Int. Law (1906), § THE NORTHWESTERN BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 835, Arbitrations | issued in 1862, and still in circulation; (3) (1898), I, 196-236, R. Greenhow, Oregon fractional currency, issued during the Civil (1844), chs. xvii, xviii; E. G. Bourne, Essays in Historical Criticism (1901), § 1; Travers Twiss, Oregon Question (1846); H. H. Banerott, Northwest Coast (1884), Oregon (1886), Washington, Idaho and Montana (1890); W. MacDonald, Select Documents (1897), Nos. 70, 74; A. B. Hart, Foundations of Am. Foreign Policy (1901), §§ 26, 67; W. I. Marshall, Acquisition of Oregon (1911). W. R. M. War, no longer in circulation, all that was presented having been redeemed; (4) silver certificates, secured by coin or bullion in the Treasury, first issued in 1878; (5) gold certificates, secured by gold coin or bullion, first issued in 1865; (6) silver notes, issued under the Sherman Act of 1890, made legal tender at their face value and redeemable in "coin"; (7) national bank notes, printed by the government for the banks since 1862, and guaranteed NOTES, UNITED STATES. A term applied by bond deposits held in the treasury. See to the various forms of paper currency issued BILLS OF CREDIT; CURRENCY, CONTINENTAL; by the Federal Government of which the prin- CURRENCY, FRACTIONAL; REDEMPTION OF cipal ones are: (1) treasury notes, not legal CURRENCY; GOLD CERTIFICATES; INFLATION; tender, commonly issued in large sums or LEGAL TENDER CONTROVERSY. References: J. denominations, especially in 1812-1814, 1837- J. Knox, U. S. Notes (1880); D. R. Dewey, 1840, 1861-1868; (2) legal tender notes, first Financial Hist. of the U. S. (1903, 3d ed., 1907) NOVA SCOTIA-NUISANCES, ABATEMENT OF passim, Hist. of Banking in the U. S. (1900); | 1848 owing chiefly to the perseverance of the Horace White, Money and Banking (1896, 2d Reform party under the leadership of Joseph ed., 1902); Am. Year Book, 1910, 340, and Howe. In the movement for confederation year by year; bibliography in Channing, Hart Nova Scotia took a prominent part and became and Turner, Guide to Am. Hist. (1912), §§ one of the "charter members" of the Dominion 237, 243, 252, 262. A. B. H. of Canada in 1867. The province of Nova Scotia is represented in the Dominion Parliament (see PARLIAMENT, CANADIAN) by ten senators and eighteen members of the house of commons. Its provincial government consists of a lieutenant-governor, appointed for a five-year term by the governorgeneral of the Dominion; an executive council or ministry, chosen by the lieutenant-governor, but responsible to the legislative assembly; a legislative council of twenty-one members, appointed for life by the lieutenant-governor on the advice of his ministry, and an elective legislative assembly of thirty-eight members. From time to time demands have been made to abolish the legislative council, but these have been unsuccessful. The province receives, under the provisions of the Act of Confederation, an annual subsidy from the federal treasury. The provincial capital is at Halifax. See CANADA; CANADIAN PROVINCES. NOVA SCOTIA. One of the three maritime provinces of Canada (see). It comprises the peninsula lying southeast of New Brunswick (see), and has an area of 21,428 square miles. Its population at the last official census (1911) was 492,338 an increase of only 33,000 over the population of a decade preceding. Nova Scotia was the site of the earliest European settlement in all the territory now comprised within the Dominion of Canada. In 1604 the Sieur de Monts received a charter from Henry IV of France, granting to him the territory of Acadia which, by the terms of the charter, comprised the whole Atlantic coast line from Florida to Labrador. With the coöperation of Champlain settlements were established in the new territory, particularly at Port Royal, now Annapolis. In 1607 De Monts lost his charter but the work was in time taken up under new grants. England, References: J. B. Calker, Hist. and Geogra however, also claimed this territory, and, dur-phy of Nova Scotia (1878); W. Kingsford, ing the next hundred years, it was the scene Hist of Canada (1894), VII. of an intermittent struggle between the French and English, terminating in the cession of Acadia to England by the Treaty of Utrecht (1713). France, however, retained Cape Breton (then known as Ile Royale) and Prince Edward Island (then known as Ile St. Jean). On the former island France established her formidable fortress of Louisburg, while England, some years later, established fortified headquarters at Halifax. In 1755 came the famous expatriations of the Acadians or French settlers from the region of the Bay of Fundy, and in 1763, at the close of the Seven Years War, Cape Breton and Prince Edward Island were included in the territories finally ceded to England. Some few years preceding the final cession, representative government had been established in Nova Scotia and the first parliament, consisting of twenty-two elective members, had convened at Halifax in 1758. The province then included what is now New Brunswick, and, after the Treaty of Paris, Cape Breton and Prince Edward Island were also incorporated within its jurisdiction. After the close of the Revolutionary War, however, the population was greatly increased by an influx of Loyalists from the thirteen states, and in 