The United States Since the Civil War Part 15

There are provisions in this bill which are not in line with honest tariff reform.... Besides, there were ... incidents accompanying the pa.s.sage of the bill ... which made every sincere tariff reformer unhappy.... I take my place with the rank and file of the Democratic party ... who refuse to accept the results embodied in this bill as the close of the war, who are not blinded to the fact that the livery of Democratic tariff reform has been stolen and worn in the service of Republican protection, and who have marked the places where the deadly blight of treason has blasted the counsels of the brave in their hour of might.

A few phases of the attempt at tariff reduction indicate the extent to which political decay and especially Democratic demoralization had gone. As it pa.s.sed the House, the Wilson bill left both raw and refined sugar on the free list. This was unsatisfactory to the Louisiana sugar growers, who desired a protective duty on the raw product, and was objected to by the Louisiana senators. On the other hand, the American Sugar Refining Company, usually known as the "Sugar Trust," desired free raw materials but sought protective duties on refined sugar. In the Senate, a duty was placed on raw sugar, partly for revenue and partly to satisfy the Louisiana senators. On refined sugar, rates were fixed which were eminently satisfactory to the Trust. Rumors at once began to be spread broadcast over the country that the sugar interests had manipulated the Senate. The people were the more ready to believe charges of this sort because of experience with previous tariff legislation and because the Sugar Trust had been one of the earliest and most feared of the monopolies which had already caused so much uneasiness. A Senate committee was appointed, composed of two Democrats, two Republicans and a Populist, to investigate these and other rumors. Their report, which was agreed to by all the members, made public a depressing story. It appeared that one lobbyist had offered large sums of money for votes against the tariff bill on account of the income tax provision. Henry O. Havermeyer, president of the American Sugar Refining Company, testified that the company was in the habit of contributing to the campaign funds of one political party or the other in the states, depending on which party was in the ascendancy; that these contributions were carried on the books as expense; and that they were given because the party in power "could give us the protection we should have." Further, one or more officers of the company were in Washington during the entire time when the tariff act was pending in the Senate and had conferred with senators and committees. Senator Quay testified that he had bought and sold sugar stocks while the Senate was engaged in fixing the schedules and added: "I do not feel that there is anything in my connection with the Senate to interfere with my buying or selling the stock when I please; and I propose to do so." Finally the committee summarized the results of its investigation, taking the occasion to

strongly deprecate the importunity and pressure to which Congress and its members are subjected by the representatives of great industrial combinations, whose enormous wealth tends to suggest undue influence, and to create in the public mind a demoralizing belief in the existence of corrupt practices.

Yet one more drop remained to fill the cup of Democratic humiliation to overflowing. The const.i.tutionality of the income tax had been a.s.sumed to have been settled by previous decisions of the Supreme Court, especially that in the case Springer _v._ United States, which had been decided in 1880, and in which the Court had upheld the law. The new tax was brought before the Court in 1894, in Pollock _v._ Farmers' Loan and Trust Company. The argument against the tax was pressed with great vigor, not merely on const.i.tutional grounds, but for evident social and economic reasons. Important financial interests engaged powerful legal talent and it became clear that the question to be settled was as much a cla.s.s and sectional controversy as a const.i.tutional problem. Counsel urged the Court that the tax scattered to the winds the fundamental principles of the rights of private property. Justice Field, deciding against the tax, declared it an "a.s.sault upon capital" and a step toward a war of the poor against the rich. There was fear among some that the exemption of the smaller incomes might result in placing the entire burden of taxation on the wealthy. Justice Field, for example, felt that taxing persons whose income was $4,000 and exempting those whose income was less than that amount was like taxing Protestants, as a cla.s.s, at one rate and Catholics at another. The sectional aspects of the controversy were brought out in objections that the bulk of the tax would fall on the Northeast. The most important point involved was the meaning of the word "direct" as used in the Const.i.tution in the phrase "direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States ... according to their respective Numbers." If an income tax is a direct tax, it must be apportioned among the states according to population. Unhappily the framers of the Const.i.tution were not clear as to what they meant by the word direct, and specifically they could not have told whether an income tax was direct or not, because no such tax existed in England or America at that time. Hence the Supreme Court was placed in the awkward position of defining a word which the framers themselves could not define, although the uniform practice hitherto had been to regard the income tax as indirect and therefore const.i.tutional, even if not apportioned according to population.

