before, is, as I know, a very hard-working one. These questions are coming up all the time, and if there is any legislation of importance during this next session of Congress, it will be upon this subject of treaties. If my friend cares to watch anything I do, in spite of my having voted for Mr. Carlisle, he will see that I will continue in this line of policy, so that when the Mexican treaty comes up I will certainly see to it that I cast a vote to carry it into effect. GETTING BACK OUR INFLUENCE. I say that we are getting back our influence on this continent, and if anything could have retarded it, it was the action of the Secretary of State in 1881. He, instead of cultivating these friendly relations, took up this financial scheme of the Landreau claims and the Credit Industriel, matters in which Americans had nothing to do. It was only by revers- ing that policy that President Arthur was able to continue what was the real American policy. How can they talk about Mr. Blaine's brilliant foreign policy when the real American policy, which we are trying to cultivate, was so retarded? Unfortunately, should Mr. Blaine be elected, he must, if he is at all conscientious, take up again those financial schemes in regard to South America. I would like to see even a President do that. [Cheers.] Not even his power as President could make the Lan- dreau claim a proper one. [Cheers.] It was a fraud. [Cheers.] This Government had no right to have anything to do with it. [More cheers.] The claim was not American even. It was a French claim. An attempt was made to give it an American status by importing a brother of this man, who had no legal interest in the claim. [Immense applause.] At this point Mr. Belmont explained the history of the claim and thou resumed. A man with Blaine's experience with all kinds of persons THIRD CAMPAIGN FOR CONGRESS. 103 would have told him what sort of a man Shipherd was; yet that man was taken up by the Department of State and he got what he wanted in the dispatch. When McSweeney asked what he wanted, did he get it? [Cries of ''' Xo, no ! "] There was no excnse given to Shipherd that the President was disabled; on the contrary, he was shown all the courtesy which the department could offer him, and it was declared that no defini- tive treaty should be made unless the claim should be considered. Surely that was not a friendly matter ! I say that this policy was not an Ameri- can policy. It was interjected in our relations with the States and proved an obstacle to the real American policy [Cheers], and was a real obstacle. And when I say this I am not finding fault with the candidate of the Kepublican party, because I want to be fair enough to say that the injuri- ous policy was also initiated when ]\Ir. Evarts was Secretary of State. And having said as much as this, I know I shall be required to prove it. It was not Mr. Blaine alone. One of his prominent supporters, perhaps his strongest, is Mr. Evarts. It seems to me that if Mr. Blaine is elected this Credit Industrielle, if it was right in 1881, it will be considered right in 1884. I have no ques- tion that these schemes, however, have been so ventilated that no one will dare to take th^m up. I do not say that there is anything dishonor- able in Mr. Evarts. I signed the report when it came up in regard to Mr. Morton. I am only speaking of a policy which Mr. Blaine peculiarly represents. As to the other point I will not say anything — whatev^er I may think. [Laughter.] Here is part of the report of the committee, the Eepublican committee, adopted by the Republican House: " The contract of Morton, Bliss &. Co. was with a company which was well known in the State Department as an important factor in matters of great international consequence, affecting the policy of the Government in a most important direction. The company was chartered by the Government to which Mr. Morton was accredited, and there were many ways in which he might be called upon to act oflicially regarding the subject-matter of the contract. He was at one time desired to exercise his ' good offices ' in France in favor of the Calderon Government, the recognition and upholding of which was regarded as of much importance to the interests of the company with which his firm had made this contract." This is the language of the Eepublican members of the committee. I agreed with the report and made a minority report on matters which need not be mentioned here. The committee " are clearly of the opinion that Mr. Morton has done nothing and at no time had he the remotest intention of doing anything which could compromise the honorable dis- charge of his official duties, yet tliey can not but believe that the scrupu- 104 THIRD CAMPAIGN FOR CONGRESS. lousness manifested in his interview with Mr. Eandall would have been sustained beyond possible contingency by his prohibition to liis lirm to have anything to do with this contract upon his first knowledge of the negotiations in regard thereto. Under the circumstances, the committee do not feel called upon to say more upon this point than to express tlie opinion that all Ministers of the United States should carefully axoid all compHeations which can by any possibility justify a suspicion of personal interest or bias in their official relations." The criticism is in regard to this. The plan was on the part of a French company of bondholders to get the intervention of this (govern- ment. The importance of this matter will at once be seen when I tell you that Frenchmen — not Americans — were the people who wanted the Government to inteiwene for them. Peru had borrowed from them on certain territory and unless the territory was preserved the value of the bonds was lost. It is a long story, and I find that some of my friends do not care for the details, but just let me tell you, and if you care one particle about the position of this Government upon this question, you must take the trouble to consider the records of your State Department. I prefer then to leave this matter to be read by you at leasure and let me say that when you come to decide between the candidates for the Presidency you would do well to consider this question because if we really are to retain our position upon the American continent we assuredly can not go back to the policy of 1881. LOOK FORWARD TO CLEVELAND'S POLICY. We can not go back to Mr. Blaine's policy, but we must go forward to Mr. Cleveland's policy. [Loud and prolonged cheering, folio \ved by applause for " J. G. Blaine."] Mr. Cleveland's policy is not either Mr. Blaine's or Mr. Evarts's in regard to South America. [Cheers.] Mr. Cleveland's policy represents after all the one issue in this campaign. [Loud applause.] My friend has spoken about the tariff, but the one issue is honest government and no other. [Continued cheering.] My friend quotes the Sub-Treasury, and says that not a dollar has been missed during the last twenty-five years. But, my friends, is he indiffer- ent to the Star Eoute matters in which moneys were misappropriated; or to affairs in the Judicial Department, which need not be mentioned here? He may tell us a fair account about the Sub-Treasury. He may say that he is satisfied with the financial nrlminiptrntinn of the Pepubliean parly. THIRD CAIIPAIGX FOR COXGRESS. 105 but I say that the country is not satisfied [Cheers], and I do not say this in a spirit of antagonism to my friend or any Eepubliean present. I only leave it to himself to say whether he is satisfied with these depart- ments. "We Democrats are not satisfied [Applause], and from the many and many Eepublicans who have joined us — the very best Republicans, in this campaign, I imagine that they too are not satisfied. THE ONE ISSUE. I do not know if there are any here, but I do know that there are many of tlie very best men in the Republican ranks who say that the one issue is this, the question of honest government [Applause], and I do not think that that issue can appeal with greater force than to men wlio earn their livelihood by honest toil, because I do not think that wealth or ease enables a man to form the best judgment of honesty. [Ciy of " Good, good," and loud applause.] REPUBLICAN- MISSTATEMENTS. And when men tell us first that we are Free Traders and are afterward compelled to confess that we are not; when men attack the Democratic party upon that false issue, which is nonsense — for no man of common sense in this country is a Free Trader to-day — these men allege that which is not true. No man to-day wishes to abolish tariffs, but I say that, strip this campaign of its false issues and come to this one of honest govern- ment — the appeal which is made to men who earn their wages that they must not vote for honest government — that is only another device to drive them away from their real place, from their true party which has their real sympathy after all — the Democratic party. [Loud -ipplause.] And when we appeal to the people of this country for honest govern- ment, we do not intend to be satisfied with the statement of our Repub- lican friends as to the conduct of their surroundings. We point to the candidates and their surroundings. We point to Mr. Cleveland's administration. [Loud cheers.] And as it is my last word, I will emphasize again that we Democrats are confident that there are no people in this country to whom we appeal with greater force to-day than to the Democrats who are laboring men and to the laboring men who ought to be Democrats. [Cheers.] I will only say in closing, while I feel lliat I should like to Ije able to answer any further arguments which my friend may have to make, I must rest satisfied with the fact that under the an-angements made it is impossibh' for iiie io do so. I liave simply tried to do so, so far as his 14 106 THIRD CAMPAIGN FOR CONGRESS. opening is concerned, and with that I must be satisfied. AVhen lie closes I can have nothing to say, but I will thank him for his conduct in the debate, and will also thank him for having given me the opportunity to explain to my friends here my position upon this question. I will try to learn from their action next Tuesday whether they are satis- fied with my past conduct and record. [Eousing cheers.] (From the Congressional Record.) 49tli Congress, 1885 to 1887. Perry Belmont, of Babylon, Long Island, was elected to the Forty- seventh and Forty-eighth Congresses, and was re-elected to the Forty- ninth Congress as a Democrat, receiving 22,050 votes, against 18,10-t for Piatt, Eepublican, and thirty-three votes scattering. THIRD CAMPAIGN FOR COXGRESS. 107 INTEEVIEW, WALLABOUT MAEKET, BROOKLYI^. (New York Star, January 16, 1885.) The Washington correspondent of the Star recently conversed with :\Ir. Belmont vdth reference to the prospects of the Wallabont ]\rarket l)ill, and as to the effect which the recent State Constitutional Amendment limiting the indebtedness of cities would have upon the acquisition of the Wallabout lands by the city of Brooklyn, provided the measure was passed. " Do you think it probable that the bill will be passed at this session of Congress?" " I do," was the reply. " Many of the most influential members of the House have willingly given their aid to the furtherance of the measure, and it is probable that with a certain time specified for its consideration, it will be passed. I have done all I could to pave the way for its passage in the Senate, and I do not think it likely that any material objection will be made to it in that body. There are, of course, many delays to be en- countered in getting a bill through Congi-ess, but allowing for these delays and viewing the whole matter as it now stands, I think tliat wo are likely to be successful." "How will tlie Constitutional Amendment limiting the indebtedness of cities affect the proposed purchase of the land, provided the bill is passed? " "Ah I understand it," said Mr. Belmont, " the city of Brooklyn, under the provisions of the Constitutional Amendment to which you rd'er, can not maintain a bonded and floating indebtedness exceeding ten per cent, of the assessed valuation of her real estate. In other words, Brook- lyn could not issue bonds to pay for the Wallabout lands in the event of the passage of the bill we are discussing, no matter how favorable the city might be impressed with the plan proposed. But this would not render less essential the purchase of the land. The amount necessary could be inserted in the city budget, or, for that matter, a syndicate might be formed for the acquisition of the land and the running of the market. Even here we do not stop. AVliile it is true the Constitutional Amend- ment limits the indebtedness of cities, it is a question whether the same law applies to the issue of bonds, by the counties in which such cities may be located. This question I am informed came up for discussion recently in the Kings county board of supervisors, and was finally referred 108 THIED CAMPAIGN FOE CONGEESS. for decision to a gentleman of eminence in the legal profession who gave the opinion that the amendment did not have any bearing on the issue of bonds b}^ the respective counties in the State. iSTow the bonded in- debtedness of Kings county, is not ten per cent, nor any thing like it, and therefore, if it felt so disposed, could undertake the purchase of the lands and issue bonds for the payment of the same. Bear in mind, I am not discussing the intent of the Constitutional Amendment; for in my opinion no doubt exists that it was the design of the framers of the law to restrict the indebtedness of counties in an equal degree with the cities contained in them. I simply give you the statement that an opinion to the above effect has been rendered. What the Kings county authorities would think of such a plan I do not know. AMiat we have to do is to secure the pasage of the bill. This done I have no doubt that a market at the Wallabout will be established. It is conceded that Brook- lyn stands in great need of the market, and certainly such an institution would be of untold benefit to the farmers of Long Island.'"' " You think then that the prospects of the bill being passed at this session are good?" " Excellent." SECOND SESSION- FoKTY-EK.llTIl CONGRESS. CONGO COXFEREXCE AT BERLIN. January 5, 1885. Mr. BELMONT submitted the following resolution of inquiry, which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs: Resolved, That the President be requested to inform this House in respect to all the negotiations or arrangements (if in his opinion such information will not be incompatible with the public interests) between this Government and any other government or governments which led up to the Congo Conference at Berlin, and the motives or purposes with which this Government consented to participate therein. And also that the President cause to be transmitted to this House a copy of all correspondence between this Government and other govern- ments relating to the Congo Conference, together with the names of tliose who liave been authorized by this Government to act as its delegates or plenipoten- tiaries thereat, the text of the credentials or powers given to such representatives of the United States, and a copy of all dispatches, reports, or other communica- tions received bj' this Government from its representatives at the conference. And that the President, if he shall inform this House of the precise objects and purposes with which this Government was represented in the conference, will also inform the House which, if any, of those objects or purposes have been accomplished, and also whether or not any of the (ii)inions or imrposes of this Government, or its delegates or plenipotenti:iries, as set forth in such conference, was resisted in the conference by any of the governments represented there; and, if so, by which of the governments, on what points, for what reasons, and with wliat results. 