sideration that he decided to appeal to his friend, Senator Allison, for guidance. Allison suggested the appointment of a committee to travel about, see all sorts of people, take testimony and report to the Senate at the next session. In accordance with the advice of the more experienced senator, Cullom offered a resolution to this end, secured its adoption, was made chairman of the committee and on January 18, 1886 submitted on behalf of the committee, an elaborate report with a large volume of testimony. With this for a basis he pressed the matter so urgently that during the May following a bill for the regulation of interstate commerce passed the Senate. The House did not accept this bill but under Reagan's leadership passed on July 30 a more radical measure and the two went to a committee of conference in which Reagan headed the House and Cullom the Senate conferees; they wrangled from the adjournment of Congress on August 5 until the beginning of the regular session. Reagan gave up many of his contentions but would not yield the prohibition of "pooling." 1 Following the advice of Allison and other leaders on the ground that the country demanded a bill and that it were better to accept Reagan's anti-pooling provision rather than enact no measure whatever, Cullom yielded this point and, on December 15, 1886 reported the agreement of the conferees to the Senate where it encountered strenuous opposition. Provoked at this he declared to his brother senators, "It has just come to a point where you have got to face the music and vote for an interstate commerce bill or vote it down." The long contest, which 1 "Pools" divided the traffic or "earnings on a basis of agreed-upon percentages." Dewey, 92. was a typical instance of government by discussion, reIsulted in the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887.1 Cullom gives an excellent statement of its provisions : "It was partly declaratory of the common law, its essential features being that railroad charges must be reasonable; that there must be no discriminations between persons and no preference between localities; railroads were prohibited from charging less for a long haul than for a shorter haul, ‘under substantially similar circumstances'; pooling was prohibited; and a commission was established with power to hear and decide complaints, to make investigations and reports and generally to see to the enforcement of the Act." "Considering the abuses that existed," continued Cullom, "the Act of 1887 was conservative legislation but in Congress and among the people generally it was considered radical." 2 The bill went to the President. It was the first attempt of Congress to regulate interstate commerce and Cleveland gave it the consideration that this new departure required. He had doubts in regard to government by Commission and indeed Reagan did not at first believe in a Commission for regulating interstate commerce; he had incorporated no such provision in his own measure. Cleveland "felt that there were abuses and grievances, which demanded correction if they could be so reached that the remedy would not be worse than the disease." After a careful study of the question," he said, “and in spite of reservations, I signed the bill." As the Commission would administer the Act its make-up was of 66 1 Approved February 4. 2 Fifty Years of Public Service, Cullom, 325-327. the highest importance. Accordingly the President appointed as its chairman Judge Thomas M. Cooley, Professor of American history in the University of Michigan, an eminent jurist, who was recommended by Cullom and who had a good knowledge of railroad conditions and management.1 "The railroad system of the United States is the marvel of the world," said Cullom in his report. At the close of 1886 the mileage was 133,000. The regulation of it by Congress, the first attempt at which was now being made, was an enormous task demanding great wisdom. The history of this regulation, the work of the Commission, the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and the subsequent legislation by Congress may be reviewed to better advantage in connection with the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. Another non-partisan measure was the Electoral Count Act approved February 3, 1887. Edmunds, who had played a prominent part in the settlement of the disputed presidency of 1876-77, must have brooded over the risk of civil war that the country had then incurred and he now brought his keen legal mind to bear upon legislation which should take the place of such a remedy as the Electoral Commission. Remarkable in history as a thorough-going partisan and extraordinary lawyer he could on occasions lay aside his partisanship: he deserves high praise for his conduct at the time of the disputed 1 Authorities. Fifty Years of Public Service, Cullom; National Problems, Dewey; Reagan's speech, Cong. Record, Dec. 2, 1884; Report of Senate Committee, Jan. 18, 1886, Reports, 49th Cong. 1st Sess.; Report of the Interstate Commerce Com. 1887; The Nation; John Sherman's Rec. ii. presidency and he followed it up by pressing a law which should in the future obviate such a danger. Hence the Electoral Count Act of 1887 which, together with the Presidential Succession Act, marks true progress in constitutional government. It stipulated: that each State may provide by law for the determination of any contest concerning the appointment of electors and such determination shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes by Congress. If there be objection to the vote of any State, the Senate shall withdraw from the joint convention as provided for in the Constitution and the two Houses acting separately shall consider the matter. If there is but one return it shall be rejected only by the concurrent action of the two Houses. If there be more than one return and the question shall arise, which is the legal one, "those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its laws. But if the two Houses shall disagree. then, and in that case the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the Executive of the State under the seal thereof shall be counted." 1 Edmunds was a faithful public servant. "I shall go on manfully," he wrote in 1885 in a private letter, "and try, as I have always done, to do my duty in the Senate.... My only ambition is that the honest and intelligent men of Vermont and of the country shall think that I am brave enough to walk according to the light that I have, and not to worry about consequences." 1 MacDonald, 347, The Nation, Feb. 19, 1885. 2 The Nation, Nov. 25, 1886. "He was one of the most courteous and amiable of men, wrote President Cleveland of him when speaking of the sharp contest about the offices between the two, "at least when outside of the Senate." 1 Down to 1879 the public mind was pretty well satisfied with the pension system. While a service pension was introduced in 1818 for revolutionary veterans, the principle of wounds or disabilities contracted in the service of the United States obtained for the pensions of the Civil War. A limited service-pension act was passed in 1871 for the soldiers of the War of 1812, but the amount of money involved in both this and the act of 1818 was small and, as these wars were popular, the public, if it took any notice of them at all, approved these laws. The pension-grabbers began their work during Grant's administration and in 1875 succeeded in passing a bill which was certain to prove a "drain on the Treasury" and which is known as the "Equalization of Bounties Bill." This President Grant did not approve; and, though not necessary under the circumstances, wrote a brief veto message, which shows what a skilful and brave soldier thought of this scheme to deplete the Treasury. His first objection was on the score of economy. His second was expressed in his pointed words: "I do not believe that any considerable portion of the ex-soldiers who, it is supposed, will be beneficiaries of this appropriation are applicants for it, but rather it would result more in a measure for the relief of claim agents and middlemen who would intervene to collect or discount the bounties 1 Presidential Problems, 67. |