FOOTNOTES:
[13] A. R. Conkling, Life of Roscoe Conkling, p. 297.
[14] A. R. Conkling, Life of Roscoe Conkling, p. 699.
[15] Ibid., p. 671.
[16] Ibid., pp. 679 ff.
[17] See below, p. 57.
[18] Ibid., p. 540.
[19] Taylor, Origin and Growth of the American Constitution, p. 355. As a matter of fact, Conkling, who was a member of the committee that drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, voted against these provisions in Committee.
[20] It is to be noted that the demand of the warehousemen on the second point was not for a judicial review of the reasonableness of a rate fixed by the legislature, but a total denial of the power of a legislature to act in the matter. The question of the propriety of a judicial review of the reasonableness of the rates in question was not raised in the pleadings. It was not difficult, therefore, for judges in subsequent cases in which the question of judicial review was squarely raised to explain away as mere dictum this solemn statement by Chief Justice Waite to the effect that the power of the legislature to regulate being conceded, the determination of the legislature was binding on the courts and not subject to review.
[21] Except for two unimportant cases decided in the lower courts.
[22] It should be noted that the Supreme Court not only undertook to pass upon the reasonableness of such rates as the states were permitted to make, but also added in 1886 that no state could regulate the rates on goods transported within its borders, when such goods were in transit to or from a point in another state. Such regulation was held in the Wabash, etc., Railway Company v. Illinois (118 U. S. 557) to be an interference with interstate commerce which was subject to control by Congress only.
[23] Below, p. 287.
CHAPTER IV
PARTIES AND PARTY ISSUES, 1877-1896
It was a long time before the conditions created by the great economic revolution were squarely reflected in political literature and party programs. Indeed, they were but vaguely comprehended by the generation of statesmen who had been brought up in the days of the stagecoach and the water mill. It is true that the inevitable drift of capitalism in the United States might have been foreseen by turning to Europe, particularly to England, where a similar economic revolution had produced clearly ascertainable results; but American politicians believed, or at least contended, that the United States lived under a special economic dispensation and that the grave social problems which had menaced Europe for more than a generation when the Civil War broke out could never arise on American soil.
From 1861 to 1913, the Republican party held the presidential office, except for eight years. That party had emerged from the Civil War fortified by an intense patriotism and by the support of the manufacturing interests which had flourished under the high tariffs and of capitalists anxious to swing forward with the development of railways and new enterprises. Its origin had been marked by a wave of moral enthusiasm such as has seldom appeared in the history of politics. It came to the presidency as a minority party, but by the fortunes of war it became possessed of instruments of power beyond all calculation. Its leading opponents from the South deserted in a mass giving it in a short time possession of the field—all the Federal branches of government. It had the management of the gigantic war finances, through which it attached to itself the interests and fortunes of the great capitalists and bankers throughout the North. It raised revenues by a high tariff which placed thousands of manufacturers under debt to it and linked their fortunes also with its fate. It possessed the Federal offices, and, therefore, railway financiers and promoters of all kinds had to turn to it for privileges and protection. Finally, millions of farmers of the West owed their homes to its generous policy of giving away public lands. Never had a party had its foundations on interests ramifying throughout such a large portion of society.
And over all it spread the mantle of patriotism. It had saved the Union, and it had struck the shackles from four million bondmen. In a baptism of fire it had redeemed a nation. Europe's finger of scorn could no longer be pointed to the "slave republic paying its devotions to liberty and equality within the sound of the bondman's wail." The promises of the Declaration of Independence had been fulfilled and the heroic deeds of the Revolution rivaled by Republican leaders. As it declared in its platform of 1876, the Republican party had come into power "when in the economy of Providence this land was to be purged of human slavery and when the strength of the government of the people, by the people, and for the people was to be demonstrated." Incited by the memories of its glorious deeds "to high aims for the good of our country and mankind," it looked forward "with unfaltering courage, hope, and purpose."