110 EECOED IN CONGRESS. PEESIDENT'S MESSAGE IN EESPONSE TO THE ABOVE EESOLUTIOK. To the House of Representatives: In response to the resolution of the House of Eepresentatives of the 5th of January, 1885, calling for information as to the Congo Conference at Berlin, I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of State of the 28th instant, in relation to the subject. CHESTEE A. AETHUE. Executive Mansion, Washington, January 29, 1885. To the President: A resolution of the House of Eepresentatives, dated the 5th of January, 1885, calUng for information respecting the participation of the United States in the African Conference now sitting at Berlin, having been re- ferred to the Secretary of State, the following reply is submitted. The resolution reads thus: [SEE RESOLDTION SET FORTH ABOVE.] Its purview may be summarized under three heads. It requests in- formation — (1.) As to the causes and motives of the participation of this Govern- ment in the Berlin Conference; (2.) As to the manner in which this Government so participated; and, (3.) As to the results of that Conference, with especial reference to whatever views may have been sustained by the United States delegates thereat. The resolution, moreover, calls for copies of all correspondence, reports and iufonnation here received touching said Conference. These papers are now in the copyist's hands. Owing to the limited clerical force at the command of this department, the voluminousness of the papers, the present incompleteness of the reports of the proceedings of a Conference which is still in session, and the circumstance that the proceedings must be translated into English, some time must necessarily elapse before the full documentary history of the transaction can be laid before Congress, as was promised by the President in his late annual message; but the importance of the subject and the general interest which it has awak- ened, prompt the undersigned to submit forthwith a preliminaiy report covering the ground of the resolution, leaving the transmission of the papers to follow as soon as possible. The first step toward an international expression of the views of this Government with regard to the Congo basin was taken by the Senate, which, after a full examination and report, by a resolution of April 10^ 1884, advised the President to recognize the flag of the International EECOKD IK CONGEESS. Ill Association of the Congo as that of a friendly Government; and this was followed by the action of Congress in providing for the appointment of a commercial agent for the Congo basin. Both of these measures were carried out by the President. In so doing, the Government of the United States recorded its share in the already general conviction that the prospective rich trade of the Congo valley snould be open to all nations on equal terms, while avoiding any prejudgment of conflicting territorial claims in that region. This is shown by the language of the declaration on the part of the United States: * * * 111 hcarmouy with the traditioual policy of the United States, which enjoins a proper regard for the commercial interests of their citizens, while, at the same time, avoiding interference with controversies between other powers, as well as alliances with foreign nations, the Government of the United States announces its sympathy with and approval of the humane and benevolent pur- poses of the International Association of the Congo, administering, as it does, the interests there established, and will order the officers of the United States, both on land and sea, to recognize the flag of the International African Asso- ciation as the flag of a friendly Government. On the 11th of October last the German Minister at this capital called upon the undersigned and communicated to him by note the proposal of the German Government, in connection with that of France, and in the interests of all nations engaged in commerce with the Congo region, "to arrange, in a spirit of mutual good understanding, the conditions which would tend to assure the development of that commerce and pre- vent conflicts and misunderstandings." The bases on whicli it was suggested that an accord might be attain- able were as follows: (1.) Liberty of trade in the basin of the Congo and in the delta thereof. (2.) The application to the Congo and the Niger of the principles adopted by the Congress of Vienna to the end of establishing the free- dom of navigation upon several international rivers, which principles were later applied to the Danube. (3.) The definition of the formalities to be observed in order that any new occupations of territory upon the African coasts sliould be deemed to be effective. To the end of considering these propositions it was proposed to hold a Conference at Berlin, and inquiry was made of this Government whether it was disposed to take part in such a Conference. In communicating this invitation, the German Minister said it was expected that tlie powers taking part woidd severally reserve the fullest liberty of action with respect to the results which might be reached by the Conference. Upon receiving this invitation the undersigned instructed the United States Minister at Berlin to report as to the advisability of this Govern- ment being represented at the Conference, and Mr. Kasson was asked if he possessed any intimation of tlie nature of the measures to be pro- posed, and, if so, "whether they would comport with the policy of non- interference adopted by this Government. Mr. Kasson's reply was to the effect that the first of the German propositions had already been enun- 112 RECORD IX CONGRESS. ' .j cia.tetl the' picvious AvniRr Ly ilie United h>tatt's; that the secoud, care- fully analyzed, seemed safe in principle and applicable to at least two African rivers; that the third was restrictive and conservative of the rights of the native tribes against foreign encroachments; that the object of the Conference was simply discussion with a view to reaching an accord on all points Avhere agreement might be found, each Government reserving the right to adopt or reject conclusions, and that these points being understood, participation appeared to be advisable and consistent with our precedents and declared policy. On the ITtli of October, the undersigned accepted the invitation of the German and French Governments with due reserve, as appears by the following extract from the note of the undersigned to the German Minister: The Goverument of tlie United States views in this announcement and invita- tion an expression of the wish of the German Government to recognize the importance of the unimpeded traffic of the Congo Valley and the west coast of Africa, and to secure its free enjoyment to all countries. This Government, entertaining the same views, to which it has given effect by its recognition of the flag of the International Association of the Congo, will have pleasure in accepting the invitation of His Imperial Majesty's Goverument, and will instruct the representative of the United States at Berlin to take part in the proposed Conference, on the understanding (so far as this Government is concerned) that the business to be brought before the Conference is to be limited to the three heads mentioned in your note, dealing solelj' with the commercial interests of the Congo region and of Western Africa, and that while taking cognizance of such establishment of limits to international territorial claims in that region as may be brought before it as matters of fact, the Conference is itself not to assume to decide such questions. The object of the Conference being simply dis- cussion and accord, the Government of the United States, in taking part therein, reserves the right to decline to accept the conclusions of the Conference. It being established that the Conference was not to have plenipoten- tiary functions, no special credentials were needed to enable Mr. Kasson to attend as the delegate of this Government, he being already accredited as Minister to the Imperial Court. The instructions sent to Mr. Kasson were brief, but precise as to the exclusion of questions of territorial jurisdiction, as the following extracts from Instruction No. 37, dated October 17, 1884, will show: * * * Without more definite knowledge of the points to be brought before that Conference for discussion and of the extent to which it may feel called upon to take cognizance of existing questions of territorial jurisdiction on the west coast of Africa, and especially at the mouth of the Congo, much must be left to your discretion. The subject is one with which you became familiar before your departure for your present post, in connection witli the action of Congress, and the declaration of the Executive of the United States looking to a free participation in the trade and intercourse of that newly-opened country by the vessels and citizens of the United States. You are aware that it is not our policy to intervene in the affairs of foreign nations to decide territorial questions between them. It is not, however, understood from the tenor of the EECOKD IX COXGEESS. 113 German invitation that any such decisive attitude is likely to be assumed by ther Conference, and beyond taking cognizance of such matters of fact in relation to territorial jurisdiction in that region as may be brought before it to aid in an intelligent discussion of the three points embraced in the German note of invita- tion, it is not seen that the Conference can take upon itself any greater power of intervention or control than could properly be assumed by the individual nations represented thereat. The English Government, as I understand, has already, in accepting the in- vitation of Germany, made the express reservation that the question of the French claims to territory on the west coast of Africa is not to come before it. It is possible that the Portuguese Government, if accepting the invitation, would make a like reservation as to its territorial jurisdiction at the mouths of the Congo. The important questions before the Conference will doubtless arise in the dis- cussion of the second point concerning the regulation of international access to and trade in the basin of the great rivers of "Western Africa, on bases approxi- mating to those which have regulated the l>anulio and other rivers which flow through different national jurisdictions. This need not imply any power of de- cision or arbitrament as to conflicting claims of jurisdiction along such rivers, all being in fact subject to one general rule of access and intercourse for the benefit of all countries. The attitude of the Fnited States on this question has for many years been clear, and in the particular case of the Congo this Government was one of the first to proclaim the policy of unrestricted freedom of trade in that vast and productive region. This Government could, consequently, not be expected to countenance, either by assent during the progress of the discussion or by ac- ceptance of its conclusions, any result falling short of the broad principle it has enunciated. So far as the administration of the Congo Valley is concerned, this Govern- ment lias shown its preference for a neutral control, such as is promised by the Free States of the Congo, the nucleus of which has been already created through the organized efforts of the International Association. Whether the approaching Conference can give further shape and scope to this project of creating a great State in the heart of Western xVfrica, whose organization and administration shall afford a guarantee that it is to be held for all time, as it were, in trust for the benefit of all peoples, remains to be seen. At any rate, the opportunity which the Conference affords for examination and discussion of these (luestions by all the parties, directly or indirectly in interest, should be productive of broad and beneficial results. The scope of the Conforenoo, which at first was intendod as a pre- liminarv discussion on the part of the nations dirccily or indirectly in- terested in the question of the hitherto unexplored and nn]ire-emptefl Con.ero valley, was soon enlarped to enihrace the representation of nearly all the commercial powers: and the admission of associate dele.irates, to he chosen from those whose knowledge of African questions mi.o-ht aid the Conference in considorincr the topics l)efore it, was proposed by the German Government. By direction of the President, Mr. Henry S. San- ford, whose relations to the International Association representing the Free States of the Coniro, seemed to fit him for Iho work, was appointed associate delegate on behalf of the United States; his course to be gov- 15 114 EECORD IX CONGRESS, erned by the instructions sent to Mr. Kasson. Mr. Sanford, not being an officer of this Government, was accredited, by a letter addressed by the undersigned to the ]\iinister of Foreign Affairs of Germany, as an associate delegate. The resolution of the House of Representatives calls for the text of the credentials or powers given to the representatives of the United States; and tlie letter accrediting Mr. Sanford will be trans- mitted with the rest of the correspondence at an early day. it may, however, be here mentioned that it confers no definite powers on him. It merelv recites the proposal of the Imperial Government that associate delegates having special knowledge of the condition of affairs in Western Africa, and especially in the region of the Congo, should assist at the meetings of the Conference, and says: The President views in this proposal a further indication of the desire of His Imperial Majesty's Government, that the consideration and discussion of African questions by the Conference shall embrace the widest latitude of information and fact attainable. I am, therefore, directed by the President to accredit to your Excellency Mr. Henry S. Sanford, a citizen of the United States, and lately Minister of the United States at the Court of Belgium, as an associate delegate to attend the Conference on behalf of the Government of the United States, which I accordingly have the honor to do by means of this present letter. Subsequently, j\Ir. Henry M. Stanley was invited by the Conference itself to appear and give information touching the Congo region, as to which he is admittedly the original and sole authority. Mr. Stanley's name appears in the protocols of the proceedings as an associate delegate of the United States; but he was not accredited otherwise than by Mr. Kasson's personal inti'oduction. Neither Mr. Sanford nor Mr. Stanley has had a vote in the proceedings. Voting has been by countries, the delegation of each voting as a unit. As a fact, the voting is quite a matter of form. The Conference, being admittedly destitute of pleni- potentiary authority (that is, not l)eing a congress), adopts no measures by yea and nay vote; it merely records the agreement of the ])arties present where the concurrence of views is unanimous. A single objec- tion prevents anything from being spread on the minutes as representing the vieAvs of the C*onference. No opportunity is given for imj)osing the vieAvs of the majority upon the minority. The resolution calls for a report of what has been accomplished by the Conference, Avith especial reference to the measures Avhich have been urged upon it l\v the re]n-esentatives of the United States and the action of the Conference thereon. As the Conference is still in session, no final view of results can be given. An examination of the voluminous proto- cols in the French langaiage, received by mail, furnishes information as to the preliminary treatment of detached subjects. It is seen that Mr. Kasson and Mr. Sanford have confined their propositions to matters affect- ing commercial intercourse Avith the \Adiole region, freedom of navigation of the rivers, and land communications between the coasts and the sepa- rate districts of the interior, Avithout advancing any plan affecting the political tenure of the diverse territories. For the convenience of Congress, a brief statement may be made of the so-called " American propositions " so far put forAA-ard under the general instructions of the Department of State, and their treatment in detail. ■; EECOED IX COXGKESS. 115 111 the second session, held November 19, 1884, Mr. Kasson addressed the Conference, setting forth the views of the United States (ioverninent of their relation to the pending questions, as follows: "While dt'claring the general concurrence of the Government of the United States with the views expressed iu the opening address of his Highness, the President of this International Conference, it may be useful to state briefly the relation of my Government to the pending African (luestions. Until the year 1874, a large section of the heart of Africa, comprising a great part of its salubrious uplands, was wholly unknown both to the geographers and to the statesmen of Europe and America. Au American citizen, who was quali- fied by courage, perseverance and intelligence, and by a remarkable intrepidity and aptitude in exploration, resolved, with the supi)ort of English and American friends, to expose, if possible, to the light of civilizaticm, this obscure region. With the peaceful flag of his country over his tent and at the head of his re- tainers, he disappeared from the knowledge of his countrymen; and after thirty- nine very long and very dangerous months of exploration and travel, he reappeared with the results of his discoveries, which were conmuuiicated to the world. It is to be ol)served that from the time he left the eastern coast of Africa, opposite Zanzibar, during his travels to and beyond the upper waters of the Nile as far as the watershed of the Congo, and along the entire course of that great river while slowly descending toward the sea, and until he saw an ocean steamer lying in the Lower Congo, he found nowhere the presence of civilized authority, no juristliction claimed by any rei)resentative of white men save his own over hia retainers, no dominant flag or fortress of a civilized power, and no sover- eignty exercised or claimed except that of the indigenous tribes. His discoveries aroused the attention of all nations. It was evident that very soon that country would be exposed to the dangerous rivalry of conflicting nationalities. I'herc* was even danger of its being so appr(ii)riated as to exclude it from free intercourse with a large itart of the civilized world. It was the earnest desire of the United States that tlu's(> discoveries should be utilized for the civilization of the native races and for the abolition of the slave trade, and that early actiun shoiild be taken to avoid international conflicts likely to arise from national rivalry in the acquisition of special privileges in the vast region so suddenly exposed to commercial enterprises. If that country could be neutralized against aggression, with equal privileges for all, such an arrange- ment ought, in the ojiinion of my Government, to secure general satisfaction. An International Association of Americans and I^juropeans was formed under high and philanthropic European patronage to give reality to such a purpose. They obtained concessions and jurisdiction throughout the basin of the Congo from the native sovereignties, which were the sole authorities existing there and ex(>rcisiiig dominion over the soil or the people. The.v immediately proceeded to e.stablish a government do facto for the preservation of order, for the regulation of personal rights, and for the establishment of the principles of equality and liberty, to be ajiplied to immigrants, to commerce, and to all foreign interests. To attain these beneficent objects it might become necessary to maintain justice and order by the employment of force. Their organization was that dictated by the principles of civilization and humanity. Their acts must be recognized as lawful, or they must be regarded as jjirates. In the latter case there would be neither law, order nor justice in all that region. 