Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

House sent him a copy of the Senate resolution on the former occasion.

Census. (See Population.)

Centralization. (See Construction of the Constitution.)

Center of Population. The following table gives approximately the center of population of the United States at each census, showing the westward tendency of our national development, which has been due partly to annexations of territory and partly to fresh settlers:

WESTWARD
MOVEMENT.

APPROXIMATE LOCATION.

...50

.39 miles.

1850....

55 miles.

.56 miles. ..46 miles.

YEARS.
1790....23 miles East of Baltimore
1800....18 miles West of Baltimore

41 miles. 1810.... 40 miles West Northwest of Washington.. .36 miles. 1820....16 miles North of Woodstock..

0 miles. 1830....19 miles West Southwest of Moorefield.. 1840 ... 16 miles South of Clarksburg...

55 miles. 23 miles Southeast of Parkersburg.. 1860....20 miles South of Chillicothe..

.81 miles. 1870....48 miles East by North of Cincinnati.

....42 miles. 1880. 8 miles West by South of Cincinnati. 1890....20 miles East of Columbus, Ind....

Channels, Various, In Which I know I Can be Useful. (See I Do Not Feel that I Shall Prove a Deadhead, etc.)

Chase, Salmon Portland, was born at Cornish, New Hampshire, January 13, 1808, and died May 17, 1873. He graduated at Dartmouth, and was admitted to the bar in Ohio. Although a Democrat, he acted with the Liberty party and the Free-Soil party. From 1849 to 1855 he was United States Senator from Ohio, being elected by a coalition of Democrats and FreeSoilers. From 1856 to 1860 he was Governor of Ohio, being elected as a Republican. From 1861 to 1864 he was Secretary of the Treasury during the most trying time in our history. From 1864 to 1873 he was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. In 1868 his refusal to mould the expression of his views on questions connected with the suffrage cost him the presidential nomination at the hands of the Democratic party.

Checks and Balances.--This phrase refers to those features of our system of national government whereby each branch of the government acts as a check or bal

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

ance on the others in securing laws desired by the people and in accordance with the Constitution, and in securing their proper enforcement. Thus the Senate which, by reason of the longer_terms of its members, and their election by the State Legislatures and not by the people directly, is not so likely to be influenced by the popular whims and prejudices of the moment as the House of Representatives, acts as a check on attempts at hasty or demagogic action by the latter. The House, reflecting more immediately the popular will, is a check on legislation which might be proposed by the Senate in defiance of the principles of a government according to the wishes of a majority of the people. The veto power of the President is a check on hasty or improper action by Congress, but cannot prevent the passage of laws for which there is an overwhelming demand, as shown by a two-thirds majority of both houses; and should the President fail to execute the laws or otherwise misconduct the duties of his office, he is liable to impeachment. Lastly, the Supreme Court of the United States is the final arbiter of the constitutionality of enacted laws, which cannot be enforced should it decide that these violate the Constitution.

Cheeseparing is a word used to characterize the kind of national economy advocated by some public men who would effect a saving in places where justice and foresight demand liberality, while, moreover, the amount so saved would be insignificant. Examples of this are opposition to steps for increasing the salaries of judges in cities, or reductions of the salaries of foreign ministers who must in their persons represent the government.

Cherokee Case.—The Indian tribes known as the “Creeks” and the “ Cherokees” possessed large tracts of land in what are now the States of Georgia and North Carolina, and the territory to the west of them. From time to time treaties had been made with these Indians by which much of this land had been ceded to the United States. Among these were the Hopewell treaty of 1785, and the Holston treaty of 1791, the first of these instruments had, among other things, recognized

the Cherokees as a nation possessing its own laws and all the other attributes of nationality; the second had guaranteed to them all lands not thereby ceded. When Georgia in 1802 ceded her western territory to the United States, the latter agreed to extinguish Indian titles to lands in the State proper as soon as it could peaceably and reasonably be done, but the Cherokees could not be induced to surrender their lands. The State therefore claimed the right to extend its own laws over all its territory, and passed acts depriving the Cherokees of their courts and other machinery of government; these were followed by acts dividing the Cherokee land into counties, and after allotting 160 acres to each head of a Cherokee family, providing for the distribution of the remainder by lot among the people of the State. Notwithstanding the treaties, President Jackson took the ground that as the State was sovereign the United States could not interfere. The question now came ир