Against such a combination of patriotism and economic interest, the Democratic party had difficulty in making headway, for its former economic mainstay, the slave power, was broken and gone; it was charged with treason, and it enjoyed none of the spoils of national office. But in spite of all obstacles it showed remarkable vitality. Though divided on the slave question in 1860, those who boasted the name of "Democrat" were in an overwhelming majority, and even during the Civil War, with the southern wing cut off completely, the party was able to make a respectable showing in the campaign which resulted in Lincoln's second election. When the South returned to the fold, and white dominion drove the negro from the polls, the Democratic party began to renew its youth. In the elections of 1874, it captured the House of Representatives; it narrowly missed the presidency in 1876; and it retained its control of the lower house of Congress in the elections of 1876 and 1878.
The administration of President Hayes did little to strengthen the position of the Republicans. His policy of pacification in the South alienated many partisans who believed that those who had saved the Union should continue to rule it; but it is difficult to say how much disaffection should be attributed to this cause. It seems to have been quietly understood within official circles that support would be withdrawn from the Republican administrations in Louisiana and South Carolina. Senator Hoar is authority for the statement "that General Grant, before he left office, had determined to do in regard to these state governments exactly what Hayes afterward did, and that Hayes acted with his full approval. Second, I have the authority of President Garfield for saying that Mr. Blaine had come to the same conclusion."
Charges based on sectional feeling were also brought forward in criticism of some of Hayes' cabinet appointments. He terrified the advocates of "no concession to rebels" by appointing David M. Key, an ex-Confederate soldier of Tennessee, to the office of Postmaster-General; and his selection of Carl Schurz, a leader of the Liberal Republican Movement of 1872 and an uncertain quantity in politics, as Secretary of the Interior, was scarcely more palatable in some quarters. He created further trouble in Republican ranks by his refusal to accede to the demands of powerful Senators, like Cameron of Pennsylvania and Conkling of New York, for control over patronage in their respective states. No other President for more than a generation had so many nominations rejected by the Senate.
On the side of legislation, Hayes' administration was nearly barren. During his entire term the House of Representatives was Democratic, and during the last two years the Senate was Democratic also by a good margin. Had he desired to carry out a large legislative policy, he could not have done so; but he was not a man of great capacity as an initiator of public policies. He maintained his dignity and self-possession in the midst of the most trying party squabbles; but in a democracy other qualities than these are necessary for effective leadership.
In their desperation, the conservative leaders of the Republican party resolved to have no more "weak and goody-goody" Presidents, incapable of fascinating the populace and keeping it in good humor, and they made a determined effort to secure the renomination of Grant for a third term, in spite of the tradition against it. Conkling captured the New York delegation to the national convention in 1880 for Grant; Cameron swung Pennsylvania into line; and Logan carried off Illinois. Grant's consent to be a candidate was obtained, and Conkling placed his name in nomination in a speech which Senator Hoar describes as one of "very great power."
Strong opposition to Grant developed, however, partly on account of the feeling against the third term, and particularly on account of the antagonism to the Conkling faction which was backing him. Friends of Blaine, then Senator from Maine, and supporters of John Sherman of Ohio, thought that Grant had had enough honors at the hands of the party, and that their turn had come. As a result of a combination of circumstances, Grant never received more than 313 of the 378 votes necessary to nomination at the Republican convention. After prolonged balloting, the deadlock was broken by the nomination of James A. Garfield, of Ohio, as a "dark horse." The Grant contingent from New York received a sop in the shape of the nomination of Chester A. Arthur, a politician of the Conkling school, to the office of Vice President.
In spite of the promising signs, the Democrats were unable to defeat the Republicans in 1880. The latter found it possible to heal, at least for campaign purposes, the breaches created by Hayes' administration. It is true that Senator Conkling and the "Stalwart" faction identified with corporation interests were sorely disappointed in their failure to secure the nomination of Grant for a third term, and that Garfield as a "dark horse" did not have a personal following like that of his chief opponents, the Hero of Appomattox, Blaine of Maine, and Sherman of Ohio. But he had the advantage of escaping the bitter factional feeling within the party against each of these leaders. He had risen from humble circumstances, and his managers were able to make great capital out of his youthful labors as a "canal-boat boy." He had served several terms in Congress acceptably; he had been intrusted with a delicate place as a member of the electoral commission that had settled the Hayes-Tilden dispute; and he was at the time of his nomination Senator-elect from Ohio. Though without the high qualities of leadership that distinguished Blaine, Garfield was a decidedly "available" candidate and his candidature was strengthened by the nomination of Arthur, who was acceptable to the Conkling group and the spoilsmen generally.
