Page images
PDF
EPUB

RATIFICATION OF THE AMENDMENTS.

The amendments to the Constitution numbered one to ten were adopted as a Bill of Rights in deference to the wish expressed by a number of the states which ratified the original instrument that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added. They were proposed to the legislatures of the several states by the First Congress, on September 25, 1789. They were ratified by the following states in this order: New Jersey, November 20, 1789; Maryland, December 19, 1789; North Carolina, December 22, 1789; South Carolina, January 19, 1790; New Hampshire, January 25, 1790; Delaware, January 28, 1790; Pennsylvania, March 10, 1790; New York, March 27, 1790; Rhode Island, June 15, 1790; Vermont, November 3, 1791; Virginia, December 15, 1791. The notifications of ratification were transmitted by the Governors of the states to the President and sent by him to Congress. There is no evidence on the journals of Congress that the legislatures of Connecticut, Georgia and Massachusetts ratified these amendments.

The Eleventh Amendment was proposed by the Third Congress, on September 5, 1794, and was declared in a message of the Eleventh Amendment. President to Congress, dated January 8, 1798, to have been ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.

The Twelfth Amendment was proposed by the Eighth Congress, on December 12, 1803, in lieu of the third paragraph of the first section of the Third Article. It was declared by a proclamation of the Secretary of Twelfth State, dated September 25, 1804, to have been ratified by the legisAmendment. latures of three-fourths of the states.

The Thirteenth Amendment was proposed by the Thirty-eighth Congress, on February 1, 1865, and was declared in a proclamation, dated December 18, 1865, to have been ratified by the legislatures of twenty-seven of Thirteenth the thirty-six states, viz., Illinois, Rhode Island, Michigan, Amendment. Maryland, New York, West Virginia, Maine, Kansas, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Vermont, Tennessee, Arkansas, Connecticut, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina and Georgia.

The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress on June 16, 1866. On July 21, 1868, Congress adopted and transmitted to the Department of State a concurrent resolution declaring that "the Fourteenth legislatures of the States of Connecticut, Tennessee, New Jersey, Amendment. Oregon, Vermont, West Virginia, Kansas, Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Maine, Iowa, Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Alabama, South Carolina and Louisiana, being three-fourths and more of the several states of the Union, have ratified the fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, duly proposed by two-thirds of each House of the Thirty-ninth Congress: Therefore, Resolved, That said fourteenth article is hereby declared to be a part of the Constitution of the United States, and it shall be duly promulgated as such by the Secretary of State."

The Secretary of State accordingly issued a proclamation, dated July 28. 1868, declaring that the amendment had been ratified by the legislatures of thirty of the thirty-six states, as follows: Connecticut, June 30, 1866; New Hampshire, July 7, 1866; Tennessee, July 19, 1866; New Jersey, September 11, 1866 (and the Legislature of the same state passed a resolution in April, 1868, to withdraw consent to it); Oregon, September 19, 1866; Vermont, November 9, 1866; Georgia rejected it November 13, 1866, and ratified it July 21, 1868; North Carolina rejected it December 4, 1866, and ratified it July 4, 1868; South Carolina rejected it December 20, 1866, and ratified it July 9, 1868: New York ratified it January 10, 1867; Ohio, January 11, 1867 (and the Legislature of the same state passed a resolution in January, 1868, to withdraw consent); Illinois, January 15, 1867; West Virginia, January 16, 1867; Kansas, January 18, 1867; Maine, January 19, 1867; Nevada, January 22, 1867; Missouri, January 26, 1867; Indiana, January 29, 1867; Minnesota, February 1, 1867; Rhode Island, February 7, 1867; Wisconsin, February 13, 1867; Pennsylvania, February 13, 1867; Michigan, February 15, 1867; Massachusetts, March 20, 1867; Nebraska, June 15, 1867; Iowa, April 3, 1868; Arkansas, April 6, 1868; Florida, June 9, 1868; Louisiana, July 9, 1868; Alabama, July 13, 1868.

The Fifteenth Amendment was proposed by the Fortieth Congress, on February 26, 1869, and was declared in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated March 30, 1870, to have been ratified by the legislatures of Fifteenth twenty-nine of the thirty-seven states. The dates of the ratiAmendment. fications (arranged in the order of their reception by the State Department) were: North Carolina, March 5, 1869; West Vir!

ginia, March 3, 1869; Massachusetts, March 9-12, 1869; Wisconsin, March 9, 1869; Maine, March 12, 1869; Lcuisiana, March 5, 1869; Michigan, March 8, 1869; South Carolina, March 16, 1869; Pennsylvania, March 26, 1869; Arkansas, March 30, 1869; Connecticut, May 19, 1869; Florida, June 15, 1869; Illinois, March 5, 1869; Indiana, May 13-14, 1869; New York, Maren 17-April 14, 1869 (and the Legislature of the same state passed a resolution January 5, 1870, to withdraw consent); New Hampshire, July 7, 1869; Nevada, March 1. 1869; Vermont, October 21, 1869; Virginia, October 8, 1869; Missouri, January 10, 1870; Mississippi, January 15-17, 1870; Ohio, January 27, 1870; Iowa, February 3, 1870; Kansas, January 18-19, 1870; Minnesota, February 19, 1870; Rhode Island January 18, 1870; Nebraska, February 18, 1870; Texas, February 18, 1870. Georgia also ratified the amendment on February 2, 1870.