The Pollock case was heard twice. The result of the first trial was inconclusive and on the central point the Court divided four to four.

After a rehearing, Justice Jackson, who had been ill and not present at the first trial, gave his vote in favor of const.i.tutionality, but in the meantime another justice had changed his opinion and voted against it. By the narrow margin of five to four, then, and under such circ.u.mstances, the income tax provision of the Wilson-Gorman act was declared null and void. Probably no decision since the Dred Scott case, with the single exception of the Legal Tender cases, has put the Supreme Court in so unfortunate a light. Certainly in none has it seemed more swayed by cla.s.s prejudice, and so insecure and vacillating in its opinion.

Before the question regarding the const.i.tutionality of the income tax was settled, the Democrats reaped the political results of the Wilson-Gorman tariff act. The law went into force on August 27, 1894; the congressional elections came in November. The Democrats were almost utterly swept out of the House, except for those from the southern states, their number being reduced from 235 to 105. Reed was replaced in the speaker's chair; tariff reform had turned out to be indistinguishable from protection; and the Democracy, after its only opportunity since 1861 to try its hand at government, was demoralized, discredited, and in opposition again.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

The election of 1892 is described in the standard histories of the period, and especially well in Peck.

The rise and growth of the Populist movement resulted in a considerable literature of which the following are best: S.J. Buck, _The Agrarian Crusade_ (1920), is founded on wide knowledge of the subject and contains bibliography; F.J. Turner in _The Atlantic Monthly_ (Sept., 1896), gives a brief but keen account; other articles in periodicals are F.E. Haynes, in _Quarterly Journal of Economics_, X, 269, W.F.

Mappin, in _Political Science Quarterly_, IV, 433, and F.B. Tracy, in _Forum_, XVI, 240; F.E. Haynes, _Third Party Movements_ (1916), is detailed; M.S. Wildman, _Money Inflation in the United States_ (1905), presents the psychological and economic basis of inflation; J.A.

Woodburn, _Political Parties and Party Problems_ (1914); F.L. Paxson, _New Nation_ (1915).

Cleveland's administration is well discussed by D.R. Dewey, _National Problems_ (1907), and by H.T. Peck, who also presents an unusual a.n.a.lysis of Cleveland in _The Personal Equation_ (1898). The income tax is best handled by E.R.A. Seligman, _The Income Tax_ (1914).

Cleveland's own account of the chief difficulties of the administration are in his _Presidential Problems_.

[1] Blaine died on Jan. 27, 1893.

[2] Below, p. 320, for an account of the strike as an industrial dispute.

[3] Below, Chaps. XIII, XIV, XV.

[4] Above, Chap. VIII.

[5] The sweeping reform order of Cleveland late in his second term ill.u.s.trated the most common and effective method of making advance.

Late in his administration the President adds to the cla.s.sified service; his successor withdraws part of the additions, but more than makes up at the end of his term,--a sort of two steps forward and one backward process.

[6] Cleveland's second cabinet was composed of the following: W.Q.

Gresham, Ill., Secretary of State; J.G. Carlisle, Ky., Secretary of the Treasury; D.S. Lamont, N.Y., Secretary of War; R. Olney, Ma.s.s., Attorney-General; W.S. Bissell, N.Y., Postmaster-General; H.A. Herbert, Ala., Secretary of the Navy; Hoke Smith, Ga., Secretary of the Interior; J.S. Morton, Neb., Secretary of Agriculture.

[7] Below, pp. 336-340.

CHAPTER XIII

THE TREND OF DIPLOMACY

After the international issues arising from the Civil War were settled, and before foreign relations began to become more important late in the nineties, our diplomatic history showed the same lack of definiteness and continuity that stamped the history of politics during the same years. Eleven different men held the post of Secretary of State during the thirty-four years from 1865 to 1898, one of them, Blaine, serving at two separate times. The political situation in Washington changed frequently, few men of outstanding capacity as diplomatists were in the cabinets, and most of the problems which arose were not such as would excite the interest of great international minds. That any degree of unity in our foreign relations was attained is due in part to the continuous service of such men as A.A. Adee, who was connected with the state department from 1878, and Professor John Ba.s.sett Moore, long in the department and frequently available as a counselor.[1]

Even before the Civil War, Americans had been interested in the affairs of the nations whose sh.o.r.es were touched by the Pacific Ocean.