The Republican fortunes in 1880 were further enhanced by the divisions among the Democrats and their inability to play the game of practical politics. Two sets of delegates appeared at the convention from New York, and the Tammany group headed by "Boss" Kelly was excluded, thus offending a powerful section of the party in that pivotal state. The candidate nominated, General Hancock, was by no means a skilful leader. In fact, he had had no public experience outside of the Army, where he had made a brilliant record, and he showed no ability at all as a campaigner. Finally, the party made its fight principally on the "great fraud of 1876," asking vindication at the hands of the people on the futile theory that the voters would take an interest in punishing a four-year-old crime. In its platform, reported by Mr. Watterson, of Kentucky, it declared that the Democrats had submitted to that outrage because they were convinced that the people would punish the crime in 1880. "This issue precedes and dwarfs every other; it imposes a more sacred duty upon the people of the Union than ever addressed to the conscience of a nation of freemen." Notwithstanding this narrow issue, Hancock fell behind Garfield only about ten thousand votes, although his electoral vote was only 155 to 214 for his opponent.
Whether Garfield would have been able to consolidate his somewhat shattered party by effective leadership is a matter of speculation, for, on July 2, 1881, about four months after his inauguration, he was shot by Charles J. Guiteau, a disappointed and half-crazed office seeker, and he died on September 19. His successor, Vice President Arthur, though a man of considerable ability, who managed his office with more acumen and common honesty than his opponents attributed to him, was unable to clear away the accumulating dissatisfaction within his party or convince the country that the party would do its own reforming.
In fact, Arthur, notwithstanding the taint of "spoils" associated with his career, proved to be by no means the easy-going politician that had been expected. He took a firm stand against extravagant appropriations as a means of getting rid of the Treasury surplus, and in 1882 he vetoed a river and harbor appropriation bill which was specially designed to distribute funds among localities on the basis of favoritism. In the same year, he vetoed a Chinese exclusion act as violating the treaty with China, and made recommendations as to changes which were accepted by Congress. Arthur also advocated legislation against the spoils system, and on January 16, 1883, signed the Civil Service law.[24] He recommended a revision of the tariff, including some striking reductions in schedules, but the tariff act of 1883 was even less satisfactory to the public than such measures usually are. Judging by past standards, however, Arthur had a claim upon his party for the nomination in 1884.
But Arthur was not a magnetic leader, and the election of Grover Cleveland as governor of New York in 1882 and Democratic victories elsewhere warned the Republicans that their tenure of power was not indefinite. Circumspection, however, was difficult. A "reform" faction had grown up within the party, protesting against the gross practices of old leaders like Conkling and urging at least more outward signs of propriety. In this faction were Senator Hoar of Massachusetts, George William Curtis, Henry Cabot Lodge, and Theodore Roosevelt—the last of whom had just begun his political career with his election to the New York legislature in 1881. Senator Edmunds, of Vermont, was the leader of this group, and his nomination was warmly urged in the Republican convention at Chicago in 1884.
The hopes of the Republican reformers were completely dashed, however, by the nomination of Blaine. This "gentleman from Maine" was a man of brilliant parts and the idol of large sections of the country, particularly the Middle West; but some suspicions concerning his personal integrity were widely entertained, and not without reason, by a group of influential leaders in his party. In 1876, he was charged with having shared in the corruption funds of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, and as Professor Dunning cautiously puts it, "the facts developed put Mr. Blaine under grave suspicion of just that sort of wealth-getting, if nothing worse, which had ruined his colleagues in the Crédit Mobilier." Moreover, Mr. Blaine's associations had been with that wing of his party which had been involved or implicated in one scandal after another. Partly on this account, he had been defeated for nomination in 1876, when he was decidedly the leading aspirant and again in 1880 when he received 285 votes in the convention. But in 1884, leaders like Senator Platt, of New York, declared "it is now Blaine's turn," and he was nominated in spite of a threatened bolt.
