436 



GRANT, ULYSSES S. (His CIVIL CAREER.) 



for the ratification of this treaty, because I be- 

 lieve it will redound greatly to the glory of the 

 two countries interested, to civilization, and to 

 the extirpation of the institution of slavery." 

 He claimed for the scheme great commercial 

 advantages. He claimed also that it was in 

 harmony with the Monroe doctrine, and that 

 the consummation of the measure would be no- 

 tice to the states of Europe that no acquisition 

 of territory on this continent would be permit- 

 ted. In his second inaugural address Gen. Grant 

 referred to the subject in these words: "In 

 the first year of the past administration the 

 proposition came up for the admission of Santo 

 Domingo as a Territory of the Union. ... I 

 believe now, as I did then, that it was for the 

 best interests of this country, for the people of 

 Santo Domingo, and all concerned, that the 

 proposition should be received favorably. It 

 was, however, rejected constitutionally, and 

 therefore the subject was never brought up 

 again by me." Gen. Grant considered the fail- 

 ure of the treaty as a national misfortune, but 

 he never criticised the action of the Senate. 



Gen. Grant's firmness was shown in his veto 

 of the Senate currency bill of 1874. It is 

 known that unusual efforts were made to con- 

 vince him that the measure was wise in a finan- 

 cial view, and highly expedient upon political 

 grounds. The President wrote a message in 

 explanation of his act of approval, but upon 

 its completion he was so much dissatisfied 

 with his own argument that he resolved to 

 veto the bill. Hence the veto message of 

 April 22, 1874. 



In foreign policy, the principal measure of 

 Gen. Grant's administration was the treaty 

 with Great Britain of May, 1871. The specific 

 and leading purpose of the negotiations was the 

 adjustment of the claim made by the United 

 States that Great Britain was liable in damages 

 for the destruction of American vessels, and the 

 consequent loss of commercial power and pres- 

 tige, by the depredations of Confederate cruisers 

 that were fitted out or had obtained supplies in 

 British ports. Neither by the treaty of peace of 

 1783, nor by the subsequent treaties with Great 

 Britain, had a full and final settlement of the 

 fishery question or of our northern boundary- 

 line at its junction with the Pacific Ocean been 

 made. These outlying questions were consid- 

 ered in the negotiations, and they were adjusted 

 by the terms of the treaty. The jurisdiction of 

 the island of San Juan on the Pacific coast, 

 then in controversy, was referred to the Em- 

 peror of Germany as arbitrator, with full and 

 final power in the premises. By his award 

 the claim of the United States was sustained. 

 The fishery question was referred to arbitra- 

 tors, but it was a misfortune that the award 

 was not satisfactory to the United States, and 

 the dispute is reopened with capacity to vex 

 the two governments for an indefinite period. 

 The claims against Great Britain growing out 

 of the operations of the Confederate cruis- 

 ers, known as the Alabama claims, were re- 



ferred to arbitrators, by whose award the Gov- 

 ernment of the United States received the sum 

 of $15,500,000. But the value of the treaty of 

 1871 was not in the award made. The people 

 of the United States were embittered against 

 the Government of Great Britain, and had 

 Gen. Grant chosen to seek redress by arms 

 he would have been sustained throughout the 

 North with substantial unanimity. But Gen. 

 Grant was destitute of the war spirit, and 

 he chose to exhaust all the powers of nego- 

 tiation before he would advise a resort to force. 

 A passage in his inaugural address may have 

 had an influence upon the policy of the British 

 Government : u In regard to foreign policy, I 

 would deal with nations as equitable law re- 



?uires individuals to deal with each other. . . . 

 would respect the rights of all nations, de- 

 manding equal respect for our own. If others 

 depart from this rule in their dealings with us, 

 we may he compelled to follow their precedent" 

 The reference of the question at issue to the 

 tribunal at Geneva was a conspicuous instance 

 of the adjustment of a grave international dis- 

 pute by peaceful methods. 



By the sixth article of the treaty of 1871, 

 three new rules were made for the government 

 of neutral nations. These rules are binding upon 

 the United States and Great Britain, and the 

 contracting parties agreed to bring them to the 

 knowledge of other maritime powers, and to 

 invite such powers to accede to the rules. 

 In those rules it is stipulated that a neutral 

 nation should not permit a belligerent to fit 

 out, arm, or equip in its ports any vessel which 

 it has reasonable ground to believe is intended 

 to cruise or carry on war against a power with 

 which it is at peace. It was further agreed, 

 as between the parties to the treaty, that 

 neither would suffer a belligerent to make use 

 of its ports or waters as a base of operations 

 against the other. Finally, the parties agreed 

 to use due diligence to prevent any infraction 

 of the rules so established. Mr. Fish was then 

 Secretary of State, and to him were Gen. Grant 

 and the country largely indebted for the settle- 

 ment of the Alabama controversy ; but the 

 settlement was in harmony with the inaugural 

 address. Before the final adjustment of the 

 controversy, by the tribunal at Geneva, Gen. 

 Grant had occasion to consider whether the 

 allegation against Great Britain, growing out 

 of her recognition, in May, 1861, of the bel- 

 ligerent character of the Confederacy, could 

 be maintained on the principles of public law. 

 Upon his own judgment he reached the con- 

 clusion that the act was an act of sovereignty 

 within the discretion of the ruler, for which a 

 claim in money could not be made. This opin- 

 ion was accepted, finally, by his advisers, by 

 the negotiators, and by the country. 



Grant's methods of action were direct and 

 clear. His conduct was free from duplicity, 

 and artifice of every sort was foreign to his 

 nature. In the first years of his administration 

 he relied upon his Cabinet in all minor matters 