Missionaries and traders had long visited China and j.a.pan. During the years when the transcontinental railroads were built, as has been seen, the construction companies looked to China for a labor supply, and there followed a stream of Chinese immigrants who were the cause of a difficult international problem. Our relations with j.a.pan were extremely friendly. Until the middle of the nineteenth century the j.a.panese had been almost completely cut off from the remainder of the world, desiring neither to give to the rest of humanity nor to take from them. In 1854 Commodore Matthew C. Perry of the United States Navy had succeeded in obtaining permission for American ships to take coal and provisions at two j.a.panese ports. Townsend Harris shortly afterwards had been appointed consul-general to j.a.pan and his knowledge of the East and his tactful diplomacy had procured increased trade rights and other privileges. In 1863 a j.a.panese prince had sought to close the strait of Shimonoseki which connects the inland sea of j.a.pan with the outside ocean. American, French and Dutch vessels had been fired upon, and eventually an international expedition had been sent to open the strait by force. Seventeen ships of war had quickly brought the prince to terms. An indemnity had been demanded, of which the United States had received a share. The fund remained in the treasury untouched until 1883 when it was returned to j.a.pan. The latter received the refund as "a strong manifestation of that spirit of justice and equity which has always animated the United States in its relations with j.a.pan."

The purchase of Alaska in 1867, stretched a long, curved finger out towards the Asiatic coast, but there was little interest in the new acquisition and no knowledge of its size or resources.[2]

The first tangible and permanent indication that the United States might extend its interests into the sphere of the Pacific Ocean appeared as early as 1872, when an arrangement with a Samoan chief gave us the right to use the harbor of Pagopago on the island of Tutuila.

Tutuila is far from American sh.o.r.es, being below the equator on the under side of the world, but the harbor of Pagopago is an unusually good one and its relation to the extension of American commerce in the South Pacific was readily seen. Not long afterward, similar trading privileges were granted to Germany and Great Britain. Conditions in the islands had by no means been peaceful even before the advent of the foreigners with their intrigues and jealousies, and in 1885 the Germans, taking advantage of a native rebellion, hauled down the Samoan flag on the government building in Apia and seemed about to take control. In the following year, at the request of the Samoan king, the American consul Greenebaum proclaimed a protectorate and hoisted the United States flag. The act was unauthorized and was disavowed at once by the government at Washington. In the hope of establishing order in the islands, Bayard, Secretary of State in President Cleveland's first administration, suggested a triple conference of Germany, Great Britain and the United States in Washington. During a recess in the conference a native rebellion overturned the Samoan government and Germany a.s.sumed virtual control. While civil war raged among native factions, the Germans landed armed forces for the protection of their interests. The American and British governments, fearful of danger to their rights, already had war vessels in the harbor of Apia and armed conflict seemed almost inevitable when a sudden hurricane on March 16, 1889, destroyed all the vessels except one. The _Calliope_, (English), steamed out to sea in the teeth of the great storm and escaped in safety. In the face of such a catastrophe all smaller ills were forgotten and peace reigned for the moment in Samoa.

Meanwhile, just as Cleveland was retiring from office for the first time, another conference of the three powers was arranged which provided a somewhat complicated triple protectorate. After a few years of quiet, another native insurrection called attention to the islands.

Cleveland was again in the presidential chair, and in a message to Congress he expressed his belief that the United States had made a mistake in departing from its century-old policy of avoiding entangling alliances with foreign powers. A year later he returned to the subject more earnestly than ever. A report from the Secretary of State presented the history of our Samoan relations and ventured a judgment that the only fruits which had fallen to the United States were expense, responsibility and entanglement. The President thereupon invited an expression of opinion from Congress on the advisability of withdrawing from our engagements with the other powers. For the time nothing came of Cleveland's recommendation, but the continuance of native quarrels later necessitated another commission to the islands.

The American member reported that the harbor of Apia was full of war vessels and the region about covered with armed men, but that "not the sail or smoke of a single vessel of commerce was to be seen there or about the coasts of these beautiful islands." In 1899, the triple protectorate was abandoned, as it had complicated the task of governing the islands. The United States received Tutuila with the harbor of Pagopago, Germany took the remainder of the group, and England retired altogether. The trend of Samoan relations was significant: our connection with the islands began with the desire to possess a coaling station; the possession first resulted in entanglements with other nations, and later in the question whether we ought not to withdraw; and eventually we withdrew from some of the responsibilities, but not from all. Despite its traditional policy of not contracting entangling alliances, the United States was in the Pacific to stay.