The Democrats were fortunate in their selection of Grover Cleveland as their standard bearer. He had been mayor of Buffalo and governor of New York, but he had taken no part in national politics and had the virtue of having few enemies in that field. He was not a man of any large comprehension of the economic problems of his age, but he was in every way acceptable to financiers in New York, for he had showed his indifference to popular demands by vetoing a five-cent fare bill for the New York City elevated roads which were then being watered and manipulated by astute speculators, like Jay Gould. Moreover, Mr. Cleveland possessed certain qualities of straightforwardness and homely honesty which commended him to a nation wearied of scandalous revelations and the malodorous spoils system.
These qualities drew to Cleveland the support of a group of eminent Republicans, like Carl Schurz who had been Secretary of the Interior under Hayes, George William Curtis, the civil service reformer, Henry Ward Beecher, and William Everett, who were nicknamed "Mugwumps" from an Indian word meaning "chief." Although the "reformers" talked a great deal about "purity" in politics, the campaign of 1884 was principally over personalities; and, as a contemporary newspaper put it, it took on the tone of "a pothouse quarrel." There was no real division over issues, as will be seen by a comparison of platforms, and scandalous rumors respecting the morals of the two candidates were freely employed as campaign arguments. Indeed, the spirit of the fray is reflected in the words of the Democratic platform: "The Republican party, so far as principle is concerned, is a reminiscence. In practice, it is an organization for enriching those who control its machinery. The frauds and jobbery which have been brought to light in every department of the government are sufficient to have called for reform within the Republican party; yet those in authority, made reckless by the long possession of power, have succumbed to its corrupting influence and have placed in nomination a ticket against which the independent portion of the party are in open revolt. Therefore a change is demanded." Having enjoyed no opportunities for corruption worthy of mention, except in New York City where they had reaped a good harvest during the sunshine, the Democrats could honestly pose as the party of "purity in politics."
Their demand for a change was approved by the voters, for Cleveland received 219 electoral votes as against 182 cast for Blaine. A closer analysis of the vote, however, shows no landslide to the Democrats, for had New York been shifted to the Republican column, the result would have been 218 for Blaine and 183 for Cleveland. And the Democratic victory in New York was so close that a second count was necessary, upon which it was discovered that the successful candidate had only about eleven hundred votes more than the vanquished Blaine. Taking the country as a whole, the Democrats had a plurality of a little more than twenty thousand votes.
Cleveland's administration was beset by troubles from the beginning. The civil service reformers were early disappointed with his performances, as they might have expected. It is true that the Democratic party had posed in general as the party of "reform," because forsooth having no patronage to dispense nor favors to grant it could readily make a virtue of necessity; but it is fair to say that the party had in fact been somewhat noncommittal on civil service reform, and Cleveland, though friendly, was hardly to be classed as ardent. The test came soon after his inauguration. More than one hundred thousand Federal offices were in the hands of Republicans; the Senate which had to pass upon the President's chief nominations was Republican and the clash between the two authorities was spectacular. The pressure of Democrats for office was naturally strong, and although the civil service reformers got a few crumbs of comfort, the bald fact stood forth that within two years only about one third of the former officeholders remained. "Of the chief officers," says Professor Dewey, "including the fourth class post-masters, collectors, land officers, numbering about 58,000, over 45,000 were changed. All of the 85 internal revenue collectors were displaced; and of the 111 collectors of customs, 100 were removed or not reappointed."
Cleveland's executive policy was negative rather than positive. He vigorously applied the veto to private pension bills. From the foundation of the government until 1897, it appears that 265 such bills were denied executive approval; and of these five were vetoed by Grant and 260 by Cleveland—nearly all of the latter's negatives being in his first administration. Cleveland also vetoed a general dependent pension bill in 1887 on the ground that it was badly drawn and ill considered. Although his enemies attempted to show that he was hostile to the old soldiers, his vetoes were in fact based rather upon a careful examination of the merits of the several acts which showed extraordinary carelessness, collusion, and fraud. At all events, the Grand Army Encampment in 1887 refused to pass a resolution of censure. Cleveland also killed the river and harbor bill of 1887 by a pocket veto, and he put his negative on a measure, passed the following year, returning to the treasuries of the northern states nearly all of the direct taxes which they had paid during the Civil War in support of the Federal government.
On the constructive side, Cleveland's first administration was marked by a vigorous land policy under which upwards of 80,000,000 acres of land were recovered from private corporations and persons who had secured their holdings illegally. He was also the first President to treat the labor problem in a special message (1886); and he thus gave official recognition to a new force in politics, although the sole outcome of his recommendations was the futile law of 1888 providing for the voluntary arbitration of disputes between railways and their employees. The really noteworthy measure of his first administration was the interstate commerce law of 1887, but that could hardly be called a partisan achievement.[25]
Holding his place by no overwhelming mandate and having none of those qualities of brilliant leadership which arouse the multitude, Cleveland was unable to intrench his party, and he was forced to surrender his office at the end of four years' tenure, although his party showed its confidence by renominating him in 1888. He had a Democratic House during his administration, but he was embarrassed by party divisions there and by a Republican Senate. Under such circumstances, he was able to do little that was striking, and in his message of December, 1887, he determined to set an issue by a vigorous attack on the tariff—a subject which had been treated in a gingerly fashion by both parties since the War. While he disclaimed adherence to the academic theory of free trade as a principle, his language was readily turned by his enemies into an attack on the principle of the protective tariff. Although the performance of the Democrats in the passage of the Mills tariff bill by the House in 1888 showed in fact no strong leanings toward free trade, the Republicans were able to force a campaign on the "American doctrine of protection for labor against the pauper millions of Europe."
On this issue they carried the election of 1888. Passing by Blaine once more, the Republicans selected Benjamin Harrison, of Indiana, a United States Senator, a shrewd lawyer, and a reticent politician. Mr. Wanamaker, a rich Philadelphia merchant, was chosen to raise campaign funds, and he successfully discharged the functions of his office. As he said himself, he addressed the business men of the country in the following language: "How much would you pay for insurance upon your business? If you were confronted by from one to three years of general depression by a change in our revenue and protective measures affecting our manufactures, wages, and good times, what would you pay to be insured for a better year?" The appeal was effective and with a full campaign chest and the astute Matthew S. Quay as director of the national committee, the Republicans outwitted the Democrats, winning 233 electors' votes against 168 for Cleveland, although the popular vote for Harrison was slightly under that for his opponent.
Harrison's administration opened auspiciously in many ways. The appointment of Blaine as Secretary of State was a diplomatic move, for undoubtedly Blaine was far more popular with the rank and file of his party than was Harrison. The civil service reformers were placated by the appointment of Theodore Roosevelt as president of the Civil Service Commission, for he was a vigorous champion of reform, who brought the whole question forcibly before the country by his speeches and articles, although it must be said that no very startling gains were made against the spoils system under his administration of the civil service law. It required time to educate the country to the point of supporting the administrative heads in resisting the clamor of the politicians for office.
Harrison's leadership in legislation was not noteworthy. The Republicans were in power in the lower house in 1889 for the first time since 1881, but their majority was so small that it required all of the parliamentary ingenuity which Speaker Reed could command to keep the legislative machine in operation. Nevertheless, several important measures were enacted into law. The McKinley tariff act based upon the doctrine of high protection was passed in 1890. In response to the popular outcry against the trusts, the Sherman anti-trust law was enacted the same year; and the silver party was thrown a sop in the form of the Sherman silver purchase act. The veterans of the Civil War received new recognition in the law of 1890 granting pensions for all disabled soldiers whether their disabilities were incurred in service or not. Negro voters were taken into account by an attempt to get a new "force bill" through Congress, which would insure a "free ballot and a fair count everywhere."
There had been nothing decisive, however, about the Republican victory in 1888, for a few thousand votes in New York changed the day as four years before. Harrison had not proved to be a very popular candidate, and there was nothing particularly brilliant or striking about his administration to enhance his reputation. He was able to secure a renomination in 1892, largely because he controlled so many officeholding delegates to the Republican convention, and there was no other weighty candidate in the field, Blaine being unwilling to make an open fight at the primaries.
In the second contest with Cleveland, Harrison was badly worsted, receiving only 145 electoral votes against 277 cast for the Democratic candidate and 22 for the Populist, Weaver. The campaign was marked by no special incidents, for both Cleveland and Harrison had been found safe and conservative and there was no very sharp division over issues. The tariff, it is true, was vigorously discussed, but Cleveland made it clear that no general assault would be made on any protected interests. The million votes cast for the Populist candidate, however, was a solemn warning that the old game of party see-saw over personalities could not go on indefinitely. The issues springing from the great economic revolution were emerging, not clearly and sharply, but rather in a vague unrest and discontent with the old parties and their methods.
President Cleveland went into power for the second time on what appeared to be a wave of business prosperity, but those who looked beneath the surface knew that serious financial and industrial difficulties were pending. Federal revenues were declining and a deficit was staring the government in the face at a time when there was, for several reasons, a stringency in the gold market. The Treasury gold reserve was already rapidly diminishing, and Harrison was on the point of selling bonds when the inauguration of Cleveland saved the day for him. Congress was deadlocked on the money question, though called in a special session to grant relief; and Cleveland at length resorted to the sale of bonds under an act of 1875 to procure gold for the Treasury. The first sale was made in January, 1894, and the financiers, to pay for the bonds, drew nearly half of the amount of gold out of the Treasury itself.
The "endless chain" system of selling bonds to get gold for the Treasury, only to have it drawn out immediately, aroused a great hue and cry against the financial interests. In November, 1894, a second sale was made with similar results, and in February, 1895, Cleveland in sheer desperation called in Mr. J. P. Morgan and arranged for the purchase of gold at a fixed price by the issue of bonds, with an understanding that the bankers would do their best to protect the Treasury. To the silver advocates and the Populists this was the climax of "Cleveland's iniquitous career of subserviency to Wall Street," for it seemed to show that the government was powerless before the demands of the financiers. This criticism forced the administration to throw open the issue of January 6, 1896, to the public, and the result was decidedly advantageous to the government—apparently an indictment of Cleveland's policy. Congress in the meantime did nothing to relieve the administration.
While the government was wrestling with the financial problem, the country was in the midst of an industrial crisis. The number of bankruptcies rose with startling rapidity, hundreds of factories were closed, and idle men thronged the streets hunting for work. According to a high authority, Professor D. R. Dewey, "never before had the evil of unemployment been so widespread in the United States." It was so pressing that Jacob Coxey, a business man from Ohio, planned a march of idle men on Washington in 1894 to demand relief at the hands of the government. His "army," as it was called, ended in a fiasco, but it directed the attention of the country to a grave condition of affairs.
Reductions in wages produced severe strikes, one of which—the Pullman strike of Chicago—led to the paralysis of the railways entering Chicago, because the Pullman employees were supported by the American Railway Union. The disorders connected with the strike—which are now known to have been partially fomented by the companies themselves for the purpose of inducing Federal interference—led President Cleveland to dispatch troops to Chicago, against the ardent protest of Governor Altgeld, who declared that the state of Illinois was able to manage her own affairs without intermeddling from Washington. The president of the union, Mr. E. V. Debs, was thrown into prison for violating a "blanket injunction"[26] issued by the local Federal court, and thus the strike was broken, leaving behind it a legacy of bitterness which has not yet disappeared.
The most important piece of legislation during Cleveland's second administration was the Wilson tariff bill—a measure which was so objectionable to the President that he could not sign it, and it therefore became law without his approval. The only popular feature in it was the income tax provision, which was annulled the following year by the Supreme Court. Having broken with his party on the money question, and having failed to secure a revision of the tariff to suit his ideas, Cleveland retired in 1897, and one of his party members declared that he was "the most cordially hated Democrat in the country."
Party Issues
The tariff was one of the issues bequeathed to the parties from ante-bellum days, but there was no very sharply defined battle over it until the campaign of 1888. The Republicans, in their platform of 1860, had declared that "sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country"; and although from time to time they advocated tariff reductions, they remained consistently a protectionist party. The high war-tariffs, however, were revenue measures, although the protection feature was by no means lost sight of. In the campaign of 1864, both parties were silent on the question; four years later it again emerged in the Democratic platform, but it was not hotly debated in the ensuing contest. The Democrats demanded "a tariff for revenue upon foreign imports and such equal taxation under the internal revenue laws as will afford incidental protection to domestic manufactures."
From that campaign forward the Democrats appeared to favor a "revenue tariff" in their platforms. It is true they accepted the Liberal Republican platform in 1872, which frankly begged the question by acknowledging the wide differences of opinion on the subject and remitted the discussion of the matter "to the people in their congressional districts and the decision of Congress thereon." But in 1876, the Democrats came back to the old doctrine and demanded "that all custom-house taxation shall be only for revenue." In their victorious campaign of 1884, however, they were vague. They pledged themselves "to revise the tariff in a spirit of fairness to all interests"; but they promised, in making reductions, not "to injure any domestic industries, but rather to promote their healthy growth," and to be mindful of capital and labor at every step. Subject to these "limitations" they favored confining taxation to public purposes only. It was small wonder that Democratic orators during the campaign could promise "no disturbance of business in case of victory."
Cleveland, in the beginning of his administration, faithfully followed his platform, for in his first message he "placed the need of tax reduction solely on the ground of excess revenue and declared that there was no occasion for a discussion of the wisdom or expediency of the protective system." But within two years he had seen a new light, and he devoted his message of December, 1887, exclusively to a discussion of the tariff issue, in vague and uncertain language it is true, but still characterized by such a ringing denunciation of the "vicious, illegal, and inequitable" system of taxation then in vogue, that the Republicans were able to call it, with some show of justification, a "free trade document." The New York Tribune announced with evident glee that Cleveland had made "the issue boldly and distinctly and that the theories and aims of the ultra-opponents of protection have a new and zealous advocate." Of course, Cleveland hotly denied that he was trying to commit his party to a simple doctrine of free trade or even the old principle of the platform, "tariff for revenue only." Moreover, the Democrats, in their platform of the following year, while indorsing Cleveland's messages, renewed the tariff pledges of their last platform and promised to take "labor" into a careful consideration in any revision.
In spite of the equivocal position taken by the Democrats, the Republicans made great political capital out of the affair, apparently on the warranted assumption that the voters would not read Cleveland's message or the platform of his party. In their declaration of principles in 1888, the Republicans made the tariff the leading issue: "We are uncompromisingly in favor of the American system of protection. We protest against its destruction, as proposed by the President and his party. They serve the interests of Europe; we will support the interest of America. We accept the issue and confidently appeal to the people for their judgment. The protective system must be maintained.... We favor the entire repeal of internal taxes rather than the surrender of any part of our protective system, at the joint behest of the whisky trusts and the agents of foreign manufacturers." Again, in 1892, the Republicans attempted to make the tariff the issue: "We reaffirm the American doctrine of protection. We call attention to its growth abroad. We maintain that the prosperous condition of our country is largely due to the wise revenue legislation of the Republican Congress," i.e. the McKinley bill.
The effect of this Republican hammering on the subject was to bring out a solemn declaration on the part of the Democrats. "We denounce," they say in 1892, "the Republican protection as a fraud, a robbery of the great majority of the American people for the benefit of the few. We declare it to be a fundamental principle of the Democratic party that the Federal government has no constitutional power to impose and collect tariff duties, except for the purposes of revenue only, and we demand that the collection of such taxes shall be limited to the necessities of the government when honestly and economically administered." Although elected on this platform, the Democrats did not regard their mandate as warranting a serious attack on the protective system, for the Wilson tariff act of 1894 was so disappointing to moderate tariff reformers that Cleveland refused to sign it.
A close analysis of the platforms and performances of the parties from 1876 to 1896 shows no clear alignment at all on the tariff. Both parties promise reductions, but neither is specific as to details. The Republicans, while making much of the protective system, could not ignore the demand for tariff reform; and the Democrats, while repeating the well-worn phrases about tariff for revenue, were unable to overlook the fact that a drastic assault upon the protective interests would mean their undoing. In Congress, the Republicans made no serious efforts to lower the duties, and the attempts of the Democrats produced meager results.
Among the new issues raised by the economic revolution was the control of giant combinations of capital. Although some of the minor parties had declaimed against trusts as early as 1876, and the Democratic party, in 1884, had denounced "land monopolies," industrial combinations did not figure as distinct issues in the platforms of the old parties until 1888. In that year, the Democrats vaguely referred to unnecessary taxation as a source of trusts and combinations, which, "while unduly enriching the few that combine, rob the body of our citizens by depriving them of the benefits of natural competition." Here appears the favorite party slogan that "the tariff is the mother of the trusts," and the intimation that the remedy is the restoration of "natural competition" by a reduction of the tariff. The Republicans in 1888 also recognized the existence of the trust problem by declaring against all combinations designed to control trade arbitrarily, and recommended to Congress and the states legislation within their jurisdictions to "prevent the execution of all schemes to oppress the people by undue charges on their supplies or by unjust rates for the transportation of their products to market."