116 EECOED IN CONGRESS. The President of the United States, ou being informed of this organization, and of their peacefully-acquired rights, of their means of protecting persons and property, and of their just purposes toward all foreign nations, recognized the actual Government established and the flag adopted by this Association. Their rights were grounded ou the consent of the native inhabitants, in a country actually occupied by them, and whose routes of commerce and travel were under their actual control and administration. He believed that in thus recognizing the only dominant flag found in that country he acted in the common interest of civilized nations. He regards this local Government, or any successor resting on the same bases and principles, as an assurance that the dangers of international violence will be arrested, that the enormity of the slave traffic will be suppressed, that the blacks will learn from it that the civilization and the dominion of the white man mean for them peace and freedom, and the development of useful commerce, free to the world. He, therefore, desires to see, in the delimitation of the region which shall be subjected to this beneficent rule, the widest expansion consistent with the just territorial rights of other Governments. In so far as this neutral and peaceful zone shall be expanded, so far he foresees the strengthening of the guarantees of peace, of African civilization, and of profitable commerce with the whole family of nations. This declaration of view.s meeting ^\'ith general approval, the German draft of a declaration looking to the commercial neutralization of the Congo was taken up. The question arose as to what constituted the basin of the Congo. It was asserted by some that the question was geographical and territorial only, while Mr. Kasson contended that, as the question Avas commercial ratlier than jurisdictional, the whole region drained by the Congo and its affluents should be comprised. To aid in defining this commercial basin Mr. Kasson offered the testimony of Mr. Stanley as an expert. His view was acceded to, and Mr. Stanley Avas called to attend the Conference, which received his explanations and views with attention. Mr. Stanley claimed that the scope of any just arrangement should eml)race the several mouths of the river, what he called " the commercial delta of the Congo," as well as the means of access to the basin from the eastern coast, and Mr. Kasson, who was on the committee appointed to consider the German draft declaration, in- troduced an amendment thereto in that sense, adding the words, " in- cluding thercAvith certain regions lying between the said basin and the two oceans, respectively, and affording lines of communication between the basin and the ocean." The commission unanimously reported in favor of the complete com- mercial neutralization of the whole basin of the Congo and its tribu- taries, including the Atlantic delta and the means of communication eastward to the Indian ocean, Avith reservation of existing rights of sovereignty. The proposition Avas discussed by the Conference, referred again to the committee for some comparatively unimportant changes, and AA-as finally adopted by the Conference in its third session, December 1, 1884. ■ " The next sten taken by the Conference Avas to ascertain Iioav far the Governments represented Avere accordant in defining the rights of free navigation in the r*- -.-n arid the Niger. The principles enunciated by EECORD IX CONGRESS. 117 the Congress of Yienna served as the basis of the discussion. As first presented, the proposition, as Mr. Kasson reports (under date of Decem- ber 8) — * * * involved an admission that the principles of the Congresses of Yienna and of Paris in respect to the free navigation of international rivers " had passed into the domain of pnblie law," by reason of their applicatijn to a large number of rivers in Europe and America. To this I objected, as we had never yet con- ceded the right of any European Congress to regulate, directly or indirectly, the rights applicable to American jurisdiction. My scruples were respected, and the redaction was changed by the Commission. 1'lie regulalioii of the rights of free navigation on the Xigcr and its tributaries otl'ered no question, as Great Britain ahme exercises dominion over the whole of the Lower Niger valley and Binne, and it was agreed that the powers of administration should be left to Great Britain. Tlie Congo navigation question offered more room for discussion; com- mercial free(h)m being evidently favored by all. the right of navigation of the river itself was agreed to. The diflicidty lay in ])roviding for the entrance of vessels through the mouths of the river in time of war, under sucli restrictions as should ])revent the (Udta from being used as a naval rendezvous. This gradually led up to a proposition by j\Ir. Kasson tliat not only the river and its navigable mouths, luit also the whole territory of the Congo basin should be neutralized in time of war. 'I'his ]>roposi- tion is as follows: In order to assure the maintenance of the liberty of commerce aiul ot naviga- tion, even in time of war, in all the countries mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article I of the present declaration, and placed luider the r^'gime of com- mercial liberty, the signatory powers of the present dcclaraliou adopt the rollowing principles: The entire l)asin, including in it the territories which are subject to the sover- eignty or protectorate of one of the belligerent powers, shall be considered as the territory of a nonbelligerent State. Consequently, in case of war between the powers signing the present declara- tion, they pledge themselves to refrain from e.xtending hostilities to the territories comprised in this basin, and from using them as a base for the operations of war. It shall be forbidden to bflligerent vessels to sojourn in the territorial waters of this basin, except in case of tempest or of necessary rei)airs. In this case the belligerent vessel shall racticable routes suggested such a road would pass through the territories of different States. Ca]iital could not be found to build a road under two or three rival nationalities giving com- peting concessions; and he, therefore, proposed that a single State, the most im]")ortantly interested, slunild have sole charge of the work, much as Austria was, by the Congress of Berlin, intrusted with the execution of certain works to facilitate the navigation of the Danube. The attitude of the powers claiming territorial control over the Lower Congo has been adverse to Mr. Sanford's proposition, neither of them being willing, it would seem, to yield to the other exclusive rights of transit through its ten-itory; and as voluntary and unanimous agreement is necessary to any result reached by the Conference, the project may EECOKD IX CONGRESS, , 119 be regarded as shelved. While this Govermiieut would have been pleased to see the powers directly interested agree among themselves on common terms for the amelioration of traffic and the faciUtation of intercourse between the inland regions and the coast section, it has no direct interest whatever in the matter; and it would be wholly contrary to its policy to force the consideration of such a plan upon the other powers repre- sented. The latest dispatches received from Mr. Kasson bring the proceedings to December loth, on which day the Conference adjourned until January 5th. Up to that time the Department of State has seen no reason to feel otherwise than satisfied with the discretion, ))rudeuce and ability with which ]\Ir. Kasson has carried out the instructions given to him. Besides limiting the position of the United States to one of commercial interest, dissociated from questions of territorial control, he has been attentive that no act on our jjart shall deviate from the consistent national policy. He has been watchful that no expression should 1)e found of record in the agreements of the Conference which might imply that its results are to be binding upon or to be resj^ected by any i)ower which may not formally accept them. Even where well-established principles of inter- national law are concerned, such as those in regard to rijiarian privileges and the right of an inland State to freely reach the ocean by any navigable waterway ]iassing through its territory, recognition thereof is confined to the signatory powers oidy. The third point of the original German proposals, namely, "the defini- tion of the formalities to he observed in order that any new occupations of territory upon the African coasts should be deenu'd to be effective," remains for discussion. It is ])rol)able that an elTort will he nuule to enlarge its scope to cover the acquisition of title to tiie intiM-ior districts. This Government would not ])e indisposed to see some just formula ac- cepted liy common consent to regidate the estal)lishment of foreign title to the few remaining unexplored and unoccupied portions of the world's surface. The older assumi)tion of right by original discovery, ajtart from actual settlement, is ])ractically abandoned. Kven if it were not so aban- doned by general consent, this Government would not be disposed to invoke it, notwithstaiuling that the greater ]iart of the region now under consideration was opened to the knowledge of the world hy an American citizen under the American flag. Following its own precedent in the acquisition of territory for the Uiberian settlement, by American citizens, from the native African tribes l)y legitimate deeds of cession, this Govern- ment hopes to see an agreement reached by the Conference which shall fix the formalities necessary to show that foreign occupation is established with the consent of the natives, and to remove questions of title from dispute. Tt has l)een said that the priiuiples which the C'onference is discussing with respect to Africa are at variance with those which the United States have ever maintained in respect to the American continent. '^I'he cases are diametrically converse. The venerated doctrine put forth by l\[onroe was simplv that the time had i)assed for obtaining fresh footholds on the American continent, since the whole of it was subject to recognized sovereitT^nties whose ritrlits of possession must be maintained and respected. In 1829, not a foot of land remained subject to alienation at will by the 120 EECOED IN CONGRESS. aboriginal tribes of America; in ISS-i, the whole of the heart of Africa remained to be opened np to occupancy and control of civilization. From all that precedes, it will be seen that this Government, in taking part in the Congo Conference of Berlin, has not departed from traditional policy; on the contrary, it has followed good precedent, as in the case of the settlement of the Danish sound dues, when it united with tlie other powers to arrange a commercial question on terms beneficial to all; that its rights have been scrupulously reserved and guarded at every stage; and that whatever conclusions the Conference may reach will record the voluntary and unanimous opinion of its members, which the respective Governments are at liberty to adopt and put into practice by a formal international compact among themselves, if they shall deem it to their interest to do so, or to reject if they prefer. Since the foregoing was Avritten the undersigned is in receipt of a dis- patch from Mr. Kasson, dated January Tth, in which he adverts to tele- grams puljlished in the news columns of the German papers, wliicli appear to show a misapprehension of the motives and purposes of the Conference, and of the nature of the participation of this Government, and he thereupon reviews the position of the United States, as understood by himself and by the Conference. Although many of his statements are anticipated by the foregoing report, the essential part of J\Ir. Kasson's dispatch is subjoined without abridgment, for the information of the President. I. The discover}- by an Amei-icau citizen tliat the Congo river was a vast waterway, opening a comninnication from the Atlantic to more than forty millions of people, excited the ambition of European colonial powers to appropriate this vast region as an outlet for their surplus commercial productions in the absence of a claim on our part under the right of discovery, to be followed by actual possession. Some of these powers still maintain for their colonies the exclusive commercial policy which in the last century shut out rivals from colonial markets and caused great wars. All neutral, and especially noncdloninl powers, \\-ere in- terested in avoiding this result — the United States most of all. The Conference was called to obtain an agreement from all that this exclusive policy should not be applied by any signatory power acquiring rights in the Congo country. (1.) The first point, therefore, to be established by common consent was freedom of trade for all, and this right to be equal for both possessory and nonpossessory powers. This point, then, is simply an engagement made by possessory Govern- ments to us and other foreign Governments without colonies in Central Africa, and is merely a concession which we willingly accept. (2.) The second point was to obtain from possessory powers a similar freedom of navigation for all nonpossessory powers in the navigable waters of the country, including the Niger, which was controlled in England. This freedom we now have on the Danube by an extension to us of the principles adopted at Vienna and Paris in respect to that river; and we obtained it by special treaties on the great interstate rivers of South America. This also is a simple voluntary con- cession to us and other Governments of a right which we should otherwise have to obtain by a special treaty to be made hereafter with possessory powers, if they should choose to grant it. EECOKD IN COXGEESS. 131 (3.) The colonial powers have heretofore asserted claims to indefinite and some- times vast territories, founded alone either (a) upon the first discovery of the mouth of a river, not followed by the establishment of local authority, or (b) on the establishment of isolated post or posts, without extending beyond them any actual jurisdictional authority. This led to the exclusion of the rest of the world from the occupation and commercial utilization of such territory, or produced con- flicts of jurisdiction, and always raised troublesome questions of recognition by other Governments. To avoid, if possible, such conflicts in the future it was also proposed to establish a rule, to be recognized by each of the signatory powers, which should define the minimum action required to be taken by a colonial power to justify its claim of jurisdiction. Thus, it will be observed, this purpose points to a restraint upon the action of aggressive powers, and is wholly in the interests of noncolonial Governments like the United States, as well as of future peace between nations. II. The action of the Conference so far has been in strict accord with these purposes, varied only by an (Milarfi»'nH'nt of the field of llicir ;ii>plication. Knowing with absolute certainty that tlu- rnited Stat<'s would not embark In the eager struggle among European powers for African colonial possessions, I appreciated with equal assurance the importance to the commerce of my country of obtaining the like concessions from present and future possessory pow-ers for the largest possible extent of Central Africa which might be subject to these beneficent and advantageous provisions. I presented with such force as I could command to the Conference the reasons for this extension of the sphere of free commerce. With a reservation of the rights of other (Jovernments not represented in our declarations, the Conference agreed to this enlargement, and embraced within the range of its pledges all the territory east of the Congo basin from the Zambesi river on the south to the fifth degree of latitude north, and as far as the Indian ocean on the east. None even dotibted the policy of this action, except those who desired to retain the liberty of establishing closed colonies in that region. It was finally made a part of the commercial declaration by unanimous consent. No clause of any declaration contemplates or suggests an "alliance." No clause creates a guarantee by any Government of the action of any other Govern- ment. There is no joint undertaking for future enforcement. Perfect liberty of action is reserved to each Government, except in what it accepts as limiting that action. All these limitations arc in the interest of tlic noncolonial powers. An international commission is formed to see that the general rights and interests are maintained where the local Government does not exist to apply them. But it is a right reserved to, not a duty imi)osed on, each Government, to be represented in this commission. Finally, not one of the declarations agreed upon by the Con- ference is binding on the United States until the Government at Washington shall formally accept it. III. My action in the Conferinice has not merely ])een in accord with this pur- pose of preserving the i)erfect independence of the United States from all joint engagements. It was upon my initiative that every phrase in any proposition ■which implied a joint guarantee or a joint undertaking was stricken out. Wher- ever a joint expression was used it was converted into a single expression, in order to avoid all implication of joint a<'tion or joint responsibility. Even where a pream1)le implied the right of this or any former Conference or Congress to establish a principle of international obligation binding other powers than those 16 123 EECOED IN CONGRESS. accepting the same, it was modified on my motion to indicate that limit to its obligation. So uniform in these respects was my action that I found occasion to meet inquiries for my reasons by the explicit statement that the policy of my Government did not admit of any joint liablilities or engagements, nor could the United States admit that any combination of powers could by their action bind others not agreeing to it. In every case the Conference yielded to this view. Eespectfully submitted, FEED'K T. FRELIXGHUYSEiSr. Department of State, January 29, 1885. THE CONGO CONFERENCE. (New York Times, January 16, 1885.) MR. BELMONT EXPLAINS HIS HOUSE RESOLUTION, Mr. Perry Belmont, in a conversation respecting his Congo resolution and tJie distinction made by jVIr. Kasson in a report of an interview with him at Berlin cabled to the New York Herald between a " congress " and a " conference," said that he had in his resolution carefully described the assembly at Berlin as a " conference." " The distinction in diplomacy between a ' congress ' and a ' conference ' is," Mr. Belmont said, " well enough understood. In its modern accepta- tion and in international affairs the term ' congress ' is applied to meet- ings of sovereigns or amljassadors of the highest rank on the most important occasions and when all the European powers are represented. A ' conference ' is a diplomatic meeting of Ministers of the first or second rank, called for a special purpose. The proceedings of a ' conference ^ are recorded in protocols and signed by the plenipotentiaries, and they establish principles on which the signatory powers agree in honor and good faith to act. Mr. Kasson intimates, I am glad to see, that his acts at Berlin will not bind us until ratified at Washington. " The distinction between a ' congress ' and a ' conference ' is material in the sense of my resolution, for ' conferences ' have in diplomacy led up to very important results. It was the conference of St. Petersburg, in 1825, that led to the independence of Greece; the conference at London, in 1831, separated Belgium from Holland, and we all remember the con- gress of Constantinople, in 1877. What the House of Representatives and the country wish at the hands of the department and Mr. Kasson, Mr. Sanford and Mr. Stanley is not a disquisition on the difference between EECOED IX COXGEESS. 