When Cleveland came into power the first time, he found a long-standing disagreement with Canada over the fisheries of the northeastern coast.

An arrangement which had resulted from the Treaty of Washington in 1871 came to an end in 1885, and the rights of American fishermen in Canadian waters then rested upon a treaty of 1818. This treaty was inadequate owing to various changes which had taken place during the nearly seventy years that had elapsed since it was drawn up. Several difficulties lay in the way of the arrangement of a new treaty, an important one being the readiness of the Republican Senate to embarra.s.s the President and thus discredit his administration. Matters came to a critical point in 1886 when Canadian officials seized two American vessels engaged in deep-sea fishing. Cleveland then arranged a treaty which provided for reciprocal favors, and when the Senate withheld its a.s.sent the administration made a temporary agreement, (_modus vivendi_), under which American ships were allowed to purchase bait and supplies and to use Canadian bays and harbors by paying a license fee.[3]

The peculiar geographical configuration of Alaska was, meanwhile, bringing the United States into another diplomatic controversy. An arm or peninsula of the possession extends far out into the Pacific and is continued by the Aleutian Islands, which resemble a series of stepping-stones reaching toward Siberia.[4] The Bering Sea is almost enclosed by Alaska and the Islands. Within the Sea and particularly on the islands of St. Paul and St. George in the Pribilof group, large numbers of seals gathered during the spring and summer to rear their young. In the autumn the herds migrated to the south, pa.s.sing out through the narrow straits between the members of the Aleutian group, and were particularly open to attack at these points. As early as 1870 the United States government leased the privilege of hunting fur seals on St. Paul and St. George to the Alaska Commercial Company, but the business was so attractive that vessels came to the Aleutian straits from many parts of the Pacific, and it looked as if the United States must choose between the annihilation of the herds and the adoption of some means for protecting them. The revenue service thereupon began the seizure in 1886 of British sealing vessels, taking three in that year and six during the next. The British government protested against the seizures on the ground that they had taken place more than three miles from sh.o.r.e--three miles being the limit to the jurisdiction of any nation, according to international law. The Alaskan Court which upheld the seizures justified itself by the claim that the whole Bering Sea was part of the territory of Alaska and thus was comparable to a harbor or closed sea (_mare clausum_), but Secretary Blaine disavowed this contention. The United States then requested the governments of several European countries, together with j.a.pan, to cooperate for the better protection of the fisheries, but no results were reached.

Continuance of the seizures in 1889 brought renewed protests from Lord Salisbury, who was in charge of foreign affairs. Blaine retorted that the destruction of the herds was _contra bonos mores_ and that it was no more defensible even outside the three mile limit than destructive fishing on the banks of Newfoundland by the explosion of dynamite would be. Lord Salisbury replied that fur seals were wild animals, _ferae naturae_, and not the property of any individual until captured. An extended diplomatic correspondence ensued, which resulted in a treaty of arbitration in 1892.[5]

A tribunal of seven arbitrators was established, two appointed by the Queen of England, two by the President, and one each by the rulers of France, Italy and Sweden and Norway, the last two being under one sovereign at that time. Several questions were submitted to the tribunal. What exclusive rights does the United States have in the Bering Sea? What right of protection or property does the United States have in the seals frequenting the islands in the Sea? If the United States has no exclusive rights over the seals, what steps ought to be taken to protect them? Great Britain also presented to the arbitrators the question whether the seizures of seal-hunting ships had been made under the authority of the government of the United States.

The decisions were uniformly against the American contention. It was decided that our jurisdiction in the Bering Sea did not extend beyond the three mile limit and that therefore the United States had no right of protection or property in the seals. A set of regulations for the protection of the herds was also drawn up. Another negotiation resulted in the payment of $473,000 damages by the United States for the illegal seizures of British sealers.[6]

Relations with the Latin American countries south of the Mexican border had been unstable since the Mexican War, an unhappy controversy that left an ineradicable prejudice against us. John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay had hoped for a friendly union of the nations of North and South America, led by the United States, but this ideal had turned out to have no more substance than a vision. Moreover, the increasing trade activity of Great Britain and later of Germany had made a commercial bond of connection between South America and Europe which was, perhaps, stronger than that which the United States had established. Yet some progress was made. Disputes between European governments and the governments of Latin American countries were frequently referred to the United States for arbitration. An old claim of some British subjects, for example, against Colombia was submitted for settlement in 1872 to commissioners of whom the United States minister at Bogota was the most important. The problem was studied with great care and the award was satisfactory to both sides. In 1876 a territorial dispute between Argentina and Paraguay was referred to the President of the United States. In the case of a boundary controversy between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, President Cleveland appointed an arbitrator; Argentina and Brazil presented a similar problem which received the attention of Presidents Harrison and Cleveland.

