« ForrigeFortsett »
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
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 YEARS. APPROXIMATE LOCATION.
MOVEMENT. 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....
50 miles. 1830....19 miles West Southwest of Moorefield...
39 miles. 1840 ... 16 miles South of Clarksburg.......
55 miles. 1850....23 miles Southeast of Parkersburg...
55 miles. 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.
.56 miles. 1890....20 miles East of Columbus, Ind........
.46 miles. 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 19, 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
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 up 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.