123 a ' congress' and a ' conference/ which we all know ahout, but a straight- forward exhibition of what they have done or said at Berlin, which none of us do know about." Mr. Belmont was asked if neither the President nor the Secrerary of State had told either branch of Congress about Congo affairs or the Conference. He replied that the only Executive allusion to the Congo Free State or its affairs that he had seen was the following sentences in the President's annual message, in which he said: " Pursuant to the advice of the Senate at the last session I recognized the flag of the International Association of the Congo as that of a friendly Government, avoiding in so doing any prejudgment of conflicting territorial claims in that region. Subsequently, in I'xccution of the expressed wish of the Congress, I ap- pointed a Commercial Agent for the Congo basin. The importance of the rich prospective trade of the Congo valley has led to the general conviction that it should be open to all nations on equal terms. At an international conference for the consideration of the subject, called by the Emperor of Germany and now in session in Berlin, delegates are in attendance on behalf of the United States." " When was the Conference convened," asked the reporter. ^\v. Bel- mont said that in February, 1884, England and Portugal signed a treaty respecting the navigation of the Congo, which the Cortes of Portugal did not ratify. England asked in negotiation that an International Commis- sion be convened respecting the river, which Portugal refused, and insisted that the Commissioners be English and Portuguese. Portugal, having subsequently, and in ^Nfay, 1884, indicated a willingness to consent to an International Commission, England, in that month, sounded Germany, which rei)lied that Portugal had already taken the initiative and inti- mated that she would co-operate to bring about a conference among " all the powers interested." in July. 1884, Germany sounded France on the subject, and on October 8, 1884, Germany "came forward," and told England thai (Jermany, in concert with I''raiici'. invited her, Belgium, Spain. Holland. Portugal and the United States to attend a conference to bo held at Berlin during that month. The purpose of Germany and France seems to have been to agree, in a spirit of good will, on inter- national conditions in respect to commerce on tlie Congo, such as would promote its develoi)ment and ])revent misunderstandings between the in- terested powers. To reali/.e that purpose, Germany suggested the fol- lowing basis: " 1. Feedom of commerce in the basin and the mouths of the Congo. " 2. The application to the Congo and Niger of the principles adopted by the Congress of Vienna with a view to preserve freedom of navigation on certain internal ionn I rivers — princiiilcs aii|)lied at a lat<'r date to the river r)anube. "3. A definition of formalities necessary to be observed so that new occupa- tions on the African coasts shall be deemed effective." 134 EECOED IN CONGRESS. The river Niger was originally included, but, on England's earnest pro- test, as the sole proprietary power, that river has been excluded, as it seems, from the jurisdiction of the Conference. Germany and France organized and entered the Conference as allies. Q. To whom does the International African Association owe its exist- ence? A. Chiefly to the King of the Belgians; he has for many years expended, it is said, over $500,000 a year out of his private purse in explorations in Africa and building stations on the Congo; Mr. Stanley has been in his service since he left the New York Herald; Mr. Sanford resides in Belgium, and naturally became interested in the enterprise; but Portugal asserts claims of jurisdiction in the Congo country that conflict with those of the association, and so does France by the discoveries of de Brazza. Q. Is Mr. Stanley an American delegate at Berlin? A. I do not know; the European newspapers allude to him as speaking in the Conference in behalf of America; the American delegates are also represented in the German, French and Belgium newspapers as taking the lead in the dis- cussions respecting the boundaries of the Congo Free State, its neutraliza- tion, and Avhat shall be deemed contraband of war. Mr. Kasson's pro- posals about neutrality and making coal a contraband of war were spoken of by the London Times in these terms: " Mr. Kasson read a long and rather academic paper full of fine ideal senti- ments about the horrors of war, the blessings of peace, and the glories of arbiti'a- tion. But, alas! these magnificent sentiments were coldly analyzed by Baron de Courcel, on behalf of France, who declared, in substance, that the times were not yet ripe for all that sort of millennial machinery, and would not hear of making his nation a party to any such impi'acticable compact — so that there was thus presented a contrast between the representatives of the greatest republics of the Old World and the New well worth thinking of. The powers, argued Baron de Courcel, could only declare any territory to be neutral by pledging themselves to maintain and make this neutrality respected, but such an obligation would be at variance with the traditions and intentions of the American Government. The French Ambassador concluded a long and very able speech in much the same strain; and whatever be decided upon, the American proposal at least has no chance of being accepted as it stands." Q. But Mr. Kasson declares in his recent interview, as printed in the New York Herald, that the Conference is "in the interest of nonpos- sessoiw and noncolonizing countries," and that " it is simply a question of equal rights of commerce and civilization to be conceded by possessory powers to nonpossessory powers and peoples in the interest of future peace and tlie development of the country." How can such principles, applied to Africa and to the Congo river, affect the American continent and the Nicaragua canal if built under the pending treaty? A. Mr. Kasson's EECOED LN" CONGRESS. 135 thought evidently is that the United States are, in respect to the river and its affluents, a nonpossessory power, and that the United States are at Berhn asking and receiving in a harmless sort of way concessions, gifts and benefits from the great possessory powers of the Congo — whether they be Belgium, France, Portugal, England, Gennany, or any others; but unless the German, French, Belgian and English newspapers mis- represent ]\Ir. Kasson, ]\Ir. Sanford and Mr. Stanley, they have done and are doing much more than that in the Conference. They take the lead, or endeavor to take the lead, in the interest of the International Associa- tion and the King of the Belgians, and in fixing the boundaries of the Congo Free State, in its neutralization, in regulating the taxes to be levied there, and, more than all, in insisting that the navigation of the Congo river shall, by its possessors, be put under international control for the benefit of the United States and nonpossessors. If the United States shall be the sole possessor of the Xicaragua canal, why, on the precedent set at Berlin, may not it be insisted that we shall do for the great non- possessory powers in Nicaragua what they are doing for the United States in Africa? Q. Then the information asked by your Congo resolution will have an important bearing on the question of ratifying the Nicaragua nego- tiation concluded by President Arthur? A. Certainly it will, either for the benefit or injury of the Xicaragua treaty; possibly not in the Senate, but in the House and before the country. Q. Can the House participate in, or withhold its consent to, the rati- fication of the Xicaragua treaty? A. Yes; as you will see by reading the last ai-ticle of the treaty; there are ordinarily three steps in a treaty; con- clusion of the negotiation, ratification by the Senate, and proclamation by the President; by tlie terms of the Xicaragua treaty it must be twice ratified before it can be proclaimed — once by the Senate, and then by Congress acting as a law-making power. The Xicaragua treaty requires that it be ratified by the Senate on or before December 1, ISSG, but the ratification can not be exchanged between the two Governments, and the treaty " proclaimed " by President Cleveland as complete and binding, until after the law-making powers of both countries have by "legisla- tion" done what shall be "appropriate" to cany it into effect. So you will see that in the case of the present treaty the House of Representa- tives must be a ratifying and consenting power. There can be little hope for its ratification if it should be condemned liy members of the House like Mr. Carlisle, Mr. Pandall and Mr. Holman. 126 EECORD IN CONGRESS. ' RELATIONS OF THE CONGO CONFERENCE TO THE NICARAGUA CANAL. (Washington Post, January 12, 1885.) Mr. Perry Belmont, who offered in the House hist week a resolution of inquiry as to the meaning and authority for the proposed Congo Con- ference, has explained his purpose at some length to a reporter of the New York Evening Post, from which we make liberal extracts: "The Congo Conference," Mr. Belmont says, "seems to have endeav- ored to fix a territorial or a commercial boundary for a new State in Africa, to be under the general control of the ' International Associa- tion/ to adjust the pretensions of such rival claimants over territory in the heart of Africa, as Belgium, Portugal, France, Germany and Great Britain; to neutralize the waterways of the Congo and its affluents; to prescribe what shall be done there in case of war; and, more serious still, to prescribe the taxes and duties Avhich shall be levied within its juris- diction by this Congo Free State. The Government of the United States, by taking part in this Conference, seems to me to have established a prece- dent which may be of tremendous significance, and especially if the great powers of Euroi^e shall insist on a similar neutralization of any inter- oceanic canal which the United States may construct on this continent. However, no harm may yet have been done at Berlin. It is important, however, I think, that the country shall know, at an early day, to what doctrines and rules of international conduct the United States have been committed by Mr. Kasson, Mr. Sanford and Mr. Stanley." " On what pretense could an international conference interfere with a canal constructed according to the terms of the Nicaragua treaty now before the Senate ? " "' A^^io can tell? The St. James Gazette declared, when the terms of the treaty were announced in England, that 'the powers whose repre- sentatives are now assembled at Berlin, have obviously a stake in the proposed Nicaragua canal.' But it is inconvenient for a member of the House to say much about this Nicaragua treaty until called upon to take official action on some of its provisions." "Why so?" " There are so many burning prejudices and passions that have been created by personal or i)ecuniary ambitions that one who pleads for cau- tion or deliberation about the treaty is met here and there with the cry: ' Oh, you are in favor of the Frenchman and his Panama canal.' If one suggests that the Clayton-Bulwer treaty had better be dealt with first and got out of the way, the answer is: 'Are you afraid of England and EECOED IX COXGEESS. ' 127 the British lion? ' and all the rest of it. If somebody suggests that it is rather a serious business to tax the industries of the country for an appropriation of one or two hundred millions to build a canal, and a railroad, and a telegraph in a foreign country, the suggestion is denounced as coming from somebody who has a pecuniary interest in protecting and subserving some interest or other in a half dozen more or less of trans- continental railways which now connect the Atlantic with the Pacilic, and are carr}'ing merchandise at rates that are cheaper and cheaper e\ery day." " Is this Nicaragua treaty in conflict with any provision of the Clayton- Bulwer treaty, assuming the latter to be in force? " If you tell me to what canal the Clayton-Bulwer treaty refers I might be able to answer you. That treaty begins by saying that ' the con- tracting poA\ers wish to set forth and fix in a treaty their views and in- tentions with reference to any means of communication by ship-canal which may be constructed between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans by the wav of the river St. Juan, Nicaragua and either or both of the lakes Nicaragua or Manoqua to any port or place on the Pacific ocean.' That language does seem to describe the ' means of communication by ship canal' covered Ijy the Nicaragua treaty now before the Senate. In the Clayton-Bulwer treaty the United States did stipulate that it won hi never 'obtain or maintain for itself any exclusive control over the said ship canal.' The Clayton-Bulwer treaty had, however, been so efi'ectually put to rest l)y the declarations of Mr. Fish while Secretary of State that it seemed likely to die of inanition until ^Ir. Frelinguhysen's predecessor galvanized it into life by his correspondence with Lord Granville, in which he intimated that the growth of the interests of the United States en the Pacific seaboard had virtually abrogated the contract, or rendered its existence extremely vexatious for the United States, and that the United States could not consent to i)erpctuate a treaty which so impeached right- ful and long-established claims of the United States to priority in Central America. These declarations enable the British Government to distinctly say that it considered the Clayton-Bulwer treaty in full operation, and as covering any such ship canal in Nicaragua as is described therein. Yoti can see that if the Clayton-Bulwer treaty is in force, and if the United States have thereby agreed never to exercise exclusive control over a ship canal in Nicaragua, or erect fortifications in the vicinity thereof, and that England and the United States shall always be on equal footing in the use of the canal, and if the Nicaragua treaty vests the absolute ownership, control and management of any canal in the United States to the exclusion of everybody else, then the two treaties are abso- 128 EECORD IN CONGRESS. lutely in conflict. During more than a quarter of a century private IndiAdduals have been making contracts, and the Government of the United States has been carrying on negotiations about the Nicaragua canal; and not a shoveful of earth has yet been dug by anybody." " Do you think the treaty will be ratified by the Senate? " " I have no intimations or information upon which to base an opinion. I think it would, however, be more deferential to the people and the interests of the United States for the whole subject to be dealt with by the next Congress after a more complete popular examination of tlie subject. The second clause of the treaty is of itself enough to give the country pause. It declares that: 'There shall be a perpetual alliance betw^een the United States of America and the Eepublic of Nicaragua, and that tlie former agree to protect the integrity of the territory c f the latter.' The nineteenth article of the treaty vaguely alludes to existing treaties between Nicaragua and a third power, which may be incompatible wdth the treaty now l^efore the Senate. Ought not this country to know what that treaty contains, and with whom it has been made? To be sure, Nicaragua stipulates to procure its abrogation or modification; and the United States also stipulate to use their good offices in the same sense. There may be a very serious ' leap in the dark.' But it is pretty certain that there Avill be a good deal of deliberation before any Democratic Committee on Appropriations in the House will report a bill appropriating $4,000,000 to be loaned to Nicaragua, to say nothing of the first appro- priation of an indefinite number of millons to build the canal. When men are in earnest about a matter they are very likely to be deliberate, and, therefore, I think the country and the House of Eepresentatives will be very deliberate about the Nicaragua treaty." " It is probable that the friends of the pending Spanish commercial treaty and of the Nicaragua treaty will combine and make a common cause to ratify both treaties and to obtain the necessary legislation by Congress? " " I have heard nothing about that, and do not see why they should. The two treaties have very little in common so far as the actual stipula- tions contained in each are concerned." " Is it not better that the problem of the commercial treaties be post- poned until it can be taken up by the new Congress in connection with the whole subject of internal and external taxation? " " I think so. The Government of Spain had ample notice last summer while this treaty was under negotiation that not only the Presidential election, but an election of new members to the House of Eepresentatives, w\^s in progress. Spain must have known that the election of Governor Cleveland would be in its effects a revolution in the Executive Depart- KECOED IN COXGKESS. 