Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

vestigation some five years earlier, but nothing had como of it. Tilden had made extensive inquiries and was able to present facts to the Legislature showing that vast sums had been fraudulently expended and wasted on the work of repairs. Ostensibly, contracts for this work were given out to the lowest bidder; but these lowest bidders so arranged their bids that while some materials were contracted for at ridiculously low figures, others were put in at monstrously high prices; the contracts were then, by collusion with the authorities, altered so as to require much of the expensive and little or none of the cheap material, this altered contract being by the conspirators not regarded as a new one (which it was, in fact), and, therefore, not again offered subject to competition. In his message the Governor showed that on ten contracts, ostensibly let for about $425,000, there had been paid about $1,560,000. He pointed out that while the books had shown an apparent surplus of canal revenues over expenditures of about $5,800,000 for a period of five years, there had actually been a deficiency of $5,100,000. His vigorous measures succeeded in breaking up the Ring and lead to the passage of laws securing the State from that quarter in the future.

Canal Scrip Fraud.-In 1839 the Canal Trustees of the State of Illinois issued about $390,000 of Canal Scrip, payable in ninety days. This had practically all been presented for redemption before 1843, but, as subsequently appeared, the certificates had simply been laid away and not canceled. In 1859 some of the scrip appeared in circulation, and a legislative inquiry revealed the fact that $223,182.66 of these redeemed but uncanceled certificates had been re-issued by Governor Joel A. Matteson. As soon as his name was connected with the matter, Matteson offered to make good any loss to the State, while at the same time maintaining that he had Acquired the scrip by investment. The legislative committee was not disposed to press the matter, and although the Grand Jury of Sangamon County had voted to indict him, the vote was reconsidered and the matter dropped. The State was reimbursed for all but a small part of its loss.

Capital of the United States. The first national capital was New York City. The agricultural members of Congress desired a change, because they feared the influence of surrounding commercial interests on legistion. Philadelphia was objected to by the Southern members, because the Quakers were urging the abolition of slavery. A compromise was finally made by which the capital was to be Philadelphia for ten years, and after that, a district ceded by Naryland and Virginia to the National Government. Accordingly the seat of government was removed to Philadelphia in 1790. In the meantime Maryland, in 1788, and Virginia, in 1789, had ceded a district ten miles square lying on both sides of the Potomac, which was first known as the Federal City and afterward, in 1791, obtained the name of the Territory of Columbia, the city being known as the City of Washington. On November 17, 1800, the Government was removed to Washington, where it has since remained. The city at that time was a curious combination of huts and half-finished buildings of greater pretension, with a small population. (See District of Columbia.)

Carlisle, John Griffin, was born in Kentucky, September 5, 1835. He is a lawyer by profession. He served in the State Legislature, both in the House and the Senate, from 1859 to 1861, and from 1869 to 1871. • In the latter year he was elected Lieutenant-Governor. IIe was elected to the Forty-fifth, Forty-sixth, Fortyseventh, Forty-eighth, Forty-ninth and Fiftieth Congresses, the last time after a contest. In 1883 he was elected Speaker, and was re-elected to that office in the Forty-ninth and Fiftieth Congresses. He is a Democrat.

Carpet-Baggers.--A name given by the Southern whites to the Northern whites that, after the Civil War, came South and took an active part in politics. Many held Federal offices and others came for the purpose of qualifying for elective offices by means of a short resi dence. The name arose from the fact that few of them intended to settle permanently, but carried (it was said) their effects in a carpet-bag. It was they that organized and largely controlled the negro vote.

[ocr errors]

Cartel is an agreement between belligerent States relating to the methods of carrying on the war, as for the exchange of prisoners, declaring certain ground neutral, repressing marauders, carrying on postal communication, or the like. A cartel-ship (sometimes simply called a cartel) is one used in exchanging prisoners or carrying communications to the enemy. Cartels for the exchange of prisoners are perhaps the most common. These are usually concluded by the two governments, but generals may treat with each other directly. An exchange of prisoners is beneficial to each side, which thereby recovers its own men and is saved the trouble and expense of guarding and feeding its captives. In an exchange, the rank of the prisoners is taken into account, and so far as possible, man is exchanged for man of equal rank.