Both old parties returned to the trust question again in 1892. The Democrats recognized "in the trusts and combinations which are designed to enable capital to secure more than its just share of the joint product of capital and labor, a natural consequence of the prohibitive taxes which prevent the free competition which is the life of honest trade, but we believe the worst evils can be abated by law." Thereupon follows a demand for additional legislation restraining and controlling trusts. The Republicans simply reaffirmed their declaration of 1888, indorsed the Sherman anti-trust law already enacted by Congress in 1890, and favored new legislation remedying defects and rendering the enforcement of the law more complete.
The railway issue emerged in 1880 when the Republicans, boasting that under their administration railways had increased "from thirty-two thousand miles in 1860 to eighty-two thousand miles in 1879," pronounced against any further grants of public domain to railway corporations. The Democrats went on record against discriminations in favor of transportation lines, but left the subject with that pronouncement. Four years later the subject had taken on more precision. The Republicans favored the public regulation of railway corporations and indorsed legislation preventing unjust discriminations and excessive charges for transportation, but in the campaign of 1888 the overshadowing tariff issue enabled them to omit references to railway regulation. The Democrats likewise ignored the subject in 1884 and 1888. In 1892 the question was overlooked by the platforms of both parties, although the minor parties were loudly demanding action on the part of the Federal Government. The old parties agreed, however, on the necessity of legislation protecting the life and limb of employees engaged in interstate transportation.
Even before the Civil War, the labor vote had become a factor that could not be ignored, and both old parties consistently conciliated it by many references. The Republicans in 1860 commended that "policy of national exchanges which secures to the workingmen liberal wages." The defense of the protective system was gradually shifted by the Republicans, until, judging from the platforms, its continuation was justifiable principally on account of their anxiety to safeguard the American workingman against "the pauper labor of Europe." The Democrats could not overlook the force of this appeal, and in their repeated demands for the reduction of the tariff they announced that no devotion to free trade principles would allow them to pass legislation which might put American labor "in competition with the underpaid millions of the Old World." In 1880, the Democratic party openly professed itself the friend of labor and the laboring man and pledged itself to "protect him against the cormorant and the commune." In their platform of 1888, the Democrats promised to make "due allowance for the difference between the wages of American and foreign labor" in their tariff revisions; and in 1892 they deplored the fact that under the McKinley tariff there had been ten reductions in the wages of the workingmen to one increase. In the latter year, the Republicans urged that on articles competing with American products the duties should "equal the difference between wages abroad and at home."
Among the more concrete offerings to labor were the promises of homesteads in the West by the Republicans—promises which the Democrats reiterated; protection against Chinese and coolie labor, particularly in the West, safety-appliance laws applicable to interstate carriers, the establishment of a labor bureau at Washington, the prohibition of the importation of alien laborers under contract, and the abolition of prison contract labor. On these matters there was no marked division between the two old parties; each advocated measures of its own in general terms and denounced the propositions of the other in equally general terms.
The money question bulked large in the platforms, but until 1896 there was nothing like a clean-cut division.[27] Both parties hedged and remained consistently vague. The Republicans in 1888 declared in favor of "the use of both gold and silver as money," and condemned "the policy of the Democratic administration in its efforts to demonetize silver." Again, in 1892, the Republicans declared: "The American people, from tradition and interest, favor bimetallism, and the Republican party demands the use of both gold and silver as standard money, with such restriction and under such provisions, to be determined by legislation, as will secure the maintenance of the parity of values of the two metals, so that the purchasing and debt-paying power of the dollar, whether of silver, gold, or paper, shall be at all times equal." The Democrats likewise hedged their profession of faith about with limitations and provisions. They declared in favor of both metals and no discrimination for mintage; but the unit of coinage of both metals "must be of equal intrinsic or exchangeable value, or be adjusted through international agreement or by such safeguards of legislation as shall insure the maintenance of the parity of the two metals." Thus both of the platforms of 1892 are paragons of ambiguity.