1784 New Brunswick and Cape Breton were given rank as separate provinces, the latter being reincorporated with Nova Scotia, how ever, in 1820. W. B. M. NUISANCES, ABATEMENT OF. The abatement of common nuisances means the removal of conditions which are obnoxious to public health, safety, morals or order or to other public rights, and which are consequently contrary to law. The most familiar and usual instances of a common nuisance are encroachment upon public highways, imminently dangerous structures, disorderly houses, infected articles or animals, vermin or pests, unwholesome food, and obscene publications. The abatement may be ordered by a court after a conviction upon an indictment or information for maintaining the nuisance, or it may be undertaken without such judgment (summary abatement). In either case the abatement must not extend beyond the suppression or removal of the illegal or obnoxious condition, so that, for instance, a house used for disorderly purposes may not be destroyed, and it has even been held that a saloon in which liquor is illegally sold may not be locked by force so as to deprive the owner of access or possession (Baldwin vs. Smith, 82 Ill. 162). It is not uncommonly stated that any person may abate a common nuisance and there is judicial authority to support that statement. Where the question, however, has been brought to a direct issue the weight of authority seems to limit the power of summary abatement by two conditions, first that the person undertaking the abatement have a special i terest or be personally aggrieved by the nuisance, and second, that the abatement be unaccompanied by any breach of the peace. These limitations Like the other provinces, Nova Scotia underwent during the first half of the nineteenth century the long struggle for responsible government, which culminated successfully in NULLIFICATION CONTROVERSY tive authority like the mayor, sheriff, constable, or police. are of particular importance in determining | delegated to administrative officers by ordithe powers of officers to abate nuisances. No nance. This is not uncommonly done in concommon law officer (sheriff, constable, etc.) nection with safety, health, morals and public had, as such, any greater power to abate nui- order, and specially with reference to highsances than an individual; even for the removal ways. But it is not common to find either in of obstructions on highways the older English statutes or ordinances a general power to statutes required an order of the justice of abate unspecified nuisances of any kind whatthe peace, and the power of summary abate-soever granted to officers having general execument was conferred upon highway officers by statute only in the nineteenth century. In America statutory power of abatement is The summary abatement of nuisances being found as early as the colonial times with ref- recognized by common law, it is held not to erence to highways (see ROADS) and it has violate the constitutional guaranty of due probeen held in Wisconsin that the power belongs cess of law (211 U. S. 306). The actual exto highway officers at common law, but this istence of a nuisance is, however, a jurisdicdecision was later qualified by holding that it tional prerequisite to the action of the officer, applies only where the obstruction was wilful- | who, according to the better views, is personally placed (26 Wis. 546; 37 Wis. 84). Notwith-ly liable for destroying property, which is not standing the decision referred to, the existence in fact a nuisance. The aggrieved individual of the common law or inherent power of of- has consequently his day in court, after, if ficers to abate nuisances must be considered not before, the invasion of his property doubtful. Under the more conservative view, therefore, the power of an officer to abate a common nuisance should rest upon statutory authority. Such authority is commonly conferred with reference to highways, and is also found in connection with most of the other classes of nuisances above mentioned. The power to abate nuisances is also frequently found in city charters, but the power there appears as one granted to the city council and in order to be made effectual in practice, must be further rights, and of this day in court the legislature, it seems, cannot deprive him. There is, however, no redress either against the municipality or the state for the unwarranted abatement of an alleged nuisance. See CONTAGIOUS DISEASES; DANGEROUS Reference: F. J. Goodnow, "Summary Abate- NULLIFICATION CONTROVERSY measure the value of the Union in comparison with the well-being of the state. South Carolina, in the past, had, on the whole, cherished sentiments of nationalism; but there were now many men ready to assert the rights of the states denounces the tyranny and oppression of the central government. The tariff acts of 1828 and 1832 drove the malcontents to a high pitch of excitement. Industrial Conditions, 1820-1830.