ON THE DEMOCRATS GAIN POSSESSION OF THE SENATE-CHANGE T HE Democrats, who had controlled the House of Representatives for the preceding two years, had also a majority in the Senate at the commencement of the Forty-sixth Congress. A knowledge of this had prompted them to secure the defeat of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Appropriation bill in the closing hours of the Forty-fifth Congress, and thus to render it necessary for President Hayes to convene the Forty-sixth Congress on the 4th of March, 1879. The Democratic majority in the Senate, which then, for the first time in eighteen years, controlled that body, determined to change. its officers and servants,-not because of any incompetency or neglect of duty on their part, but in obedience to the inexorable decrees of political partisanship. The Republicans had retained a considerable number of Democrats in office in 1861, and had afterwards appointed others, but the Democrats made a clean sweep of all officials not of their party, with the exception of a very few, whose services could not be dispensed with. Men who had served the country during the war, and whose especial knowledge of their duties could not be denied, were summarily discharged, that their positions, which they had creditably filled, might be given to political place-hunters belonging to the Democratic party. "We are responsible," said Senator Eaton," and able to be responsible, for the carrying on of legislation, and we intend to do it with our own servants. That is the way to tell it and to talk it." The standing, special, and joint committees of the Senate were also changed, and placed under Democratic control. General Burnside was deposed from the chairmanship of the Committee on Education and Labor, which was given to Mr. Bailey, of Tennessee. Then came Messrs. Gordon, Maxey, and Randolph; and after these, four Republicans, Messrs. Burnside, Morrill, Bruce, and Sharon. General Burnside was also the first named of the Republican minority on the Committee on Military Affairs, but he was dropped altogether from the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads. General Burnside was ever on the alert to promote the success of some public work in the State of Rhode Island. Acting in concert with his colleague, Mr. Anthony, they secured the appropriation of large sums for the improvement of Providence River, for a harbor of refuge at Block Island, connected with the main land by a sub-marine telegraph; for additional light-houses and fog-signals in Narragansett Bay, and for increased postal facilities at different places. Making no attempt at rhetorical display or brilliant language, he would, on presenting a measure to the Senate, state the reasons whereby it should be enacted with such brevity and clearness as would insure its passage. True to the Republican party, General Burnside always sustained its principles, and on all matters of general legislation his influence and his vote were given to the most meritorious national measures. Among these was the important question of the Monroe doctrine, as applied to the construction of an inter-oceanic canal. He had introduced a joint resolution, in June, 1879, relating to the construction of a canal across the Isthmus of Darien by European powers. The next regular session of Congress commenced on the 1st of December, 1879, and on that day General Burnside gave notice that he should speak on the interoceanic canal question the next day. He did so, and was listened to with marked attention, speaking as follows: Mr. President: I have requested that the joint resolution introduced by me in June last and referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, might be temporarily withdrawn from the consideration of that committee, that I may briefly state my reasons for introducing it, especially as those reasons have been misunderstood and misstated, in Europe, as well as in our own country. I will ask the secretary to read the preamble and joint resolution. The VICE-PRESIDENT. The joint resolution will be reported. Whereas, the people of this Union have for upward of fifty years adhered to the doctrine asserted by President Monroe, "as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintained, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future' occupation' by any European power:" Therefore, Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the people of these states would not view, without serious inquietude, any attempt by the powers of Europe to establish, under their protection and domination, a ship canal across the Isthmus of Darien, and such action on the part of any European power could not be regarded "in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States." MR. BURNSIDE. This, Mr. President, is simply a reënunciation of what is known as the Monroe doctrine, a cardinal principle of American policy which has for upward of half a century secured us from foreign interference in, or foreign control of, the affairs of the Western Continent. This doctrine was embodied in the annual message of President Monroe to the Eighteenth Congress, which first met in this city on the first day of December, 1823. At that time the Russians wanted to extend their dominions on the Pacific Coast of North America so far southward as to include California, and King Ferdinand of Spain, who had been reinstated