THE PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSION LAW.

The Presidential succession is fixed by Chapter 1 of the acts of the 49th Congress, first session. In case of the removal, death, resignation or inability of both the President and Vice-President, then the Secretary of State shall act as Prestdent until the disability of the President or Vice-President is removed or a President is elected. If there be no Secretary of State, then the Secretary of the. Treasury will act, and the remainder of the order of succession is as follows: The Secretary of War, Attorney General, Postmaster General, Secretary of the Navy and Secretary of the Interior. The Acting President must, upon taking office, convene Congress, if not at the time in session, in extraordinary session, giving twenty days' notice. This act applies only to such Cabinet officers as shall have been appointed by the advice and consent of the Senate, and are eligible under the Constitution to the Presidency.

The act of Congress raising the Department of Agriculture to the rank of an executive department and giving its head a seat in the President's Cabinet and the act creating the Department of Commerce and Labor were both passed subsequently to the Presidential succession act. By intention or inadvertence Congress did not extend the provisions of the succession act to these two additional Cabinet officers. There is no warrant for considering the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Commerce and Labor as in the line of succession. But no judicial Interpretation has yet been made of the provisions of the succession law and of the acts creating the eighth and ninth executive departments.

THE MONROE DOCTRINE.

Its Origin and Applications.

The origin of the Monroe Doctrine may be traced back to President Washington's farewell address, in which he declared the cardinal policy of the United States to be one of noninterference with European affairs. Of that attitude the reverse doctrine of European noninterference in American affairs was a natural development. In his farewell address delivered September 17, 1796, Washington said:

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially

Washington on

Abstention for

European Concerns.

foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not legally hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interests, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Through the Napoleonic wars the United States succeeded in keeping clear of European entanglements, but after the formation of the Holy Alliance, with

its designs on the South and Central American republics which have thrown off the yoke of Spain, the situation changed and the peace and interests of this country were threatened through European activities extending all over this continent. President James Monroe, with the tacit approval of Great Britain, formulated the desir of the United States to exclude European interference and end European colonization on the soil of the Americas. In his message to Congress of December 2, 1823, paragraph 7, he thus announced the position which his administration had assumed in negotiations with Russia and other European powers:

At the proposal of the Russian imperial government, made through the minister of the Emperor residing here, a full power and instructions have been transmitted to the Minister of the United States at St. Petersburg, to arrange, by amicable negotiation, the respective rights and interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of this continent. A similar proposal has been made by his imperial majesty to the government of Great Britain, which

President Monroe's
Message of
December 2, 1823.

has likewise been acceded to. The government of the United States has been desirous. by this friendly proceeding, of manifesting the great value which they have invariably "attached to the friendship of the Emperor, and their solicitude to cultivate the best understanding with his government. In the discussions to which this interest has given rise, and in the arrangements by which they may terminate, the occasion has been judged proper for asserting as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.

In a later paragraph of the same message President Monroe further said: We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have. on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.

The efforts of the United States to induce Great Britain to submit to arbitration its claim to territory on the eastern border of Venezuela, claimed

The Olney

Cleveland Exposition.

also by Venezuela, resulted in an extended diplomatic correspondence, in the course of which Secretary Olney, in a letter to Lord Salisbury, expounded the

view of the Monroe Doctrine held by this government. Among other things he said:

The foregoing enumeration not only shows the many instances wherein the rule in question has been affirmed and applied, but also demonstrates that the Venezuelan boundary controversy is in any view far within the scope and spirit of the rule as uniformly accepted and acted upon. A doctrine of American public law thus long and firmly established and supported could not easily be ignored in a proper case for its application, even were the considerations uron which it is founded obscure or questionable. No such objection can be made, however, to the Monroe Doctrine understood and defined in the manner already stated. It rests, on the contrary, upon facts and principles that are both intelligible and incontrovertible. That distance and three thousand miles of intervening ocean make any permanent political union between an European and an American state unnatural and inexpedient, will hardly be denied. But physical and geographical considerations are the least of the objections to such a union. Europe, as Washington observed, has a set of primary interests which are peculiar to herself. America is not interested in them and ought not to be vexed or complicated with them. Each great European power, for instance, to-day maintains enormous armies and fleets in self-defence and for protection against any other European power or powers. What have the states of America to do with that condition of things, or why should they be impoverished by wars or preparations for wars, with whose causes or results they can have no direct concern? If all Europe were to suddenly fly to arms over the fate of Turkey, would it not be preposterous that any American state should find itself inextricably involved in the miseries and burdens of the contest? If it were, it would prove to be a partnership in the cost and losses of the struggle, but not in any ensuing benefits.

