abundant proof that conspiracies existed against commerce between the states. To meet these conditions, which are clearly within the province of Federal authority, the presence of Federal troops in the city of Chicago was deemed not only proper but necessary; and there has been no intention of thereby interfering with the plain duty of the local authorities to preserve the peace of the city."

It became at once evident that the Governor was unwilling to allow the matter at issue between us to rest without a renewal of argument and protest. On the 7th day of July, the day after the date of my despatch, he addressed to me another long telegraphic communication, evidently intended to be more severely accusatory and insistent than its predecessor. Its general tenor may be inferred from the opening words:

"Your answer to my protest involves some startling conclusions, and ignores and evades the question at issue- that is, that the principle of local selfgovernment is just as fundamental in our institutions as is that of Federal supremacy. You calmly assume that the executive has the legal right to order Federal troops into any community of the United States in the first instance, whenever there is the slightest disturbance, and that he can do this without any regard to the question as to whether the community is able to and ready to enforce the law itself."

After a rather dreary discussion of the importance of preserving the rights of the states and a presentation of the dangers to constitutional government that lurked in the course that had been pursued by the Government, this communication closed as follows:

"Inasmuch as the Federal troops can do nothing but what the state troops can do there, and believing that the state is amply able to take care of the situation and to enforce the law, and believing that the ordering out of the Federal troops was unwarranted, I again ask their withdrawal."

I confess that my patience was somewhat strained when I quickly sent the following despatch in reply to this communication:

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C., July 6, 1894. While I am still persuaded that I have neither transcended my authority nor duty in the emergency that confronts us, it seems to me that in this hour of danger and public distress, discussion may well give way to active efforts on the part of all in authority to restore obedience to law and to protect life and property.

HON. JOHN P. ALTGELD,

GROVER CLEVELAND.

Governor of Illinois.

This closed a discussion which in its net results demonstrated how far one's disposition and inclination will lead him astray in the field of argument.

I shall conclude the treatment of my subject by a brief reference to the legal proceedings which grew out of this disturbance, and finally led to an adjudication by the highest court in our land, establishing in an absolutely authoritative manner and for all time, the power of the National Government to protect itself in the exercise of its functions.

It will be recalled that in the course of our narrative we left Mr. Debs, the president of the Railway Union, and his three associates, in custody of the law, on the 17th day of July, awaiting an investigation of the charge of contempt of court made against them, based upon their disobedience of the writs of injunction forbidding them to do certain things in aid or encouragement of interference with mail transportation or in

terstate commerce.

This investigation was so long delayed that the decision of the Circuit Court, before which the proceedings were pending, was not rendered until the 14th day of December, 1894. On that date the court delivered. an able and carefully considered decision finding Debs and his associates guilty of contempt of court, basing its decision upon the provisions of the law of Congress, passed in 1890, entitled: "An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraint and monopolies;" sometimes called the Sherman Anti-Trust Law. Thereupon the parties were sentenced on said conviction to confinement in the county jail for terms varying from three to six months.

Afterwards and on the 14th day of January, 1895, the prisoners applied to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of habeas corpus to relieve them from imprisonment, on the ground that the facts found against them did not constitute disobedience to the writs of injunction and that their commitment in the manner and for the reasons alleged was without justification and not within the constitutional power and jurisdiction of the Circuit Court.

On this application the case was elaborately argued before the Supreme Court in March, 1895; and on the 27th day of May, 1895, the court rendered its decision, upholding on the broadest grounds the proceedings to the Circuit Court and confirming its adjudication and the commitment to jail of the petitioners thereupon.

Justice Brewer, in delivering the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court, stated the case as follows:

"The United States, finding that the interstate transportation of persons and property, as well as the carriage of mails, is forcibly obstructed and that a combination and conspiracy exists to subject the control of such transportation to the will of the conspirators, applied to one of their courts sitting as a court of equity, for an injunction to restrain such obstructions and prevent carrying into effect such conspiracy. Two questions of importance are presented: First, are the relations of the General Government to interstate commerce and the transportation of the mails, such as authorize a direct interference to prevent a forcible obstruction thereof? Second, if authority exists as authority

in governmental affairs implies both power and duty — has a court of equity jurisdiction to issue an injunction in aid of the performance of such duty?"

Both of these questions were answered by the court in the affirmative; and in the opinion read by the learned justice, the inherent power of the Government to execute by means of physical force through its official agents, on every foot of American soil, the powers and functions belonging to it, was amply vindicated by a process of reasoning, simple, logical, unhampered by fanciful distinctions, and absolutely conclusive; and the Government's resort to the court, the injunction issued in its aid, and all the proceedings thereon, including the imprisonment of Debs and his associates, were fully approved.