before the United States Supreme Court in the following way. A Cherokee named Tassels was sentenced to be hanged, under the laws of Georgia, for killing another Indian on the Cherokee lands. The United States Supreme Court granted a writ of error requiring the State to show cause why the case should not go to the Cherokee courts. This writ was disregarded, and the Indian was hung. There the matter was dropped. Again, two missionaries were convicted of entering the Cherokee territory without having complied with certain requirements demanded by Georgia enactments regarding these lands. Their case was carried to the United States Supreme Court on a writ of error, and the judgment of the court held the provisions of our Indian treaties as paramount to the State laws. But the decision was never enforced. Jackson is reported to have said: “Well, John Marshall (the Chief Justice) has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” The Cherokee case is important as the first instance of successful nullification of United States laws by a State. The Indians were finally persuaded to move to the Indian Territory, and by 1838 the last had left the State.

Chief Justice is the title of the presiding Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. (See Judiciary.) His salary is $10,500 per annum. The following is a list of the persons appointed as Chief-Justices from the establishment of the court, some of whom, however, being rejected by the Senate, or, declining the position, never served in the office: John Jay, of New York, appointed by Washington, September 26, 1789 ;

resigned, 1791. John Rutledge, of South Carolina, appointed by Washington, July 1,

1795; rejected by the Senate, December 15, 1795. William Cushing, of Massachusetts, appointed by Washington, January

26, 1796 ; declined promotion from his associate justiceship. Oliver Ellsworth, of Connecticut, appointed by Washington, March 4,

1796 ; resigned, 1800. John Jay, of New York, appointed by John Adams, December 19, 1800;

declined. John Marshall, of Virginia, appointed by John Adams, January 31,

1801 ; died, July 6, 1835. Roger Brooke Taney, of Maryland, appointed by Jackson, March 15,

1836; died, October 12, 1864. Salmon Portland Chase, of Ohio, appointed by Lincoln, December 6,

1864 ; died, May 7, 1873. George H. Williams, of Oregon, appointed by Grant, 1873; rejected. Caleb Cushing, of Massachusetts, appointed by Grant, 1873; rejected. Morrison R. Waite, of Ohio, appointed by Grant, January 21, 1874; died

March 23, 1888. Melville W. Fuller, of Illinois, appointed by Cleveland, July 20, 1888.

Chilian and Peruvian Difficulties. (See Peruvian Guano Troubles.)

Chinese Must Go.-A cry raised by the inhabitants of the Pacific Slope, especially the laboring men, during the discussion of the Chinese question (which see).

Chinese Question.—The development of our Pacific Coast after the discovery of gold in California created a demand for labor which exceeded the supply. Soon Chinamen began to cross the ocean and settle on our western coast. The means necessary to enable them to live in a state comfortable to themselves being small, they soon underbid white laborers and supplanted them in many kinds of work. An outcry was raised by the white population against permitting this competition, which they claimed was unfair. Local legislation attempted to impede the coming of the Chinese, but the United States Courts decided such laws invalid. Then Congress was applied to. It was argued that the Chinese laborers—coolies, as they were called-would

drive out white laborers because they could underbid white labor; that they could do this because they could live and be happy on a pittance that would not enable white workmen to live in decency. It was said that the Chinese were an inferior race in morals and physique; that so far from being desirous of assimilating themselves to our institutions, they were inseparably attached to their own civilization and regarded us as barbarians; that they did not inter-marry, and did not come here with the intention of becoming citizens and residing permanently in this country. Those who insisted that * the Chinese must go,” asserted that the Chinese came here under the guidance of what were known as the Six Companies; that these organizations controlled them absolutely in trade, in labor, and politically; that they thus formed a government within our government, and not in unison with it. As a consequence of these

arguments, it was urged that the governmen' should restrict Chinese immigration in justice to white laborers, for its own safety and for the welfare of the people at large. On the other hand, it was argued that the Chinese were an honest, quiet, industrious, thrifty and ingenious people; that their peculiar habits and customs would gradually disappear in this country; that the wealth of the nation would be increased by the employment of cheaper labor as it would by using labor-saving machinery, and that it was not in accordance with our national policy of welcoming the oppressed of all nations to refuse to receive the Chinese alone, who would come into harmony with our institutions as speedily as many immigrants from Europe who were freely admitted. The West brought such strong pressure to bear on Congress, that in February, 1879, a bill was passed limiting the number of Chinese passengers that could be brought to this country in a single vessel. Hayes vetoed the bill in March as violating treaty stipulations, and the attempt to pass it over the veto was a failure. Soon afterward a commission was appointed which negotiated a treaty with China (ratified by the Senate in May, 1881), giving the United States power to limit or sus

« ForrigeFortsett »