It fell to James. G. Blaine to revive the idea of a Pan-American conference which had been first conceived by Adams and Clay. As a diplomat, Blaine was possessed of outstanding patriotism and enthusiastic imagination, even if not of vast technical capacity or of an international mind. As Secretary of State under President Garfield in 1881 he invited the Latin American countries to share with the United States in a conference for the discussion of arbitration. The early death of Garfield and the ensuing change in the state department resulted in the abandonment of the project for the time being. Blaine, however, and other interested persons continued to press the plan and in 1888 Congress authorized the President to invite the governments of the Latin American countries to send delegates to a conference to be held in Washington in the following year. By that time President Harrison was in power. Blaine was again Secretary of State and was chosen president of the conference. Among the subjects for discussion were the preservation of peace, the creation of a customs union, uniform systems of weights, measures and coinage, and the promotion of frequent inter-communication among the American states. Little was accomplished, beyond a few recommendations, except the establishment of the International Bureau of American Republics. This was to have no governmental power, but was to be supported by the various nations concerned and was to collect and disseminate information about their laws, products and customs. The Bureau has become permanent under the name Pan American Union and is a factor in the preservation of friendly relations among the American republics. The reciprocity measure which Blaine pressed upon Congress during the pendency of the McKinley tariff bill was designed partly to further Pan-American intercourse.

In the case of a disagreement with Chile, Blaine was less successful. A revolution against the Chilean President, Balmaceda, resulted in the triumph of the insurgents in 1891. The American minister to Chile was Patrick Egan, an Irish agitator who sympathized with President Balmaceda against the revolutionists and who was _persona non grata_ to the strong English and German colonies there. While Chilean affairs were in this strained condition, the revolutionists sent a vessel, the _Itata_, to San Diego in California for military supplies, and American authorities seized it for violating the neutrality laws. While the vessel was in the hands of our officers, the Chileans took control of it and made their escape. The cruiser _Charleston_ was sent in pursuit and thereupon the revolutionists surrendered the _Itata_. Not long afterward, however, a United States Court decided that the pursuit had been without justification under international law and ordered the release of the _Itata_. The result was that the United States seemed to have been over-ready to take sides against the revolutionists, and the latter became increasingly hostile to Americans.

Relations finally broke under the strain of a street quarrel in the city of Valparaiso in the fall of 1891. A number of sailors from the United States ship _Baltimore_ were on sh.o.r.e leave and fell in with some Chilean sailors in a saloon. A quarrel resulted--just how it originated and just who was the aggressor could not be determined--but at any rate the Americans were outnumbered and one was killed. The administration pressed the case with vigor, declining to look upon the incident as a sailors' brawl and considering it a hostile attack upon the wearers of an American uniform. For a time the outbreak of war was considered likely, but eventually Chile yielded, apologized for its acts and made a financial return for the victims of the riot. Later students of Chilean relations have not praised Egan as minister or Blaine's conduct of the negotiations, but it is fair to note that the Chileans were prejudiced against the American Secretary of State because of an earlier controversy in which he had sided against them, and that the affair was complicated by the presence of powerful European colonies and by the pa.s.sions which the revolution had aroused.

Blaine was compelled to face another embarra.s.sing situation in dealing with Italy in 1891-1892. In October, 1890, the chief of police of New Orleans, D.C. Hennessy, had been murdered and circ.u.mstances indicated that the deed had been committed by members of an Italian secret society called the Mafia. A number of Italians were arrested, of whom three were acquitted, five were held for trial and three were to be tried a second time. One morning a mob of citizens, believing that there had been a miscarriage of justice, seized the eleven and killed all of them. The Italian government immediately demanded protection for Italians in New Orleans, as well as punishment of the persons concerned in the attack, and later somewhat impatiently demanded federal a.s.surance that the guilty parties would be brought to trial and an acknowledgment that an indemnity was due to the relatives of the victims of the mob. Failing to obtain these guarantees, the Italian government withdrew its minister. When a grand jury in New Orleans investigated the affair it excused the partic.i.p.ants and none of them was brought to trial.