-With the | free trade and declared that it was time to westward movement of population after the War of 1812, the states of the south Atlantic seaboard underwent serious economic change. Emigrants from the older states moved into the fertile fields of the new southwest. The older sections felt the drain of population and of wealth and in some regions there was real distress. The new and fresh plantations of the southwest began to yield large quantities of cotton. With the increase of the product a fall of prices naturally ensued and this was particularly felt by the planters of the east in their competition with the owners of the unexhausted fields of the new west. The difficulty was attributed to the tariff, which may indeed have borne somewhat heavily on the producers of the great staples. The tariff agitation in the third decade of the nineteenth century aroused the South and especially the older South to vigorous opposition. In 1827 and 1828 there was much excitement and a large element in South Carolina was already prepared for extreme measures. Dr. Cooper, President of South Carolina College, lustily preached the doctrine of Calhoun's Papers.-The theory for state opposition was fully outlined by Calhoun (see). He had had the sympathies of strong nationalism. Though it may not be perfectly clear that he had stood for a doctrine strictly and logically in opposition to the whole doctrine of state sovereignty, it is plain that he had favored a broad and generous construction of the Constitution. In 1828 he drew up a general statement or report known as the "South Carolina Exposition," which accompanied a set of resolutions from the legislature protesting against the constitutionality of the tariff. In this "Exposition" Calhoun states and elaborates the doctrine of nullification. In later papers-"Address on the Relations which the NULLIFICATION CONTROVERSY States and General Government Bear to Each | theory, dangerous in practice, and essentially Other" (1831) and his "Letter to Governor revolutionary. Not a single state passed resoHamilton" (1832)—he further presents the lutions upholding the doctrine. Maine an same theories. He wished to present a theory which, in operation, would enable a state to secure its ends without war or secession from the Union. In South Carolina Acts.-There was a strong Union party in South Carolina, and the whole state was agitated by the controversy. spite of the persistence of the Union element, a legislature was chosen which authorized a convention to discuss the tariff laws and the remedies for the evils (1832). This convention met in November and passed an ordinance declaring the tariff laws null and void. The legislature was authorized to adopt measures for giving full effect to the ordinance; appeal from a state court to the Supreme Court of the United States was not to be allowed when the case involved the authority of the ordinance, the validity of the acts of the legislature passed to carry it into effect, or the validity of the acts of Congress. All officers were to take an oath of obedience to the ordinance and the consequent legislative enactments. Finally the ordinance solemnly declared that an effort to compel obedience to the act of Congress "otherwise than through the civil tribunals of the country" would be ground for secession. The ordinance was issued November 24, 1832. The first of the following February was fixed as the time beyond which the enforcement of tariff laws within the state should not be allowed. The convention also drew up an address to the people of the various states, announcing its principles which were in essence those already put forth by Calhoun. In obedience to the mandates of the convention, the legislature passed a series of acts to give the ordinance effect. nounced a principle of state rights which fell short of state sovereignty, and Virginia pointed to resolutions of an early day (see VIRGINIA AND KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS) as containing the true theory on which the Union was based. Compromise.-South Carolina stood alone; but the compromise tariff gave her opportunity to retire gracefully, perhaps even to claim the honor of triumph. Spurning the force bill, she accepted the compromise tariff act; the convention which had been summoned to reassemble even before Congress finally acted, met in March and rescinded the ordinance but proceeded to declare the force bill unconstitutional. Thus nullification ended; the authority of the central government had been asserted; the states had denounced the theory; but South Carolina had secured, unaided by the "co-states," an important alteration of the tariff laws. Theory. The theory of nullification rests on the preliminary theory of state sovereignty (see). The states having entered into a compact remain sovereign, though yielding certain rights of government to an agent. If this agent, the central government, transcends its authority, a state is entitled to announce the fact and to declare the unauthorized act void and of no effect. The states who are the real parties to the compact should then be asked to pass authoritatively upon the question, and Calhoun seemed to see, in the provision for amendment by the legislatures of threefourths of the states, a means of passing upon the validity of governmental action. The result of a three-fourths vote in favor of validity of any act of the national government ought then, it would seem, to be a final judgment. But here Calhoun is necessarily vague; at least, it is fair to say, on this aspect of the subject he did not dwell. Apparently one more than one-fourth-seven, let us say, of the twenty-four states then in existence-could prevent an act of Congress from being recognized as valid. That was not all, however; for of course a sovereign state could not com pletely surrender its will and its power of determination, and therefore, even if the decision of the states by a vote of twenty-three to one favored the constitutionality of the acts complained of, the complaining state was not legally bound; it could acquiesce or it could leave the Union. Calhoun naturally tried to make out, by his elaborate portrayal of the process, that it was not essentially disorganizing and destructive. He insisted that nullification was conservative or preservative: without such a process a state would be compelled to leave the Union at once, whenever it believed an act to be beyond the powers of the central agent; but by nullification a state Jackson's Proclamation.