129 ment of the Xational Government. Spain, by the negotiation, took its chances of public opinion in this country. She can not, therefore, com- plain of any breach of faith on the part of the country, either by a i ejec- tion of the treaty or by its postponement for more deliberation." " AVhat modifications would you suggest? " " I have none whatever to propose; but I think there is a strong senti- ment in the country, and especially in the AVest, which will demand that wheat, rice and all cereals and all preparations therefrom, including floui', shall be admitted into Cuba free of duty. Under the present treaty, as I understand it, the rate of duty on flour is only reduced to about one- half of the present rates. It would seem to be but just that if the Louisiana producers of sugar in the United States are to consent to free sugar from Cuba, then the wheat growers of Castile and the manufactur- ers of Catalonia, in Spain, shall consent that American wheat and Hour, and a large list of American manufactures shall go into Cuba free of duty." [SEE THIS SUBJECT CONTINUED UNDER FEBRUARY 2, 1885.] DYNAMITE IX LONDON. (House of Kepresentiitives, February 12, ISS.j. Mr. BELMONT offered the following resolution, which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs: Resolved, That the Secretarj- of State be requested to fortliwith inform the House, provided such coniniunicatiun be not deemed incompatible witli the public Interest, whether or not auy represeutatious have been either formally or in- formally made to this Government by the British Government growing oirt of the use of dynamite in London. If such representations have been made in writ- ing, then to transmit to the House complete copies of all communications that have passed between the two Governments on the subject; but if the representa- tions or communications have been verbal, then a statement of their tenor and purport. DYNAMITE AND DYNA]\nTEKS. (Washington Post, February 4, 18S5.) To-morrow the subcommittee of the House Committee on Foreiirn Affairs will consider the resolution recently offered by Mr. BeliuDnt, of New York, in regard to the representations made by the British Govern- 17 130 KECOKD IN CONGKESS.. ment to the United States concerning the dynamite explosions in London. Mr. Behnont was asked yesterday by a reporter of The Post why he intro- duced the resolution. He replied that he wished to ascertain and have the country know whether the British Government had made any com- plaint, formally or informally, either about American laws or the conduct of American citizens in relation to the use of dynamite. "A logical way of dealing with the obligations of the United States," said Mt. Belmont, " would be to begin an inquiry into the cause of the acts so correctly and justly denounced by Mr. Bayard's resolution. Were they acts of a political character or ordinary crimes? If Ireland were a recognized belligerent and waging a civil war the most England could ask us to do would be to prevent enlistment and recruitment here, and the departure of recruits, the sailing of militaiy cruisers and the dispatching of military expeditions. She could not expect us to prevent the ship- ment of military supplies, though it would be her business to intercept them. We can not try and punish in this countiy men who have com- mitted crimes in London. The American idea is that crime is temtorial and local. AVe do not tie the American criminal law around the neck of an American when in foreign countries, and so make him obedient to two systems of criminal law at the same time. The Federal Constitation declares that the trial of all crimes, excepting by impeachment, ' shall be held in the State where the said crime shall have been committed.' Eecently England has provided for the punishment at home of treason, murder or manslaughter committed by an Englishman on land outside of British jurisdiction, but the United States have not and probably never will attempt as much. "If we begin to legislate on that line, where shall we stop? That we orneo. in August, 1877, and the conclusion of his triumpliant journey thither, across the continent from Zanzibar, set in motion new efforts by Portugal to ])r()tect what she claimed as her ancient possessions around the mouth of the Congo from the development of American and European energy to the north- ward of the Portuguese claims, and also spurred to new activity the diplomacy and ambition of tlie P>ritish Government in the same territory. Meanwhile Prance was not an idle spectator. Mr. de Brazza, a French naval officer and an enterprising ex})lorei-, penetrated into the interior of Africa as an agent of the French Government, and of the International African Association as well, and concluded with tribes north of the Congo treaties of cession of ten-itory to France. In December, 1883, the Ameri- can Minister in Paris sent to the Dej)artment of State at Washington a. copy of the text, and a translation ol' the treaty that had heen negotiated 136 RECOED IX CONGRESS. in behalf of France by Mr. tie Brazza, with a so-called African king, and concluded on October 3, 1880. The treaty was ratified by the French Chambers and promulgated at Paris, on December 4, 1880. The State Department was thereby informed that the country thus conveyed to France was hard by, or included Stanley Pool, and was that in which dwelt the native tribes called Batakes. One deputy, from Marseilles, announced in the French Chambers that the treaty covered territory that "is the key to the Congo." Another deputy declared that France, in right of such a colonial destiny, could not stop to deal with fears of international embarrassments growing out of the Brazza treaty. The American Minister added that Mr. Stanley had, in a public speech made in Paris in September, 1883, asserted that one of the most influential of the chiefs of the contracting parties had declared to Mr. Stanley '" that he [the chief] had never seen the treaty, and had not even heard of it." Germany also, arousing herself at last to the work of founding and establishing colonies under the German flag, entered into what has become known as the " scrandjle in Africa." At al)0ut tlie same time the American Minister in Lisbon called the attention of the Department of State to the naval contentions around the estuaries of the Congo between Portugal and France, growing out of rival schemes of colonization, and also, later on, to the treaty nego- tiations then going on l)etween Portugal and Great Britain in effect to control the mouth and lower Avaters of that river. Thus the Department of State had official information of the " coming scramble in Africa," which took on an acute and serious diplomatic form some two years ago in the negotiations between Lisbon and London. How Portuguese navigators, more than f(nir hundred years ago, first explored near the estuaries of the Congo, and, according to the custom of the time, took formal possession for and in behalf of the Portuguese Crown of the land tliey touched, has recently been outlined by Chief Justice Daly, of New York, the president of the American Geographical Society, in an address delivered by him on the recent developments in Central Africa and the valley of the Congo. In 1846 Lord Palmerston began, and 1853 Lord Clarendon revived and carried on a denunciation of the title by discovery on the west coast of Africa, as then asserted by Portugal, insisting that, if ever valid, it had lapsed by nonoccupation and nonuser. The motive and purpose then avowed by England were the destruction of that infamous trade in human beings, the headquarters and focus of which were in the Congo region. To that end it was necessary for England with her cruisers to pursue the slave pirates into waters claimed by Portugal as her exclusive jurisdiction, to deny such Portuguese jurisdiction. EECORD IX CONGRESS. 13? The part early taken, and persistently maintained, by the Congress and Government of the United States in the suppression of the slave trade is matter of famihar history. The laws of 179-1, 1800, 1807, 1818, 1819 and 1862 condemned it. In 1820 Congress denounced the slave trade as piracy. By the Wel)ster-Ashburton treaty of 1812 the two Govern- ments stipulated for naval co-operation to suppress the trade on the high seas, although the United States rejected the right of search, and, finally, the Seward-Lyons treaty of 1802 made a practical adjustment of the whole subject. The law of Congress of 1819 provided for the ap- pointment by the President of a person to reside on the coast of Africa to receive the Africans "delivered from on board vessels seized in the prosecution of the slave trade by commanders of the United States armed vessels," and out of that law has emerged the independent African State of Liberia. THE BRITISH-PORTUGUESE TREATY OF 1881 — OTPOSITIOX TO IT IX EXG- LAND AXD GERMANY XOT RATIFIED BY THE PORTUGUESE CORTES. At about this time the Government of the Tainted States was making inquiry in Washington in 1883-1881, respecting the propriety of recog- nizing tlie Hag of the International African Association. Great l^ritain and Portugal signed in Lisbon a treaty which conceded the sovereignty of Portugal over a poiiion of ten-itory in dispute, in consideration of advantages secured to Ijigland iiml other jialions. It was signed pro- visionally on February 2ti, 1881. It recognized Portuguese jurisdiction along the west African coast line between eight degrees and live degrees twelve miiuitt's of south latitude, and eastward on the Congo to \'okki. about one hundred and ten miles up the stream. The area ad'ectcd by it is confined to the estuary of the river. Safeguards were ])rovidcd. more or less adequate, for t!ie protec- tion of traders on tlic np])er banks of the Congo against the levy of tolls- on goods going l)y land oi- water tlirough Portuguese jurisdiction. It stijndated 'that within the defined territory foreigners of all nationalities " sluiU enjoy the same benefitn, advantages and treatment in every respect as the subjects of Portugal: sliall liave full liberty to enter, travel and reside with their famibcs in any part of the said territory: sliall be per- mitted to establish factoncs or trading stations: to possess. ])ur( base, rent or lease land, houses, manufactories, warehouses, shops and premises, and all other kinds of pro})erty; and shall be allowed to carry on their com- merce bv wholesale or retail, either in person or by any agent whom they may think fit to employ." 18 138 EECOED IX COXGKESS. After a general recognition of the " entire freedom to commerce and navigation " for the subjects and flags of all nations on the Cambrie and Congo, special safeguards are introduced in the fourth article that this declaration in regard to the portion of the latter river affected by the treaty should not be a dead letter. It is expressly contracted that on all " rivers and Avaterways within the territory specified in article 1, and along the seacoast thereof," trade or navigation shall be subject to no " monopoly, exclusive concession, or other impediment, nor to any customs duties, tolls, charges, fees, fines, or other imposts AvhatcA'er, not expressly provided for in the present treaty or hereafter agreed upon by the high contracting parties." The jireamble declares that " the development of commerce and civilization on the African continent " is the object of the treaty, and to the end of rendering the Congo accessible, the authority for making regulations for the police of the Congo, for supervising their execution, and for fixing the tolls that may be levied in discharge cf works necessary for the protection of trade and navigation, is vested in a mixed commission, in which Great Britain and Portugal are on an ecpal footing. The present permanent under Secretary of the British Foreign Office said, on March 21, 1884: The navigation, police and general control of the river Congo are placed under a mixed commission, thereby extending for the first time the principles of the treaty of Vienna in regard to freedom of navigation to a river in Africa. This inchoate treaty was fiercely assailed in England and Germany. Two formidable organizations, inspired by very different motives and objects, led the assault in England. One was in the interest of legiti- mate trade, and the opening of a new outlet in Africa for British manu- factures; the other assumed to be in the interest of humanity and a Protestant co-organization. One form of attack upon the treaty was pro- moted by the Chambers of Commerce in Manchester and Glasgow, whilst the House of Commons found an eloquent voice in Mr. John Bright. The other A\as organized l)y the Liverpool African Associates in iiostility to the slave trade, and also by the Baptist missionary societies in the interest of Protestant missionary work, all of A\-hich dreaded the influ- ence of Portugal. The German Chambers of Commerce moved in the same lines with Birmingham, in England, and Glasgow, in Scotland — fearing, or pro- fessing to fear, that Portuguese local officers would be obstructive on the Lower Congo to British and German trade. Uneasiness was shown over the consequences of the application of the Mozambique tariff. Prince Bismarck objected to the ad valorem principle in that tariff. Holland EECORD IX COXGEESS. 139 moved in the same direction. The formal recognition Ijy the riiited States of the flair of the International African Association was adroitly used in England to prejudice the treaty. Meanwhile, the treaty not having been ratified Ijy the Portuguese Cortes, and the Crown having discovered that the refusal by Portugal during the treaty negotiations to accept an International Commission, and her successful insistence on an English and Portuguese Commission, were not acceptable to the nations concerned in the trade of the Congo, Portugal herself suggested that other powers be invited to appoint dele- gates to serve on the commission. England welcomed the suggestion, and on May 26, 1884, sounded Germany thereon, which replied June 7, 1884, that Germany would not recognize the British-Portuguese Congo treaty in any foi'iii, or admit that either Portugal or England, or any other nation, had any stronger previous rights of sovereignty in the Congo river than Germanv or Erance. Prince Bismarck added: In the interests of German commerce, therefore, I can not consent that a coast which is of such importance, and has hitherto been free land, should be subjected to the Portuguese colonial systt-m. "We are, however, quite ready and willing to co-operate in obtaining a mutual agreement by all the powers interested in the question, so as to introduce in proper form into this African territory, by the reguhition of its commerce, the principles of equality and community of interests which lunf long been successfully pursued in the far East. Thereupon England informed Portugal that it would be useless to proceed to ratify the treaty, and intimated to Germany that Her ]\raj'^sty's Government would be ready to enter into communications with the German Government with a view to retaining the arrangements relating to a river commission — an international character being given to them. DIPLOMATIC COERESPOXDENCE BETWEEX GEEMAXY AXD EXGLAXD OVER THE PEOPOSAL OF AN IXTERXATIOXAL COMMISSIOX TO SUPEEVISE THE XAVIGATIOK OF THE COXGO POETUGAL PEOPOSED IT TO EXGLAXD, AXD EXGLAXD PEOPOSES IT TO GEEMAXY. I'ut, meanwhile, there were indications that iermany was in alliance with France, dra\nng near to the International African Association. On October 8, 1884, Germany, in the name of herself and France, pro- posed an international conference to England. Earl Granville, on the same day, replied liy declaring that Her ]\Iajesty's Government would gladly welcome an o])portunity for giving a general and formal sanction to the important iirinciples laid down, and for discussing various details bearing upon the colonization and commerce of Africa. In principle, therefore, he accepted the invitation of the German Government to a 140 EECORD IN CONGEESS. conference, but before sending a formal acceptance he requested to re- ceive, confidentially or otherwise, some further explanations as to the points to be discussed. He appealed particularly for explanation what was meant by " freedom of commerce," an expression used in many dif- ferent senses; also by freedom of navigation on the river Niger, and whether it was intended to make a difference in the position of foreign traders on the Niger and the Congo; and he also desired further explana- tions upon the still larger question as to the principles upon which an- nexation of imoccupied territoiy should, in the view of the German CJovernment, be founded. These questions England asked, it was said, only in order to facilitate the harmonious and speedy work of the Con- ference. On October 19, 188-1, Count Munster, the German Ambassador in London, called on the British Minister of Foreign Affairs, and told him that Prince Bismarck was disappointed at not getting a decided assent to this invitation to the Conference, and had conceived the idea that the British Government were purposely creating delay. Earl Granville, who records this in a communication to Sir E. Malet, assured his Ex- cellency that this was exactly contraiy to the fact. He had a great desire to meet the wishes of Prince Bismarck, more especially in matters such as the present, in which he believed there was an agreement in the views of the two Governments, but Her Majesty's Government " must claim the right of negotiating on terms of equality on all questions, and especially on colonial questions, in which their interests were so great." He adds: I had certainly expected a different answer from those which I received, and I could not help pointing out that, while the German Government had at first declined to give Her Majesty's Government any further explanation, they were addressing to us questions on the subject of the Niger which was to be one of the principal points mooted at the Conference, and on which I should be glad to give the fullest information if our communications were of a reciprocal character. 