The government at Washington was hampered by the fact that judicial action in such a case lies with the individual state under our form of government, whereas diplomatic action is of course entirely federal. If the states are tardy or derelict in action, the national government is almost helpless. President Harrison urged Congress to make offenses against the treaty rights of foreigners cognizable in the federal courts, but this was never done. Diplomatic activity, however, brought better results, and an expression of regret on the part of the United States, together with the payment of an indemnity of $24,000 closed the incident.

Among the many troublesome questions that faced President Cleveland when he entered upon the Presidency in 1893 for the second time, the status of the Hawaiian Islands was important. Since the development of the Pacific Coast of the United States in the forties and fifties, there had been a growing trade between the islands and this country.

Reciprocity and even annexation had been projected. In 1875 a reciprocity arrangement was consummated, a part of which was a stipulation that none of the territory of Hawaii should be leased or disposed of to any other power. In this way a suggestion was made of ultimate annexation. Moreover the commercial results of the treaty were such as to make a friendly connection with the United States a matter of moment to Hawaii. The value of Hawaiian exports had increased, government revenues enlarged, and many public improvements had been made. In 1884 the grant of Pearl Harbor to the United States as a naval station made still another bond of connection between the islands and their big neighbor.

The King of Hawaii during this period of prosperity was Kalakaua.

During a visit to the United States, and later during a tour of the world he was royally received, whereupon he returned to his island kingdom with expanded theories of the position which a king should occupy. Unhappily he dwelt more on the pleasures which a king might enjoy than upon the obligations of a ruler to his people. At his death in 1891 Princess Liliuokalani became Queen and at once gave evidence of a disposition to rule autocratically. Because of her attempts to revise the Hawaiian system of government so as to increase the power of the crown, the more influential citizens a.s.sembled, appointed a committee of public safety and organized for resistance. On January 17, 1893, the revolutionary elements gathered, proclaimed the end of the monarchical regime and established a provisional government under the leadership of Judge S.B. Dole. The new authorities immediately proposed annexation to the United States and a treaty was promptly drawn up in accord with President Harrison's wishes, and presented to the Senate. At this point the Harrison administration ended and Cleveland became President.

Cleveland immediately withdrew the treaty for examination and sent James H. Blount to the islands to investigate the relation of American officials to the recent revolution. The appointment of Blount was made without the advice and consent of the Senate and was denounced by the President's enemies, although such special missions have been more or less common since the beginning of our history.[7] Blount reported that the United States minister to Hawaii, J.L. Stevens, had for some time been favorably disposed to a revolution in the islands and had written almost a year before that event asking how far he and the naval commander might deviate from established international rules in the contingency of a rebellion. "The Hawaiian pear is now fully ripe,"

Stevens had written to the State Department, early in 1893, "and this is the golden hour for the United States to pluck it." Blount also informed the President that the monarchy had been overturned with the active aid of Stevens and through the intimidation caused by the presence of an armed naval force of the United States.

The blunt language which Cleveland employed in his message to Congress on the subject, left no doubt about his opinion of the transaction.

"The control of both sides of a bargain acquired in such a manner is called by a familiar and unpleasant name when found in private transactions." Believing that an injustice had been done and that the only honorable course was to undo the wrong, he sent A.S. Willis as successor to Stevens to express the President's regret and to attempt to make amends. One of the conditions however which President Cleveland placed upon the restoration of the Queen was a promise of amnesty to all who had shared in the revolution. The Queen was at first unwilling to bind herself and when she later agreed, a new obstacle appeared in the refusal of the provisional government to surrender its authority.

Indeed it began to appear that the President's sense of justice was forcing him to attempt the impossible. The provisional government had already been recognized by the United States and by other powers, the deposition of the Queen was a _fait accompli_ and her restoration partook of the nature of turning back the clock. Moreover, force would have to be used to supplant the revolutionary authorities,--a task for which Americans had no desire. The President, in fact, had exhausted his powers and now referred the whole affair to Congress. The House condemned Stevens for a.s.sisting in the overturn of the monarchy and went on record as opposed to either annexation or an American protectorate. Sentiment was less nearly uniform in the upper chamber.