-President Jackson issued, December 10, a proclamation, an able state paper, taking up the gage of battle and vigorously attacking the constitutional theories of South Carolina. The whole subject was of course discussed and rediscussed in Congress, but as the days went by there seemed little prospect of speedy action. Before the first of February a meeting in Charleston informally suspended the ordinance and thus a clash of authority was delayed. On the first of March two acts were passed by Congress, one providing for the gradual lowering of the tariff; the other, the so-called "force-bill" (see), for the enforcement of the laws. The Co-States. In the meantime the "costates," to use the words of the ordinance, responded, and the responses brought South Carolina small comfort. A few of them condemned the tariff laws; but even in Georgia, which had been much excited over the subject of state rights, the legislature was not ready to adopt the doctrine of nullification. Alabama declared nullification unsound in NURSES, DISTRICT would call attention to illegal and unauthorized procedure, might enlist the support of the other states, might call the disobedient agent back within the limits of its authority, and thus save the Constitution and not break up the union. According to Calhoun nullification might well be justified; its purpose was to save the Constitution. In case the central government, the agent of the "co-states," exceeded its authority, it was more than the right, it was the duty of the state to resort to this process. Secession would be justified only by unconstitutional action by the co-states themselves. It is unnecessary to present arguments here against the theory of the right of nullification; it had, as we have seen, little support at the time. It rests on the doctrine of state sovereignty, and any one believing the states were sovereign before the Civil War, has in mind the basis for the belief in nullification. Though nullification has at times been rejected by advocates of state sovereignty, there appears to be no logical inconsistency. That a minority of states or even one state might check or restrain the action of government was not in Calhoun's mind an objection to his theory. He rejected totally the idea that a numerical majority should govern, and he presented the theory of "concurrent majority," in accordance with which each interest or portion of the community would have a negative on the others. As Calhoun later said: It is this negative power-the power of preventing or arresting the action of the government-be it called by what term it may-veto, interposition, nullification, check or balance of power-which, in fact, forms the Constitution. See VIRGINIA AND KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS; SECESSION; SOUTH CAROLINA; STATE; STATE SOVEREIGNTY. References: G. Hunt, John C. Calhoun (1907), 75-169; D. F. Houston, Critical Study of Nullification in South Carolina (1896); J. C. Calhoun, Works (R. K. Crallé, Ed., 1853– 1855), I, II, VI; State Papers on Nullification (1834); H. V. Ames, State Documents on Federal Relations (1906), 164–190; W. MacDonald, Jacksonian Democracy (1906), ch. ix; J. S. Bassett, Life of Andrew Jackson (1911), II. ANDREW C. MCLAUGHLIN. NURSES, DISTRICT. The larger municipalities of this country have begun, since 1905, to employ nurses for the benefit of public health and for the assistance of those in need of their services. In Boston such nurses are employed in the schools and in the visitation and instruction of cases of tuberculosis and other contagious diseases, some of them acting under the school committee, others under the board of health, still others under the consumptives' hospital department. In Chicago there are free district nurses at the service of anyone in their district. Doubtless, in future, an increasing share of medical work, both curative and preventive, will be done through such public nurses. In the public schools they do great part of the medical work. See CHARITIES, PUBLIC AGENCIES FOR; CONTAGIOUS DISEASES; DISPENSARIES, FREE; HEALTH, PUBLIC, REGULATION OF; HOSPITALS, PUBLIC; SCHOOL HYGIENE. References: Mabel Jacques, District Nursing (1911); C. A. E. Winslow; "The Robe of the Visiting Nurse in the Campaign for Public Health" in American Journal of Nursing, August, 1911; H. B. Favill, "Addresses Given at the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the Boston Instructive District Nursing Association" in American Journal of Nursing, October, 1911; The Visiting Nurse Quarterly, January, 1910. R. C. C. |