The Cleveland Era, A Chronicle of the New Order in Politics | Page 5

went on to say that "some worthy
Republican senators became alarmed. They thought, with a good deal
of reason, that it was better to allow existing evils and conditions to be
cured by time, and the returning conscience and good sense of the
people, rather than have the strife, the result of which must be quite
doubtful, which the enactment and enforcement of this law, however
moderate and just, would inevitably create." The existence of this
attitude of mind made party advocacy of the bill a hopeless undertaking
and, though it was favorably reported on August 7, 1890, no further
action was taken during that session. At the December session it was
taken up for consideration, but after a few days of debate a motion to
lay it aside was carried by the Democrats with the assistance of enough
Republicans to give them a majority. This was the end of force bills,
and during President Cleveland's second term the few remaining
statutes giving authority for federal interference in such matters was
repealed under the lead of Senator Hill of New York. With the passage
of this act, the Republican party leaders for the first time abandoned all
purpose of attempting to secure by national legislation the political
privileges of the negroes. This determination was announced is the
Senate by Mr. Hoar and was assented to by Senator Chandler of New
Hampshire, who had been a zealous champion of federal action.
According to Mr. Hoar, "no Republican has dissented from it."
The facts upon which the force bill was based were so notorious and
the bill itself was so moderate in its character that the general
indifference of the public seemed to betray moral insensibility and
emotional torpor. Much could be said in favor of the bill. This latest
assertion of national authority in federal elections involved no new
principle. In legalistic complexion the proposed measure was of the
same character as previous legislation dealing with this subject,
instances of which are the Act of 1842, requiring the election of
members of the House by districts, and the Act of 1866, regulating the
election of United States Senators. Fraudulent returns in congressional
elections have always been a notorious evil, and the partisan way in

which they are passed upon is still a gross blemish upon the
constitutional system of the United States, and one which is likely
never to be removed until the principle of judicial determination of
electoral contests has been adopted in this country as it has been in
England. The truth of the matter appears to be that the public paid no
attention to the merits of the bill. It was viewed simply as a
continuation of the radical reconstruction policy, the practical results of
which had become intolerable. However great the actual evils of the
situation might be, public opinion held that it would be wiser to leave
them to be dealt with by state authority than by such incompetent
statesmanship as had been common in Washington. Moreover, the man
in the street resented the indifference of politicians to all issues save
those derived from the Civil War.
Viscount Bryce in his "American Commonwealth," the most complete
and penetrating examination of American political conditions written
during this period, gives this account of the party situation:
"The great parties are the Republicans and the Democrats. What are
their principles, their distinctive tenets, their tendencies? Which of
them is for tariff reform, for the further extension of civil service
reform, a spirited foreign policy, for the regulation of railroads and
telegraphs by legislation, for changes in the currency, for any other of
the twenty issues which one hears discussed in this country as seriously
involving its welfare? This is what a European is always asking of
intelligent Republicans and intelligent Democrats. He is always asking
because he never gets an answer. The replies leave him deeper in
perplexity. After some months the truth begins to dawn upon him.
Neither party has, as a party, anything definite to say on these issues;
neither party has any clean-cut principles, any distinctive tenets. Both
have traditions. Both claim to have tendencies. Both certainly have war
cries, organizations, interests, enlisted in their support. But those
interests are in the main the interests of getting or keeping the
patronage of the government. Tenets and policies, points of political
doctrine and points of political practice have all but vanished. They
have not been thrown away, but have been stripped away by time and
the progress of events, fulfilling some policies, blotting out others. All
has been lost, except office or the hope of it."
That such a situation could actually exist in the face of public

disapproval is a demonstration of the defects of Congress as an organ
of national representation. Normally, a representative assembly is a