What is true of the material, is no less true of what may be termed the moral interests involved. Those pertaining to Europe are peculiar to her and are entirely diverse from those pertaining and peculiar to America. Moral Interests Europe as a whole is monarchical, and, with the single importInvolved. ant exception of the Republic of France, is committed to the monarchical principle. America, on the other hand, is devoted to the exactly opposite principle to the idea that every people has an inalienable right of self-government and in the United States of America has furnished to the world the most conspicuous and conclusive example and proof of the excellence of free Institutions, whether from the standpoint of national greatness or of individual hap

1

piness. It cannot be necessary, however, to enlarge upon this phase of the subjectwhether moral or material interests be considered, it cannot but be universally conceded that those of Europe are irreconcilably diverse from those of America, and that any European control of the latter is necessarily both incongruous and Injurious. If, however, for the reasons stated the forcible intrusion of European powers into American politics is to be deprecated-if, as it is to be deprecated, it should be resisted and prevented-such resistance and prevention must come from the United States. They would come from it, of course, were it made the point of attack. But, if they come at all, they must also come from it when any other American state is attacked, since only the United States has the strength adequate to the exigency.

Is it true, then, concerned with the

that the safety and welfare of the United States are so maintenance of the independence of every American state as against any European power as to justify and require the interposition of the United States whenever that in

Cause of Popular Government Involved. dependence is endangered? The question can be candidlly answered in but one way. The states of AmeriCa, south as well as north, by geographical proximity, by natural sympathy, by similarity of governmental constitutions, are friends and allies, commercially and politically, of the United States. To allow the subjugation of any of them by an European power is, of course, to completely reverse that situation and signifies the loss of all the advantages incident to their natural relations to us. But that is not all.

"The people of the United States have a vital interest in the cause of popular selfgovernment. They have secured the right for themselves and their posterity at the cost of infinite blood and treasure. They have realized and exemplified its beneficent Operation by a career unexampled in point of natural greatness or individual felicity. They believe it to be for the healing of all nations, and that civilization must either advance or retrograde accordingly as its supremacy is extended or curtailed. Imbued with these sentiments, the people of the United States might not impossibly be wrought up to an active propaganda in favor of a cause so highly valued, both for themselves and for mankind. But the age of the Crusades has passed, and they are content with such assertion and defence of the right of popular self-government as their own security and welfare demand. It is in that view more than in any other that they believe it not to be tolerated that the political control of an American state shall be forcibly assumed by an European power.

"The mischiefs apprehended from such a source are none the less real because not Immediately imminent in any specific case, and are none the less to be guarded against because the combination of circumstances that will bring them upon us can not be predicted. The civilized States of Christendom deal with each other on substantially the same principles that regulate the conduct of individuals. The greater its enlightenment, the more surely every state perceives that its permanent interests require it to be governed by the immutable principles of right and justice. Each, nevertheless, is only too dable to succumb to the temptations offered by seeming special opportunities for its own aggrandizement, and each would rashly imperil its own safety were it not to remember that for the regard and respect of other states it must be largely dependent upon its own strength and power. To-day the United States is practically sovereign on this continent, and its flat is law upon the subjects to which it confines its interposition. Why? It is not because of the pure friendship or good will felt for it. It is not simply by reason of its high character as a civilized state, nor because wisdom and justice and equity are the invariable characteristics of the dealings of the United States. It is because in addition to all other grounds, its Infinite resources combined with its isolated position render it master of the situation and practically invulnerable as against any or all other powers.

All the advantages of this superiority are at once imperilled if the principle be admitted that European powers may convert American states into colonies or provinces of their own. The principle would be eagerly National availed of, and every power doing so would immediately acquire a Security base of military operations against us. What one power was perInvolved. mitted to do could not be denied to another, and it is not incon

ceivable that the struggle now going on for the acquisition of Africa might be transferred to South America. If it were, the weaker countries would unquestionably be soon absorbed, while the ultimate result might be the partition of all South America between the various European rowers.