Cass, Lewis, was born at Exeter, New Hampshire, October 9, 1782, and died at Detroit, June 17, 1866. He was a lawyer. During the War of 1812 he rose to the rank of Brigadier-General; from 1813 to 1831 he was Governor of Michigan Territory; under Jackson he was Secretary of War; under Buchanan, Secretary of State; from 1845 to 1857 he was United States Senator from Michigan. In 1848 he was a candidate for President. In politics he was a Democrat.

Cast an Anchor to the Windward.—This phrase occurs in one of the Mulligan Letters (which see).

Casus Belli is a Latin phrase meaning a reason for war. Nations usually seek to justify a war by announcing a cause for it, but the pretexts are various, and international law has not yet decided which shall be considered as sufficient justifications. Caucus.-

This word is variously derived, but it is most probably a corruption of the word caulkers, a term derisively applied to those that attended political meetings in Boston at the time of ill-feeling between the citizens and the British troops before the Revolution. Laborers in ship-yards and seafaring men are said to have been numerous at these meetings, hence the term. The term has now come to be applied to any political

meeting held for the purpose of determining the will of the majority of the party for the purpose of united action in the face of opponents. In the earlier years of the government, presidential nominations were made by a caucus of the Congressmen of a party. (See Congressional Caucus.) In 1824 this system came to an end. In 1828 nominations were made by the Legislatures of the States, and thereafter by the present system of nominating conventions. A legislative Caucus is the meeting of the members of a party (usually the party in the majority) for the purpose of united action in the legislative chamber.* Divisions in the party while in the latter might cause the adoption of a measure advocated by the minority of the dominant party with whom the minority party might join. The legislative caucus began to make its appearance in national politics about the year 1805. It has transferred the contest of important matters from the legislative hall to the caucus meeting, and has perverted the intention of the Constitution by practically placing the control of the legislative branch into the hands of the majority of the majority, which may, in fact, be a minority. All elections held by legislative bodies, as of the Speaker in the House of Representatives, or of a United States Senator in a State Legislature, are determined in that manner, the election in the legislative chamber being merely the formal registering of the caucus decisions.

The local meetings held by the members of a party for the purpose of naming local candidates, or delegates to larger political assemblies, were formerly called caucuses, and are still so called in some portions of the country. The name of Primary Elections is, however, more generally applied to them, and under that head they are treated.

Caucus, The Congressional.-In the first three presidential elections the electors were untrammeled by pledges, except such as may have been given by individual members. In the election for the fourth term in 1800 and thereafter through the election of 1824, the

electors were the mere puppets of the Congressional Caucus. The Congressional Caucus was a caucus of the members of Congress of either political party, and by it were determined the candidates for whom the electors of that party should vote. To clear themselves of the charge of arrogating to themselves powers not intended to be exercised by them, the caucus on several occasions declared that the members acted only in their individual character as citizens.” In 1820 the Republican caucus met but took no action; the Federal party was all but dead. In 1824 less than one-fourth of the members attended the Republican caucus, and in this year the system came to an end. At the next election the State Legislatures nominated the candidates, and in 1832 the present system of nominating conventions composed of members more or less directly selected by the people came into use.

Censures of the President by Congress.—Two resolutions of censure on the President have been passed, once by the Senate and once by the House, on occasions where the majority passing these resolutions was not sufficiently large either to pass measures over the President's veto or to impeach him. The first was passed by the Senate March 28, 1834, censuring President Jackson for a violation of the Constitution and laws in the removal of government deposits from the United States Bank. (See Removal of Government Deposits, &c.) The President protested against this resolution as a charge to answer which no opportunity could be afforded him. The Senate refused to receive the protest. Finally, January 16, 1837, after unsuccessful attempts for three years the resolution of censure was expunged from the journal of the Senate. The second occasion was in a report from the committee to which President Tyler's message vetoing the Tariff Bill of 1842 had been referred. The report censured the President for improper use of the veto. Tyler protested against this as Jackson had done before him, but he had as a member of the Senate voted against the reception of Jackson's protest, and in answer to his protest the

« ForrigeFortsett »