Thus the Supreme Court of the United States has written the concluding words of this history, tragical in many of its details, and in every line provoking sober reflection. As we gratefully turn its concluding page those most nearly related by executive responsibility to the troublous days whose story is told may well congratulate themselves especially on their participation in marking out the way and clearing the path, now unchangeably established, which shall hereafter guide our nation safely and surely in the exercise of its functions, which represent the people's trust.

III

THE EXECUTIVE AND CONGRESS

[The relation of the Executive to Congress has been subject to special discussion of late. The strict separation of the three departments in matters of government being impossible, there has in general been a feeling that it is entirely proper for executive officials and the President to interest themselves in legislative measures affecting their particular work. This opinion has, however, not passed without opposition as other men have held that while it is allowable for the executive to suggest legislation, a direct interference in the process of legislative work would lie beyond the proper sphere of executive duty. The following extract from a speech of James A. Garfield discusses the general considerations involved and pronounces in favor of a closer relation between the legislative and the executive. The action of the President in connection with the Railway Rate legislation, which was subjected to much criticism, is defended by Senator Dolliver, and Mr. Adams discusses the part of the Executive in the preparation and passage of the Meat Inspection bill. The views of the opposition are developed by Senator Rayner and Mr. Williams. For earlier discussions of the relations of the President to Congress see President Polk's annual message of December, 1848, and President Buchanan's special messages of March 28, and June 22, 1860.]

JAMES A. GARFIELD ON THE EXECUTIVE AND

CONGRESS 1

Nor the least serious evil resulting from this invasion of the executive functions by members of Congress is the fact that it greatly impairs their own usefulness as legislators. One third of the working hours of Senators and Representatives is hardly sufficient to meet the demands made upon them in reference to appointments to office. The spirit of that clause of the Constitution which shields them from arrest "during their attendance at the session of their respective houses, and in going to or returning from the same," should also shield them from being arrested from their legislative work, morning, noon, and night, by office-seekers. To sum up in a word, the present system invades the independence of the Executive, and makes him less responsible for the character of his 1 From an address on A Century of Congress" (1877). See Works, II, 483.

appointments; it impairs the efficiency of the legislator by diverting him from his proper sphere of duty, and involving him in the intrigues of aspirants for office; it degrades the civil service itself by destroying the personal independence of those who are appointed; it repels from the service those high and manly qualities which are so necessary to a pure and efficient administration; and finally, it debauches the public mind by holding up public office as the reward of mere party zeal.

To reform this service is one of the highest and most imperative duties of statesmanship. This reform cannot be accomplished without a complete divorce between Congress and the Executive in the matter of appointments. It will be a proud day when an administration Senator or Representative, who is in good standing in his party, can say, as Thomas Hughes said during his recent visit to this country, that, though he was on the most intimate terms with the members of the English administration, yet it was not in his power to secure the removal of the humblest clerk in the civil service of the government.

This is not the occasion to discuss the recent enlargement of the jurisdiction of Congress in reference to the election of a President and VicePresident by the States. But it cannot be denied that the Electoral Bill has opened a wide and dangerous field for Congressional action. Unless the boundaries of its power shall be restricted by a new amendment of the Constitution, we have seen the last of our elections of President on the old plan. The power to decide who has been elected may be so used as to exceed the power of electing.

I have long believed that the official relations between the Executive and Congress should be more open and direct. They are now conducted by correspondence with the presiding officers of the two Houses, by consultation with committees, or by private interviews with individual members. This frequently leads to misunderstandings, and may lead to corrupt combinations. It would be far better for both departments if the members of the Cabinet were permitted to sit in Congress and participate in the debates on measures relating to their several departments, but, of course, without a vote. This would tend to secure the ablest men for the chief executive offices; it would bring the policy of the administration into the fullest publicity by giving both parties ample opportunity for criticism and defense.

As a result of the great growth of the country and of the new legislation arising from the late war, Congress is greatly overloaded with work. It is safe to say that the business which now annually claims the attention of Congress is tenfold more complex and burdensome than it was forty years ago. For example: the twelve annual appropriation bills, with their numerous details, now consume two thirds of each short session of the House. Forty years ago, when the appropriations were made more in block, one week was sufficient for the work. The vast extent of our country, the increasing number of States and Territories, the legisla