"The disastrous consequences to the United States of such a condition of things are obvious. The loss of prestige, of authority, and of weight in the councils of the family of nations, would be among the least of them. Our only real rivals in peace as well as enemies in war would be found located at our very doors. Thus far in our history we have been spared the burdens and evils of immense standing armies and all the other accessories of huge warlike establishments, and the exemption has largely contributed to our national greatness and wealth, as well as to the happiness of every citizen. But, with the powers of Europe permanently encamped on American soll, the Ideal conditions we have thus far enjoyed cannot be expected to continue. We, too, must be armed to the teeth; we, too, must convert the flower of our male population into soldiers and sallors, and by withdrawing them from the various pursuits of peaceful industry, we, too, must practically annihilate a large share of the productive energy of the nation.

How a greater calamity than this could overtake us it dfficult to see. Nor are our fust apprehensions to be allayed by suggestions of the friendliness of European powers of their good will toward us, of their disposition, should they be our neighbors, to dwell with us in peace and harmony. The people of the United States have learned in the school of experience to what extent the relations of states to each other depend not upon sentiment nor principle, but upon selfish interest. They will not soon forget that, in their hour of distress, all their anxieties and burdens were aggravated by the possibility of demonstrations against their national life on the part of powers with whom they had long maintained the most harmonious relations. They have yet in mind that France seized upon the apparent opportunity of our Civil War to set up a monarchy in the adjoining state of Mexico. They realize that had France and Great Britain held important South American possessions, to work from and to benefit, the temptation to destroy the predominance of the great Republic in this hemisphere by furthering its dismemberment might have been irresistible. From that grave peril they have been saved in the past and may be saved again in the future through the operation of the sure, but silent, force of the doctrine proclaimed by President Monroe. To abandon it, on the other hand, disregarding both the logic of the situation and the facts of our past experience, would be to renounce a policy which has proved both an easy defence against foreign aggression and a prolific source of internal progress and prosperity."

President Roosevelt's
Announcement of 1902.

In connection with the settlement of the claims of various countries against Venezuela, precipitated by the pacific blockade by British, German and Italian vessels of Venezuela's ports, President Roosevelt said in his message to Congress of December 2, 1902: "No independent nation in America need have the slightest fear of aggression from the United States. It behooves each one to maintain order within its own borders and to discharge its just obligations to foreigners. When this is done they can rest assured that, be they strong or weak, they have nothing to dread from outside interference."

THE

SIXTY-FIRST

CONGRESS.

ACTS AND RESOLUTIONS OF THE SECOND SESSION, DECEMBER 6, 1909,

TO JUNE 25, 1910.

The second session of the Sixty-first Congress was one of great legislative activity. Its output of laws has been equalled in recent years only by that of the first session of the Fifty-first Congress, in 1890-'91, and that of the first session of the Sixtieth Congress, in 1905-'06. Among the laws of more than ordinary importance passed were those amending the interstate commerce law of 1906, extending its scope and establishing a new federal courtthe Court of Commerce-to consider cases arising under the interstate commerce law, establishing a system of postal savings banks, providing for the admission of Arizona and New Mexico as states, providing for a public accounting of contributions and expenditures in federal elections, authorizing withdrawals of public lands from settlement for conservation purposes, advancing funds for the prosecution of reclamation enterprises in arid land sections, establishing a federal Bureau of Mines, regulating the "white slave" traffic, and enlarging the activities of the federal tariff board. These and other laws of the session are fully summarized in the pages following.

Congress at the same session authorized the Pinchot-Ballinger investigation, a summary of which is given elsewhere in this volume. The House of Representatives curbed the excessive powers of the Speaker by amending the House rules so as to exclude him from membership on the Committee on Rules, of which he was chairman. For details of the resolution in the House which overthrew "Cannonism" see pages 148-150.

ACTS AND RESOLUTIONS.

An act, approved June 18, 1910, provided that a court of the United States be created known as the Commerce Court, and shall have the jurisdiction now possessed by circuit courts of the United States and the Interstate Commerce judges thereof over all cases of the following kinds: Act of 1910.

First. All cases for the enforcement, otherwise than by adjudication and collection of a forfeiture or penalty or by infliction of criminal punishment, of any order of the Interstate Commerce Commission other than for the payment of money.

Second. Cases brought to enjoin, set aside, annul or suspend in whole or in part any order of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Third. Such cases as by Section 3 of the act entitled "An act to further regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states," approved February, 19, 1903, are authorized to be maintained in a circuit court of the United States.

Fourth. All such mandamus proceedings as under the provisions of Section 20 ог Section 23 of the act entitled "An act to regulate commerce," approved February 4. 1887, as amended, are authorized to be maintained in a circuit court of the United States.

Nothing contained in this act shall be construed as enlarging the jurisdiction now possessed by the circuit courts of the United States or the judges thereof, that is hereby transferred to and vested in the Commerce Court,

The jurisdiction of the Commerce Court over cases of the foregoing classes shall be exclusive; but this act shall not affect the jurisdiction now possessed by any circuit

« PreviousContinue »