1 added that I could assure him that we had no object for delay, and no wish for it; but that it was necessary for us to be able to show to Parliament that we had taken necessary and usual precautions before formally assenting to a pro- posal, even though we expected important and useful results to be derived from it. I mentioned that with regard to what we have done in the Niger, and about which I'rince Bismarck has desired information, I might say, to prevent the notion which sometimes seems to have crossed Prince Bismarck, of our wish to anticipate his policy, that it was adopted by the Cabinet in November, 1883, and that the delay in carrying it out arose exclusively from departmental discussions as to details, and especially as to the best means of providing for the expenditure. I shall be happy to give a full memorandum on the subject in exchange for the communications which I now hope we shall receive from the German Government. • EECORD IX CONGRESS. 14l Finally, on October 23, 1884, there was received from Germany the following explanations of the meaning of the bases proposed in the in- vitation to the Conference: [Translation.] German Fmbassy, Ociobtr 22, 18^4. The German charge d'affaires, Baron Plessen, communicated to his Govern- ment the note of the British Foreign Minister of the 8th instant on the subject of the proposed African Conference. The undersigned, the Imperial German Ambassador, has the honor, in pursu- ance of instructions, to submit the following answer to it. The Imperial Government noted with satisfaction from it that they are in acc<»io levied on their goods. The (Tovernnient of the undersigned share the wish of Earl Granville that it may be possible to secure the fullest freedom for navigation and conunerce, not oidy for the Niger any the Congress of Vienna to the end of establishing this freedom of navigation upon several international rivers, which })rinciples were later applied to the Danube. ','). The dehnition of formalities to be observed in order that any new occupation of territory upon the African coasts should be deemed ef- fective. The invitation tendered in that form to the United States was accom- panied by an expression on llie part of Germany of its own expectations that no power taking part in the Conference woukl be Ijound by the doings of the Conference until formally accepted by such power. The Department of State, on ]-ecciving the invitation, asked the advice thereon of the American Minister in Uerlin, ]\Ir. Kasson, who was especially instructed to report wliether or not he had any intimation from any source that other measures than those proposed in the invitation would be the program ol^ the Conference. The inquiry sent to Mr. Kasson naturally implied that he would sound liis IJriiish, French and Portti- guese diplomatic colleagues of ]>erlin, in tlie sense of ascertaining what questions might finally come to the front if the Conference were convened. Mr. Kasson replied, in substance, tliat the only questions to be con- sidered were those formuUited in the invitati(ni; that the Conference was 144 EECOED IN CONGEESS. to be only for " discussion;' with a view to unanimity of opinion, and that the appreciation and acceptance of the invitation would be advisable, and would also be consistent with our precedent and declared policy. Thereupon the invitation was accepted on October 17, 1884, and Mr. Kasson was empowered to attend as a delegate. The Secretary of State, in announcing to Germany the understanding of the United States, that the business to be brought before the Conference is to be limited to the three heads mentioned in your note, dealing solely with the commercial interests of the Congo region aud of Western Africa, and that while taking cognizance of such establishment of limits to international terri- torial claims in that region as may be brought before it as matters of fact, the Conference is itself not to assume to decide such questions. And so the instructions that were sent to Mr. Kasson imply an un- certainty about what might be attempted at the Conference by way of settling rival claims of jurisdiction. Indeed, the Department of State informed Mr. Kasson that England had, in advance, excluded any con- sideration by the Conference of the French claims on the west coast, and that very likely Portugal would in like manner exclude any aiTaign- nient of its ancient possessions or claims. And in the end Mr. Kasson is told by the department that " without more definite knowledge of the points to be brought before the Conference," * * * " niitch Jiiitst be left to your discretion." DESCEIPTION OF CONFLICTING TEERITOEIAL CLAIMS IN THE GONGO EEGION DEVELOPED IN THE CONFERENCE — CONFERENCE ASSEMBLES NOVEMBER 15, 1884. Under such auspices and with such circumstances of rivalry among the great powers of Europe for territorial jurisdiction and supremacy on the Congo and in its commercial traffic, the Conference assembled in Berlin, on November 15, 1884. Fourteen Governments, great and small, sent their representatives. Prince Bismarck was chosen President. In his opening speech he emphasized three points to Avhich the attention of the Conference should be directed. He intimated that all questions of present sovereignty now in dispute between European claimants in Africa were outside the scope of those who initiated the Conference. England immediately protested, as the chief, if not the sole, proprietor of the Lower Niger, against any attempt to interfere with trade on tJiat river. Soon after the committees had been appointed for the work of the Conference the conflicting territorial pretensions presented by the rival powers aforesaid at Berlin came sharply to the front. Just south of the EECOED IN COXGEESS. 145 territory under the German protectorate, and beginning on a parallel of latitude one degree north of the equator, France claimed the region embraced between that parallel, the Atlantic ocean and the Congo river at Stanley Pool, including all of the Congo basin. Of that tenitory the Inteimational African Association demanded the part lying between the river Selte and the Congo, which is a vast parallelogTam in shape, known as the Niadi Kwiba region, and represented to be as large as England. Whether or not France insisted on the territory along the north bank of the Congo from Lutsle down to Boma, may be doubtful. Portugal located jurisdiction over the mouth of the Congo on both banks up as far as Boma, at least. From Boma all the way up the Congo to Stan- ley Pool, and on l)oth banks of the river, was demanded by the Inter- national Association. The parallelogram above Stanley Pool, and on the left bank descending the Congo was insisted upon both by France and the Association. On the same bank of the river, and from Kwa- moutts to the ecpiator, the chiim of the International Association was unchallenged. Poughly stated, tlie resislaiu-es of France was from the Cernian fron- tiers, at northern parallel live to PudolpUstadt on southern parallel five on the Atlantic and Stanley Pool, and even over to the opposite shore of tlio Congo at that jtoiiit; whiU- the claim of Portugal was over every- thing from the French front ier. including the estuaries of the Congo, and along the Atlantic coast to Anibriz on the eighth southern parallel. The claim of Portugal interposed a barrier between the land of the Inter- national Association and the Atlantic ocean, while the claim of France cut the Association in twain at Stanley Pool. To be sure, the Associa- tion's claim from Stanley Pool to Yivi was undisputed, but owing to the ra])ids the Congo is unnavigable between those points, hence came the proposal of a railway by ^Ir. Sanford, the construction of which beyond Yivi seaward was resisted bv France and Portugal. AMEKICAN DELEGATES SANFOED AND STANLEY AND TIIETE IDENTIFICA- TION WITH THE INTEENATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ALTHOUGH EEPEESENT- INQ THE UNITED STATES IN THE CONFEEENCE. The German Government, having concluded early in November, 1884, the date of alliance and friendship with the International African Asso- ciation, there was proposed to the Conference by Germany the admis- sion of associate delegates, to be chosen from those whose knowledge of African questions might aid the Conference in considering the ques- tions before it. By direction of the President, Mr. Flenry S. Sanford 19 146 EECORD IN CONGEESS. was appointed in behalf of the United States, " his course to he governed by the instructions sent to Mr. Kasson." Mr. Sanford was accredited by a letter from Secretary Frelinghuysen to the German Minister of Foreign Affairs at Berlin. No definite powers were, in the opinion of Secretary Frelinghuysen, conferred on Mr. Sanford, but in his letter of credence the Orerman Minister was informed by the American Secretary of State that the Presi- dent deemed the proposal to admit to the Conference associate delegates, " a further indication of the desire of His Imperial Majesty's Govern- ment that the consideration and discussion of African questions by the Conference shall embrace the tvidcst latitude of information and fact at- tainable," and, therefore, Mr. Sanford has been accredited. Subsequently, Mr. Stanley appears to have been invited by the Con- ference itself to appear before it and give information touching the Congo region. Mr. Stanley, as thus invited, appears at the protocols as " an associate delegate of the United States; " but he was not accred- ited by the United States to the Conference otherwise than by Mr. Kasson's personal introduction, and the offering of Mr. Stanley as an expert to define the commercial boundaries of the Congo basin. The significance, however, of treating Mr. Sanford and Mr. Stanley as " associate delegates of the United States " Avill more clearly appear later on when their relation dc jure and dc facto to the International African Association, and the relation of that Association to the Conference and its promoters, becomes more distinct. LETTER FROM STANLEY SETTING FORTH WHAT THE INTERNATIONAL ASSO- CIATION CLAIMED DESCRIPTION OF THE TREATIES MADE BY STANLEY OR BY AGENTS WITH THE SAVAGE TRIBES. As the rival or conflicting forces in the Conference came to be de- veloped it was seen that among them oiie was represented by the Inter- national African Association, while France and Portugal represented some- times one, sometimes two opposing forces. iSecretary Frelinghuysen had distinctly intimated to Mr. Kasson, in the instructions to the latter of October 17, 1884, that the President preferred the administration of the entire Congo valley should be in such hands as those of the " Free States of the Congo " prefigured at Berlin, in behalf of the International African Association by Mr. Sanford and Mr. Stanley. The territorial preten- sions of France and Portugal were in direct conflict with those of the Association which thus shadowed forth the Congo Free States. It, there- fore, was difficult, if not impracticable, to establish free trade in the Congo basin, or free navigation on the Congo river and its aifluents, unless EECOKD IN CONGRESS. 147 the Conference undertook a work in whicli the President of the United States had forbidden Mr. Kasson to participate — whicli was to define the territorial Hmits and sovereignty of tlie International African Associa- tion as against France or Portugal, or any other power or claimant. What the International African Association asked from tlie Confer- ence, and what Mr. Stanley thouglat of the pretensions of France, are set forth in a letter addressed by the Manchester Cliamber of Commerce and published in the London Times: Hotel Royal. Berlin, December 13. Dear Mr. Huttou. — If you look at the Times of 12th you will see what I meant. Some one has published the whole of the story. These claims can not be sub- stantiated. We know how baseless they are, but that they exist at all is a serious danger, knowing our weakness and want of support. Germany is willing. Such kindness as she has shown was totally unexpected by me. Great Britain, the power that will ijrofit most, is most backward in this emer- gencj'. It is true that she has made a little advance, but is so slow that it is as fatal as no movement. If the Conference breaks up before the question between us and France is settled we are ruined. The declaration that we are an inde- pendent State only makes the bait more tempting to France on one side and Portugal on the other. We should be like a moth, only created for one day's sun- shine and then oblivion. What we really want is: P"'irst, recognition; second, settlement of frontier; third, neutralization to make us secure against attack. It is very simple, it appears to me. Now, what do you recognize? Mark out. define once and for all what we are; how big or how little; it is well to know this. Then let this be inviolate, whatever it is, sacred to peaceful commerce. We do not Avaiit war because whoever will win the natives will suffer through the struggle. Why should the natives suffer? What have they done? To prevent this great wrong to them, England should propose to Germany that, v^-hereas the Association can not nnike war, war shall not be made on them and on their people. Keally and truly the whole mystery of the affair lies in the above. It is ailecta- tion to pause and ask time to consider. There is no time to do it, and the duty of English people having regard for the natives and the future prospei-ous com- merce that appears so tantalizingly near, yet so far, is to see that the above three things should be done at once before the Conference breaks up. If it disbands before the above is settled, why, then, farewell to the Congo ba.sin; a long igood- night to it. Yours, very sincerely, HENRY M. STANLEY. To James F. Hutton. Esq.. Massachusetts. Under the general control of the " International African Society Asso- ciation," and its executive committee of three persons, Mr. Sanford being one, and under the eificient leadership of Mr. Stanley, expeditions have been sent to the Congo; some twenty stations established along the river 148 EECOKD i:n' coxgkess. banks; steamers have been placed on its waters and one hnndred treaties, more or less, have been negotiated with the savage chieftains by deed in the name of the " Coniite d'Etudes dn Haut Congo.'' The stipulations in each of these treaties seem to be identical. They comprise — First. Absolute cession and abandonment to the " Comite d'Etudes," of territories belonging to the chiefs. Second. Surrender l)y these chiefs of any right of levying tolls, as also of disposing of tlie natural resources in their territories, it being ex- pressly stipulated that to the "Comite d'Etudes" is to be ceded the right to cultivate unoccupied lands, to exploit the forests, to fell trees, to gather caoutchouc, coi)al, wax. honey, and generally speaking all the natural products that can be found; to fish in the streams, rivers, and water- courses; to explore all the rivers. Third. Obligations on the chiefs to furnish labor at each station or factory. Fourth. Obligations on the chiefs to join their forces with those of the " Comite " against all " intruders, no matter what color." Fifth. Strict engagements that no other than agents of the " Comite " shall be allowed to come into and trade in the territories of these chiefs. The treaty of Palla Balla enumerates the considerations which move the chiefs to make the treaty. It declares — The cession of the territories specified in the last paragraph of article I is agreed to in consideration of a present given once for all. One coat of red cloth with gold facing, one red cap, one white tunic, one pic-e of ^Yhite caft, one piece of red points, one dozen boxes of li(Hienrs, four demijohns of rum, two boxes of gin, one hundred and twenty-eight bottles of gin (Holland), twenty pieces of red handkei-chiefs, forty cringlets, and forty red cotton caps, which the aforementioned chief admits having received. A casual examination of the foregoing items will throw an edifying side-light on the effort made in the Conference to suppress traffic in alcoholic liquor in the region to l)e dedicated to free trade. It mav not be aipiss to allude in this connection to the conditions which constitute a valid acquisition of land, or sovereignty, by an alien in an uncivilized country, which have recently been pointed out with great clearness to the British Geographical Society, by Sir Eawson W. Eawson, in this language: 1. That the purchase of a tract of land in any country, uncivilized or partially civilized, by subjects, one or many, of a foreign nation, can no more give terri- torial rights to the purchasers or to the nation of which they are the subjects than it could in a civilized country. 