upon his throne by French bayonets, after having been banished by his disaffected subjects, was endeavoring to form an alliance with other European powers which would force back to their allegiance the revolted colonies of Spain in South America. Against this and similar demonstrations President Monroe formally protested, declaring to the potentates of the Old World that the United States would not tolerate the extension of their despotic machinations and intrigues to the New. This Monroe doctrine, Mr. President, has been the safeguard of these United States, and has been appropriately designated as the club of Hercules and the shield of Telamon, the former to ward off the armed intervention of European powers, and the latter to protect this continent from colonial encroachment. Acting upon its provisions, the United States should maintain its position as the governing power on this continent, and should carefully but positively exercise its prerogatives. While we as a nation do not propose to unnecessarily interfere with the course of any independent American power, or of any colonial government dependent upon a European power, we should bear in mind that we are the dominant power on the North American continent. Providence established our Republic in the wilderness, separated by the broad Atlantic from the intrigues and the corruptions of the Old World, which would have smothered the bright flames of liberty. Our fathers were permitted to achieve their independence, and in our day there has been an internal struggle for the perpetuity of the Union which has resulted in a firmer consolidation of the national power. We have not only maintained the position given us by our forefathers as against foreign powers, but we have suppressed the most gigantic rebellion known to history. We have also passed through a fierce struggle relating to the succession to the chief office of the Nation, a struggle which in any other country would have resulted in revolution, possibly anarchy. We settled the trouble by legislative action on the part of the people's representatives, and the people have acquiesced in and ratified that action. Having perfected and strengthened our own existence, having attained a high standard of moral and intellectual excellence, and having developed an unequaled mechanical, agricultural, and mining prosperity, we must not permit any infringement of our rights on this continent, or suffer any steps to be taken on any part of it which will interfere with progressive independence, civil or religious. Should any of the western governments now dependent upon European powers successfully renounce their allegiance, we should regard them as our political wards, and should encourage them in maintaining their independence; but we should not, and could not, allow them to take a step backward in the march of freedom and civilization. Should they attempt to establish a government less free than the one which they have cast off, we should at once intervene and see that they make an advance instead of a retrograde movement. That the colonies of Great Britain on our northern frontier will take any step looking to independence at present is hardly probable, but in the course of time two adjacent populations, generally of the same origin, speaking the same language, and having a common interest, must gravitate toward each other. Substantially, they are moving in the same channel that we are, and we need give ourselves no uneasiness as to the result of the problem which they are working out. With respect to Mexico and other governments near our southern border, there is an entirely different state of affairs. Mexico is chronically in a distracted condition, and although it was respected by the United States when our flag floated in triumph over its capital, and subsequently delivered, in large part, by the friendly offices of the United States from foreign intervention, it sometimes appears incapable of self-government, and we may find it our unpleasant but imperative duty to control it by some process. In my opinion, Mr. President, the time is not far distant when this government will have to take a new departure in its management of contiguous or newly-acquired territory. We should not necessarily invest with all the rights and immunities of citizenship people who may fall under our protection or control, and who are not qualified to exercise the duties of that citizenship, and some system of protection will necessarily be adopted by us to meet future exigencies in the management of such territories. We do not and should not desire acquisition of territory, but we must have peace on our borders. Our right to pursue Mexican marauders into their own territory, when the Mexican authorities are not capable of controlling them, has about been conceded. At all events, governmental armed forces have been authorized and directed to pursue these marauders into Mexico. This can only be a temporary expedient. The government of Mexico must acquire strength enough to control its citizens, and prevent them from encroaching upon our rights, or we must assume the responsibility of controlling them ourselves. The herdsman never attempts to control a wild mule by seizing its hind legs. He takes him by the head. We cannot control Mexico by handling and regulating its frontier. As for myself, Mr. President, I hope that the |