President Cleveland was no more affected by this Senate
resolution than he had been by their other resolutions attacking
his authority. He went ahead with his negotiations and concluded
treaty arrangements which the Senate, of course, rejected; but,
as that result had been anticipated, a modus vivendi which had
been arranged by executive agreements between the two countries
went into effect, regardless of the Senate's attitude. The case
is a signal instance of the substitution of executive
arrangements for treaty engagements which has since then been
such a marked tendency in the conduct of the foreign relations of
the United States.
A consideration which worked steadily against the Senate in its
attacks upon the President, was the prevalent belief that the
Tenure of Office Act was unconstitutional in its nature and
mischievous in its effects. Although Senator Edmunds had been
able to obtain a show of solid party support, it eventually
became known that he stood almost alone in the Judiciary
Committee in his approval of that act. The case is an instructive
revelation of the arbitrary power conferred by the committee
system. Members are loath to antagonize a party chairman to whom
their own bills must go for approval. Finally, Senator Hoar dared
to take the risk, and with such success that on June 21, 1886,
the committee reported a bill for the complete repeal of the
Tenure of Office Act, the chairman--Senator Edmunds--alone
dissenting.
Pages:
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85