Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

opposing the bill. He dwelt at some length on the fact that no preceding Congress had ever been willing to sanction such a measure. He showed that a new department would increase considerably the federal patronage. Moreover it was certain to add "another Cabinet officer to the Government".55 But Cobb and his followers failed to convince. On February 15 the bill passed the House by 112 yeas to 78 nays.56 This step had hardly been accomplished when John G. Palfrey of Massachusetts moved to amend the title by striking out "Department of the Interior" and substituting for it "Home Department". This suggestion of Palfrey, truly doctrinaire in view of the fact that there was no reference in the text of the bill to anything but a Department of the Interior, fixed the title in law with an incongruity that did not escape later comment. Both Ewing and Stuart, first and third Secretaries of the Interior, referred to the matter.58

57

The Senate discussions over the bill were vigorous and at times acrid, but they were confined to a single day and evening session, for the bill was not reported by Senator R. M. T. Hunter of Virginia. until March 3, the last day of the Thirtieth Congress. Hunter was mild in his opposition by comparison with his colleague, Senator James M. Mason, grandson of Colonel George Mason, member of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. Mason made quite the most bitter protest against the bill that the record of debate shows; and he was seconded in his position by John C. Calhoun. The leaders of the small Senate majority that favored the measure were Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Jefferson Davis of Mississippi. Both these men argued ably and well. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 31 yeas to 25 nays.59

The particular note sounded by the Senate opposition at different times in the course of the debate was first suggested by Hunter.60 It was not a new note, for Jackson's quick ear had detected it as far back as 1829, and it was probably even then well known. It was the expression of fear of any tendency that seemed likely to increase, however imperceptibly, the bias of the federal system toward authority not clearly delegated. The proposal in 1849 to create a new department—even though the move was really scarcely more than a readjustment of existing organization-aroused this fear in a manner not easy to understand. The fear was expressed in some variety of

55 Ibid., p. 516.

56 Ibid., p. 543.

67 Ibid., p. 544.

5 See note 2 at the end of this article.

59 Globe, 30 Cong., 2 sess., p. 680.

o Ibid., pp. 670 ff.

ways. "Mr. President ", exclaimed Calhoun, "there is something ominous in the expression, The Secretary of the Interior'. This Government . . . was made to take charge of the exterior relations of the States. And if there had been no exterior relations, the Federal Government would never have existed. . . . Sir, the name Interior Department' itself indicates a great change in the public mind.

Everything upon the face of God's earth will go into the Home Department." Senator Niles of Connecticut felt that "the whole tendency of this Government is . . . to foster and enlarge the executive power which is becoming a maelstrom to swallow up all the power of the Government ".62

To Senator Mason the bill for the new department seemed a project destined to place industrial pursuits and other interior concerns under the management of the general government. He could not avoid the sectional note:

Are we to increase this central power? More especially are we who belong to the South-who have very little more interest in this country than to have the protection of our independence with the other States; from whom a great part of the revenue is drawn, and to whom very little of it is returned; who pay everything to Federal power, and receive nothing for it. . . .

A little further along he declared:

We have yet some hope, although it may be impaired by the experience of every day, that the State organizations will yet outlive the overshadowing influence of this Federal Government."

[ocr errors]

63

Into this confusion of thought and juggling with words there came the clearer ideas of such men as Webster and Davis. "Why call this the Secretary of the Interior?", asked Webster in response to Calhoun's rhetoric about a title. "The impression seems to be that we are going to carry the power of the Government further into the interior. . . I do not so understand it. Where is the power? It is only that certain powers heretofore exercised by certain agents are to be exercised by other agents. That is the whole of it."** Το Webster, grown old in active efforts for his country's welfare, his mind filled with recollections of the past, the historic aspect of the measure must have been deeply significant. "As far back as the time of Mr. Monroe", he said, "and up to this time, persons most skilled and of the most experience in the administration of this Government, have recommended the creation of some other department. . . . Gentlemen can remember what . . . Mr. Madison said on that subject." Then in another vein he added:

Globe, 30 Cong., 2 sess., p. 672.

62 Ibid., p. 671.

63 Ibid., p. 672.

4 Ibid., p. 677.

It is said, but not very conclusively, that we create offices from time to time, and make additions to salaries. . . . Well, the country is increasing; the business of the Government is increasing; there is a great deal more work to be done. . . . This bill may not be perfect. . . . But the popular branch of the Legislature has passed it. It is here. It is my opinion that there is a general sense in the country that some such provision is necessary.

65

Jefferson Davis was not forgetful of the force of an appeal to the past. He reminded his fellow senators that several of the great Virginian presidents were believers in the ideal of the bill. But perhaps his particular contribution to the debate was his reference in the following passage to the import of the bill to the "new States", among which Mississippi was at this time reckoned. "I feel a very peculiar interest in this measure", he asserted, "as every one who comes from a new State must feel." Then he said:

We are peopling the public lands; the inhabitants of the old States are the people of commerce. The Treasury belongs to us in common. The Secretaries of the Treasury must be taken from those portions of the country where they have foreign commerce, and therefore they are men who are not so intimately connected and acquainted with the relations and interests of the public lands in the new States.

66

The implication was obvious that the interests of the new and the inland states were likely to be better guarded if the new department could be established.