2. That the purchase or acceptance of the cession of territorial rights by private persons does not constitute, or necessarily involve, annexation by the nation to which they belong. i EECOKD IN COXGRESS. 149 3. That a local authority, subordinate to a central or superior authority, even if it should have power to dispose of its proprietary rights in any of its lauds, has no power of itself to cede territorial or sovereign rights over those lauds. 4. That the transfer of any proprietary or territorial rights from the subj'ects to the Government of a foreign nation can confer no greater rights upon the latter than were legitimately acquired by the former. STATUS OF THE IXTERXATIOXAL SOCIETY IX TERMS OF TUBLIC LAW. It is not an easy work to define, in tlie terms of public law, the status of the International African Association, or its offshoot, the " Coniite d'Etudes du Haut Conoo,'' founded in Xoveniher. 1ST8, at Brussels. In one sense, each of them is a copartnership of individuals formed for the work of exploration and colonization in Africa. Neither has a charter from any State. The domicile and cliief seat of government of each is Belgium, while its operations ai'e among savage tribes in Africa, and its funds June Ijeen riirnished by ])rivate individuals. Whether or not sucli a [)ri\ate association is ca]>al)le in puljlic law of acquiring and transferring sovereignty is a ([uestion which has been elaborately considered by two learned publicists, Mr. 'J'ravers Twiss and Professor Arntz, whose views have Ijceu printed in an appencHx to Sen- ate Rej)ort Xo. 3iK}, of ]\larch 2(i, 1ST4. Tbat snch an association can acquire territorial and sovereign rights l)y treaties with tbe cliiel's of savage tribes occupying lands in the interior of Africa, unapiiropriated by any luiropean power, and can a(h)pt a Hag as a synd)ol of its sover- eiffufv, and can transfer its inrisiHctidn. sovereiuntv. and Hag to another association, or even to a State, to be founded by itself, seems to have been conceded by the Senate, or by the Pi'esidcnt of the United States, in their treatment of the International African Association and its flag. As a chief executive ollicer of one or bi»th of these associations, ]\Ir. Stanley, an American citizen, operated in Afi-ica after making iiis most important discoveries, as Mv. Kasson declared to the C'onference, "with the peaceful flag of his country over his tent, and at the lu'ad of his steamers." It can not be dou1)ted that if the region discovered and traversed by Stanley in tlie commercial basin of the Congo was really unappropi-iated at the time by a civilized or semi-civilized State, and he had declared that he took possession of it in the name and behalf of the United States, and his ap])ropriation had l)eeit adopted and confirmed by further exploi-ations, occupati'ons, ])ermanent settlements, and formal acts of possession made by this (Jovernment, a valid title to this region and sovereignty over the same would have been acquired by the United States. 150 EECOED IN CONGEESS. Sir Charles Dilke, recently a permanent under Secretary in the British Foreign Office, is reported to have declared a few days ago, at Bradford, England : The second subject dealt with in your report is that of the Congo. Let me compliment the members of the Bradford Chamber on the wisdom shown by them in their memorial in support of the draft Congo treaty, which, in my opinion, if generally favored with as much enlightened self-interest, would have been a better solution of a difficult controversy than any other which could have been devised. [Hear, hear.] It is impossible yet to say what may come of the present struggle on the Upper Congo. It is a well-known fact that in 1875 Lieutenant Cameron took possession of the whole basin of the Congo in the name of Her Majesty the Queen. Mr. Disraeli's administration declined to accept the country, and probably were right, according to the old and traditional colonial policy of England. But the result of the refusal was that the French and the Association presided over by the King of the Belgians had claimed between them, and had partly occupied, the territory before the present Government came into power. We can only now hope that the object of extending the markets for our goods may be promoted by such international agreement as is under discussion at Berlin. On the principles set forth in the third point, it was that the United States denied, in discnssions over the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, the validity of the English claim to exercise a protectorate over the Mosquito Indians, Mr. Stanley relinquished the advantages and benefits of his discoveries?, and of all treaties negotiated by him, or his associates, or agents, with the savage tribes, to the International Association or its off-shoot. The extent and lines taken of the title, and sovereignty thereby acquired, necessarily constituted a turning-point of the contentions and delibera- tions at Berlin. WHAT EIGHT COIJLD BE OBTAINED FEOM A POSSESSOEY POWEE IN THIS CONFEEENCE THAT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN YIELDED TO US SUBSE- QUENTLY BY SPECIAL TEEATY? A POSSIBLE CONFEEENCE UPON THE ANNEXATION OF ISLANDS IN THE PACIFIC MONEOE DOCTRINE FOE- BADE IN 1823 ANY COLONIZATION ON AMEEICAN CONTINENTS. It will be seen, on a careful examination of the reply made by the President to the resolution of the House, that all or nearly all of the so-called " Americaai proposition," submitted to the Conference by Mr. Kasson, excepting possibly that relating to the boundaries of the Congo basin (which Avas only accepted " with reservation of existing rights of sovereignty "), wore rejected by the Conference in the first instance, and chiefly on account of difficulties over questions of sovereignty raised by Portugal or France or some other poAver. Differences about ownership and control- of the Congo river prevented the establishment of free naviga- tion thereon. There could not well be a valid concession to the United RECORD IX COXGRESS. 151 States of free trade in the Congo region, so long as the Conference could not decide which were the possessory powers entitled to make the concessions. The United States were not at Berlin as a possessory or a colonizing power in Africa. On the contrary, Mr. Kasson was there a powerless spectator, in so far as he was commanded hy his Government " not to in- tervene in the affairs of foreign nations to decide territorial questions between them." The command covered the moral intervention at Ber- lin of every sort, as well as intervention by argument or vote. Why, then, it may be asked, were the United States represented at ail in the Conference? "What right could be obtained from a possessory poAver in the Conference that would not have been yielded to us subsequently by special treaty? Fortunately for the United States, tlie possibility of acquisitions, by any European power, of sovereignty title on the American continent by new and original discovers'', occupation, or colonization thereafter, was precluded in 1823 by one branch of the " Monroe Doctrine," announced in the President's annual message to Congress of that year. President Moni'oe asserted "that tlie American continent, by the free and inde- pendent condition they have assumed and maintained, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any power." America has welcomed, and will, it is to be hoped, continiie to wel- come, to her free shores, the industrious men and women of other lands across the sea, where the steadily rising increase in population demands an outlet for superabundant numbers. I'or such, Africa can never be a competitor with America, where liberty is protected by law, and where there are justice and ample security for whatever any one, be he citi- zen or alien, may acquire by his own lal)or, ea[)ital, or intelligence. But to America the emigrant nuist come if be come at all as an individual seeking and expecting no other protection than may be allordcd by the laws of the land to which he conies, lie can not Ijriiig with him a foreign sovereignty, nor can he invoke on American soil the aid of a European conference or congress. America is closed to European colonization and to European protect- orates, undt'i' whatever form; there is no ownerless land on these Ameri- can continents, nor are there great rivers in America, .the sovereignty of whose right bank can be given to one European nation on the con- dition that the receiver of the gift shall confer the sovereignty of the left bank on the liberal giver of tlie sovereignty of the j'ight bank. There may be indications when "the scramhle in Africa" shall have come to an end. and the Conference at J>erlin shall have been dissolved, and when no other continent shall remain to be parceled out, the panic 153 EECOED IN" CONGEESS. of annexation may extend to the nnml)elies^s islands scattered throiigh- ont the spacions Pacific sea. Iiidecd, tliere are even now to be detected indications, more or less distinct, that another International Conference is to he soon assembled in London to bring imder the inflnenee of what is called international trade of such of those islands, or parts thereof, as are not now appropriated by commercial and civilizing powers. Will the United States seek to thns control, or participate in such con- trol, of the partition of the islands of the Pacific, when, if ever, it shall be attempted? Nor yet is there in the United States a surplns of men such as in Germany compels her to seek to establish agricultural colonies. There is with us a yearly increasing surplus of products — agricultural or manufactured — \\liicli demands new markets and new outlets; but can they best l)e obtained, or can they only be obtained, by participation in European conferences, and by entering on the negotiation of a general system of commercial treaties, or can the work be better done by us in- dependent]}', and by bringing to bear on the subject the revision of our own laAvs of taxation, currency, and finance? Have not the proceedings of the Berlin Conference indicated that more than one of what Mr. Kasson calls " the ])ossessory powers " in the Congo basin intend to revive and vindicate an old economic theory that the trade of a mother country with her own colonies will be far more advantageous to her than trade with the colonies of other nations? THE ATTEMPT TO COMMIT NAYIGATIOX OF THE NIGEE TO THE SUEYEIL- LANCE OF AN INTEENATIONAL COMMISSION ABANDONED. It is to 1)0 inferred that the Department of State hoped for much to come of the Conference " from the application to the Congo and the Niger of the principles adopted by the Congress of Vienna, to the end of estaljlishing the freedom of navigation upon several international rivers." Secretary Frclinghuysen especially referred to that hope in liis instructions to Mr. Kasson of October 17, 1884. But when the Con- ference came to deal with the Xiger, Great Britain insisted in effect (as this report has already shown) that the free navigation of the great rivers of Africa, and free trade in Africa, are not measures which Eng- land, at least, required to have commended to it by the vote of an inter- national conference: tliat tlio proposal to place the navigation of the Congo under an International Commission was first made by the British Foreign Office; that in the correspondence between Germany and Eng- land whicli led up to the Conference, England dwelt on a distinction in treatment between a new and untried river like the Congo and a river like the Niger, so long in Enolish free-trade hands; that Enaland will EECOED IX CONGRESS. 153 assert the right of exclusive supervision over tlie trade and navigation of the Xiger, as the sole proprietary power on its lower waters, but that England will, nevertheless, undertake to do her best to promote the freedom of navigation and trade on the Niger for all the world which she maintains ever\-where in her dominions. Thereupon, this at- tempt to commit the navigation of the Xiger to the surveillance of an International Commission was abandoned in the '• Xavigation Act" adopted by the Conference. But, in regard to the Congo, the Department of State, in its reply to the House resolution, declares: The next step taken by the Conference was to ascertain how far the Govern- ments represented were accordant in defining the rights of free navigation in the Congo and the Niger. The principles enunciated by the Congress of Vienna served as the basis of the discussion. As first presented, the proposition, as Mr. Kassoa reports (under date of December Sth) — * * * involved an admission that the principles of the Congresses of Vienna and of Paris in respect to the free navigation of international rivers " had passed into the domain of public law," by reason of their application to a large number of rivers in Europe and America. To this I objected, as we had never yet con- ceded the right of any European Congress to regulate, directly or indirectly, the rights applicable to American jurisdiction. My scrupk-s were respected, and the redaction was changed by the Commission. The regulation of the rights of free navigation on t]i(> Niger and its tributaries offered no question, as Great Britain alone exercises dominion over the whole of the Lowi-r Niger Valley and Kinne. and it was agreed that the powers of admin- istration should be left to Great Britain. It is to be regretted that the committee has not l)eeu told by the De- ])ai-i incut of State what was the text of tlu' pi-oposition as lii'st i)rosented, aiiii Tiiiu's lias hccii given what purports to he the text of a first jji-opositioii made l»y the coinmiltcc to the Con- ference. It is in these words: The Congress of Vienna liaving established, by articles 108 to IIG of its final act, the genci-.iJ piinciples which regulate the free navigation of navigable water- courses which divide nv traverse several States, and these principles having re- ceived an api)lication more and more extensive to tlie rivers of Europe and America, the powers whose ricnipotcntiaries have nu-t in Conference at Berlin have resolved to extend them. One is reallv at a loss to see liow or wliy the Cnited States should at- tend a Kuroiiean Conference in order to receive tVoni it the gift, or conces- sion, of freedom to navigate a ri\-er in Africa, iiiid tlien object to receiving it, Ijecause accomjianied by , Mr. Adams suggested, as an insuperable obstacle, '* tlie general extra- European policy of the I'nited States — a policy which they had always pursued as best suited to their own interests, and best adajjted to harmonize with those of Europe. This i)olicy had always been that of Euroi)e, which had never con- sidered the I'nited States as belonging to her system. * * * jj- ^y.jg best for both parties that they should continue to do so." In any European combinations, said Mr. Adams, in which the United States should become a nu'mber, she must soon become an important power, and must always be, in many respects, an uncongenial one. It was best that she should keep wholly out of European politics, even of such leagues as one for the sup- pression of the slave trade. Ho added " that he did not wish his language to be construed as importing an unsocial and sulky spirit on the part of the United States," for no such temiier existed. It had simidy been the policy of Europe to consider this country as standing aloof from all European federations, and in this treatment " we had acquiesced, because it fell in with our own policy." In a word, Mr. AdaiiTS, y)y his language and actions, established and developed precisely that doctrin(> which has since been adopted by this country under the doubly incorrect name of the " Monroe Doctrine " — a name doubly incorrect, because even the real "Monroe Doctrine" was not an original idea of Mr. Mon- roe, and because the doctrine which now goes by that name is not identical with the 160 EECOED IN CONGKESS. doctrine which Monroe did once dechTre. Mr. Adams's principle was simply that the United States would take no part whatsoever in foreign politics, not even in those of South America, save in the extreme event, eliminated from among things possible in this generation, of such an interference as was contemplated by the Holy Alliance; and that, on the other hand, she would permit no European power to gain any new foothold upon this continent. Time and experience have not enabled us to improve upon the principles which Mr. Adams worked out for us. The Congress at Panama was proposed in 1825 b}- the Spanish-Ameri- can States on this continent, whose independence we had acknowledged. It was proposed in order to form an alliance for self-defense, and also to enforce one branch of the " ^Monroe Doctrine." Tlie (xovemment of the United States was invited, and the invitation was well received by the President. The olijects to be promoted by this Congress were, most of them, praiseworthy in a general sense. The Congress never met. A resolution of the House of Representatives condemned a joint declara- tion l)y us even with Spanish-American States against European powers, but declared that the United States '' should l)e left free to act in any crisis in such a manner as their feeling of friendship toward those re- publics, and as their own honor and policy may at the time dictate." On another and later occasion tliis Government emphasized again its purp(^se to avoid any step wliicli could bring the United States within the circle of affairs that Avere \\holly or even chiefly foreign. By the treaty of 182() between the United States and Denmark it was stipu- lated that no higher duties on our vessels or cargoes passing the Sound at Elsinore should be paid than on those of the most favored nation. From the stipulation it was imjdied ])y Denmark that the United States had agreed to submit to the onerous taxes and tolls levied by her on our mercantile marine. By the terms of the treaty, either party could terminate it after ten years, and at the end of one year from the date of a notice for that purpose. Denmark having refused, during many years, to come to an understanding on the suljject satisfactory to the United States, the notice of termination was given on A])ril 14, 1855. That induced Denmark to assemble an international conference at Copenhagen for the purpose of receiving and considering propositions which she proposed to submit to the conference, looking to a capitalization of the Sound dues, and a distribution of the sitms to be paid among the several governments whose vessels passed through the Sound. To that conference the Government of the United States was invited, but although the object of the conference was to devise measures to re- lieve our Government, and its shipping, from the paymeiit of a most onerous tax. President Pierce declined, in behalf of the United States, EECOED IN CONGKESS. 161 to accept the invitation. Among the cogent reasons assigned by Secre- tary Marcy was the one that the consideration of the Sound dues, in which the United States were so deeply interested, was, or seemed to be, associated in the scheme of its promoters with plans or purposes which concerned the "balance of power among the governments of Europe." The Conference met at Copenhagen on January 4, 1856, and resulted in a plan of capitalization that was assented to by the Governments represented. Denmark reserved the privilege of special arrangements with the unrepresented powers. Among the last of the special arrange- ments thus concluded by Denmark was the one with the United States of April 11, 1857, according to which, on the payment by us of a sum equivalent to $393,011, the navigation of the Sound and Belts was de- clared free forever to American vessels. In those days, when the United States still had ships and shipping to be seriously inconvenienced by sucli an exercise of sovereignty by the King of Denmark over the Sound and the two Belts, and the highway from the ocean to the Baltic, the special arrangement of 1857 was most favorable to ourselves. DISTINCTIOX BETWEEN A CONGRESS AND A CONFERENCE. That the international assembly convened at Berlin was a conference, and not a congress; that each national delegation therein voted and acted as a unit, thus giving to small States as much power as large States; that the voting "was quite a matter of form," since the Con- ference was destitute of plenipotentiary authority, inasmucli as no delegates can bind the Government they represent without the subsequent fonnal approval and ratification of that Government; that the concur- rence of opinion and action in the Conference must be unanimous in order to be recorded and appear as the opinion and action of the Conference, do not, in the opinion of your committee, put the participation therein of the Government of the United States in any other light than that of an American interference, for insufficient reasons, in the management of foreign affairs, and a departure from the policy of noninterference in such affairs adopted by this Government. The report made by the Secretary of State to the President on January 29, 1885, and transmitted to the House, seems to imply that the present Executive of this Government would not have participated in a congress on the affairs of the Congo, for the reason that the congress would have liad plenipotentiary powers. The distinction and difference between a congress and a conference, even if they exist, do not seem to be now important or material, and especially if it be true that, in more modern 21 ]62 EECOKD IX CONGRESS. international practice, engagements made even by a plenipotentiary who has neither exceeded his powers nor disobeyed his instructions, are not absolutely binding till ratified by the Government or sovereign thus reiaresented. Probably a congress, like a conference, has no coercive authority. A majority can not ever bind a minority in the absence of a positive law or a positive agreement. It is not likely that the United States will consent to enter any international assembly under a stipulation to sub- mit their rights and interests to a majority vote of the assemblage. It is believed that at the Congress of Vienna unanimous consent was re- quired, and the determinations there made were only the determiiiations of the Governments that accepted them. A congress is like the Con- ference at Berlin, as described by Mr. Kasson, in an important sense, only an assemblage for " discussion/' accompanied, no doubt, by the exertion of more or less " moral pressure " on hesitating or reluctant or resisting members. EUEOPEAN OBJECTS OF THE CONFERENCE — PARTICIPATION IN THE CON- FERENCE BY THE UNITED STATES WAS A " NEW DEPARTURE," DANGER- OUS AS A PRECEDENT, AND NOT JUSTIFIED BY AN AMERICAN INTEREST WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PROTECTED BY A SPECIAL TREATY. What was desired or sought, as we now clearly see, by assembling the Conference at Berlin, was the persuasion or moral coercion either to recognize or define the jurisdiction in Africa of the International African Association, or of France, or of Portugal, or of some other power, or to reconcile the rivalries and conflicting claims of each and all, in order that the rights of the aboriginal and uncivilized tribes may be subordi- nated or respected; slavery and slave labor be destroyed and prevented; facilities afforded in Africa for Christian missionaries of all nations and tongues; fair and equal access to the Congo region and just treatment therein for all traders provided; a limit to all charges and taxes on foreign trade, and all offensive monopolies excluded. Certainly all those are beneficent and desirable objects. But at least for us in the United States they were and are, when to be worked out in Berlin for xVfrica, European objects. It is true, nevertheless, there is reason to hope, that in the long-coming future the vast region of the Congo may offer a market for American surplus products which the wise adjustment of our own laws of currency, taxation and finance, united vnth the enterprise and inventive skill of our manufacturers, will enable us to send thither in successful competi- tion with any and every European country. The promotion of our ex- EECORD IX COXGEESS. 163 port trade has come to be a subject of national importance and solicitude, to which the attention of onr countr}' and of our Government is begin- ning to be directed with earnestness and solicitude. But can the pro- motion of that trade be better and more safely and surely accomplished by an international European conference, or by commercial treaties, or by our own domestic legislation, aided when necessary by navigation conventions ? Was it reasonable to assume if the United States had, in deference to their ancient policy, courteously and (in the language of John Quincy Adams) not in "an unsocial and sulky spirit," declined the imdtation to Berlin, that the International African Association, or the Congo Free State, or Portugal, or France, or any other European State, when their boundaries and rights of sovereignty' in Africa had been defined among themselves, would thereafter refuse to the United States fair and equal treatment in Africa under special treaty stipulations? If the United States claimed an inch of teiTJtory or a particle of sover- eignty in Africa, the conditions might have been different. ^Yhy should the United States, without a quantity of interest sufficient to make their interference in African affairs a necessity and duty, run even the remote risk of making themselves heard or felt in a European conference on questions obscure to us, and of wounding the susceptibilities of friendly nations by our interference, on one side or the other, in disputes over colonizing ambitions and territorial limits? In such international negotiations and conferences it is the "moral pressure," backed by the necessary physical force, that usually wins the day. AATierever, in Europe or elsewhere, and whenever, during the diplomacy of our Kevolutioriary struggle and all along down to the scries of events growing out of the Alabama negotiations, the United States have had positive rights and interests of their own to vindicate, their Federal Government has fortunately had resources of learning and ability adequate for the accomplishment of what was needful. I)ut is it quite clear that, over and above the most exacting demands of our own domestic and national condition, increased and intensified by the prizes offered so temptingly in the business and professional affairs of our own country and on our own continent, we have yet the men and the time to influence successfully the drift of events in Europe, Asia and Africa, and to pailicipate skillfully and prudently in the solu- tion of European ])roblems, by entering a European conference or con- gress convened to that end. Have not the telegrajjli and swift ocean steamers fortunately relieved us from the necessity, which otherwise might have existed, of effort and solicitude in that direction, now that the moral influences and physical forces of the American Union have 164 EECOED IN CONGEESS. grown to be what they are? Ought not the warning voices of Wash- ington, Jefferson and Monroe, and of Adams and of Marcy, to be as potential and convincing now as ever? Year by year do we in the United States not have new evidence of the wisdom of the American system of complete neutrality as regards the political struggles and rivalries which vex and convulse, from time to time, the States of the eastern hemisphere? Speculative jurists may have longed and labored for a permanent congress of nations, an inter- national government, in an international locality, where war can never come, modeled somewhat after our own Federal Government, which shall do for the several independent sovereignties or the world what our own Federal arrangement does so well for the several States which it enfolds. The scheme of universal arbitration looks in the same direction. But how much soever that ideal of an international congress or conference in permanent session to prevent war, promote peace, and bring about general disarmament may appeal to the imaginations of good men in Europe, it is quite outside of " the American system." To-day we see a strong European movement, in the form of an anti-revolutionary league, planned, it is said, by the three Emperors at Skiernevice last summer for the universal outlawry of those who either plot or conspire against, or, through the newspaper press, insult, by w^ord or deed, established governments, their sovereigns, or chief persons. The effort is not only to break down the distinction between acts, or offenses, of a political character (for which the United States refuses extradition), and common crimes, but to destroy the right of inviolable asylum for political un- fortunates and refugees, whether they be the victims, or the authors, of unjust laws. An international conference to arrange a general system of extradi- tion arrangements might be presented to us by Europe in a tempting and apparently harmless way, did not our American system forbid such entanglements. The United States do not ask that a political offender (if there be one) against their laws, Avho escapes into a European State, shall be extradited back to our jurisdiction. Nor do the United States ask of any European State the enactment of special laws for the punish- ment of conspiracies (if there be any) against our institutions and our welfare. Whatever needs to be done in the interest of good neighbor- hood, and the promotion of untroubled international trade and inter- course, by placing under the ban conspiracies on our own soil to commit on a foreign soil murder or assassination, or dynamite outrages, the Government of the United States, or the governments of the several States of the Union will do in their own good time and way, but without the aid or influence of a European conference or congress. EECOKD IX COXGEESS. 165 AVhat the United States seek with Europe is a maximum of peaceful, friendly intercourse, commerce and trade, with open markets under free competition for our annually increasing surplus products, but a minimum of pohtical arrangements or alliances or treaties or understandings of any sort. It is because, while appreciating that sympathy with what has been done in Africa under American initiative and by American enterprise, in deference to which the Executive has permitted itself to be drawn into the discussions at Berlin, nevertheless it seems clear to me that a participation in such a conference — if improtested, if not plainly con- demned by the popular branch of the Legislature of the United States — might become the beginning of a new departure in the foreign pohcy of the United States, might reverse a safe, successful, established foreign policy, might foist, among the peaceful precedents of our diplomacy, a precedent liable to become pregnant with foreign discord and domestic difficulty, that I thought it proper at the outset to recommend for the consideration of the committee and for adoption by the House the fol- lowing resolution: Resolved, That it is now, as it has ever been, the traditional, estab- lished and approved poHcy of the people of these United States to obtain a due consideration of their own rights by friendly behavior, and by a just regard for the rights of other nations, and, by forming entanghng political alliances with no nation, to preserve and promote peace, amity and commerce with all nations; That these United States having long ago announced their purpose and poHcy to hold aloof American States and territory from European aggrandizement and ambition; That possessing, as these United States already do, the chief habitable and temperate parts of the northern continent between the Atlantic and Pacific seas, and desiring no conquests but those of peace, and no terri- torial aggrandizement upon other continents, whether by diplomacy or war; The House of Representatives, heedful of the admonitions of Wash- ington, and faithful to that neutral policy of separation and peace which our situation, the favor of Heaven, and the wisdom of a free people, have hitherto enabled us to maintain, hereby explicitly declares its dissent from the act of the President of the United States in accepting the in- vitation of Germany and France to participate in the International Con- ference at Berlin, instead of courteously declining the same, as tending to a reversal of our traditional, established and approved foreign policy. PERRY BELMONT. Index to Volume II. A. Page Appointments on standing committees, Forty-eiglitli Congress 1 Art, Free importation of works of, and antiquities: Petition in favor of, presented 12 Letter of Hy. ^Marquand to New York Evening Post on It Debate in House of Representatives on 15 B. Berlin-Congo conference: Resolution offered in House of Representatives on 109 Resolution calling for instructions to American Plenipotentiaries 131 Bill introduced by, in Forty-eighth Congress: For free importation of works of art and of antiquities 12 . Blaine's foreign polity criticised rt Free Trade Club bauciuet 37 On Tariff, at Tammany Hall 39 Tariff Reform and Reciprocity in House of Representatives 44 At Hempstead, Lonu Island, in behalf of Cleveland and Hendricks (1(» At Riverhead. Loiik Island, in relation to Irish sunpccts 03 At Newport, R. I., in favor of I>('m«icnitic Prosidentinl nominees 7") On accei»tin^' nomination to Forty-ninth Conjjresa 88 At Babylon, Long Island, in cam|iaiKti of IfS-l 7S At College Point, Long Island, Ratilication meeting, September 1, 18S1 . . 79 At Newark, N. J., on reintions of the Fnitcnl States with South American States SO At Long Island City, in sci-ond joint debate with James H. IMatt S9 Suspects, Irish, how they w.ro reh-ased •"'•1 T. Tariff statements of Hiscock refuteil ' 23 Tariff, S|H>ech on, at Tammany Hall 3'.( Tariff Reform and Reciprocity, Si)eech on. in House of Representatives 44 Tariff, Joint dfbatf with Janu's H. Piatt in contest for Forty-ninth Congress, S9 Taxation and surplus. Interview with Louisville Courier-Journal 2.3 \v. West, l^ionel Saikviiic. from transmitting Report of Canadian Privy Council, in relation to E.\tra«lition resolution. 10 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 013 704 728 7 ;;ij;;--,";JtM.