To several Democrats the fact that a new Cabinet officer would have to be appointed was a disturbing thought. "We are assuming that those who are to succeed us require more advisers than we have had; we are doing that thing which they ought to do, if they think it is required."67

To the reader of the debates of 1849 the balance of argument seems strongly in favor of the measure. So thought the majority in both Senate and House. Late on the night of March 3 the bill was presented to President Polk for his signature. It was a long bill-too long to have received any very careful consideration from Polk during these last hours of his presidency.

I had serious objections to it [wrote Polk several weeks later in his Diary], but they were not of a constitutional character and I signed it with reluctance. I fear its consolidating tendency. I apprehend its practical operation will be to draw power from the states, where the Constitution has reserved it, and to extend the jurisdiction and power of the U. S. by construction to an unwarrantable extent. Had I been a member of Congress I would have voted against it.

Ibid., p. 671.

Ibid., pp. 669-670.

67 Ibid., p. 670.

68

In Polk's eyes the measure was inexpedient. It is altogether probable that, had he had more time, he would have vetoed it. But fortunately the long struggle ended as it did. Three days later, on March 6, President Taylor sent to the Senate the name of Thomas Ewing of Ohio as first Secretary of the Interior. And on March 8 Ewing, duly commissioned, entered upon his duties, taking his place as seventh member of the Cabinet.

V.

The plan of an Interior Department in 1848–1849 was essentially a Democratic measure in its source. It was the direct result of the pressure of administrative burdens. There is no evidence to show that general opinion outside administrative or Congressional circles had anything whatever to do with it. It was certainly not the outcome of wide-spread demand or popular pressure.

69

The establishment of the department was mainly dependent upon a House of Representatives containing a small Whig majority (117 Whigs and 111 Democrats) and upon a Democratic Senate (36) Democrats and 22 Whigs). Circumstances and a few clear-headed men happily combined to enforce its need. The war with Mexico was over and settled. The new regions added to the national domain during Polk's term had increased or were likely to increase the burdens of administration to such an extent as to make the demand for a new administrative official and organization imperative.70 The official, Secretary of the Interior Department, was conceived of as one who would naturally assume the rank and position of a Cabinet member. His department was bound to increase the range of the federal patronage. Knowledge of these facts served inevitably in Congress to smooth the way of the measure among Whig partizans, for Taylor was about to take office as a Whig president in succession to a Democratic régime. Much was to be said in favor of the intrinsic merits of the plan. It would provide, as Webster pointed out, a necessary organization. The action of the Ways and Means. Committee together with the vote on the bill in the House afforded some evidence that the public was ready to approve such a readjustment of administrative work as would facilitate the tasks of the federal government which were growing year by year more numerous and more complicated.

Though familiar to public men since the foundation period of the

as The Diary of James K. Polk during his Presidency, ed. M. M. Quaife (Chicago, 1910), IV. 371-372.

6 Globe, 30 Cong., 2 sess., p. 516.

70 See note 3 at the end of this article.

Constitution and advocated more or less forcibly by such characters as Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson, the idea of a Department of the Interior was newly conceived and clearly formulated by an experienced and public-spirited Secretary of the Treasury from Mississippi. For the plan of organization Robert J. Walker has never received from any historian the credit that is his just due. He voiced the need and launched the project more carefully than any statesman before him. But it must not be overlooked that his plan was skilfully and ably supported in a doubting Senate by two such leaders as Daniel Webster and Jefferson Davis. HENRY BARRETT LEARNED.

NOTES

1. Judge Augustus B. Woodward (c. 1775-1827) had published in 1809 a pamphlet entitled Considerations on the Executive Government of the United States of America (Flatbush, N. Y., pp. 87). In 1824 he was again writing on various phases of administrative work and taking a particular interest in the project for a Home Department-a subject, it should be said, which was not even mentioned in his pamphlet of 1809. Articles of his which I have observed will be found in the files of the National Journal of Washington, D. C., as follows:

April 24, 1824. "On the Necessity and Importance of a Department of Domestic Affairs, in the Government of the United States."

May 29.

"On the Distribution of the Bureaux in a Department of Foreign Affairs: Supplementary to the discussion on the necessity. and importance of a Department of Domestic Affairs. . . ." May 27 to August 31. At intervals between these dates there appeared about a dozen articles on The Presidency. These, together with the two foregoing articles, were collected and printed in the form of a pamphlet entitled: The Presidency of the United States, by A. B. Woodward (New York, 1825, pp. 88). The copyright date of this rare pamphlet was May 21, 1825.

April 9, 1825. Letter from Willie Blount to Judge Woodward of Florida, dated March 14, 1825, approving Woodward's plan of a Department of Domestic Affairs. Woodward's reply.

May 21. Letter of Major H. Lee to Judge Woodward, dated April 14. Woodward's reply.

In the National Intelligencer of Washington, D. C., of April 23, 26, and 28, 1825, Woodward's two articles that had appeared the year before in the National Journal of April 24 and May 29 were reprinted with a brief editorial comment on April 28 in favor of his plans. In general Woodward was opposed to what he termed the "cabinet system", but his writings do not leave the impression that "But see Schouler, History of the United States, V. 121. AM. HIST REV., VOL. XVI.-50.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »