THINK Sociology Canadian 2nd Edition

Carl Solutions Manual

Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://testbankdeal.com/dow
nload/think-sociology-canadian-2nd-edition-carl-solutions-manual/
 Chapter 7: Social Class in Canada

CHAPTER 7: SOCIAL CLASS IN CANADA

Stratification in a Modern Society

Overview of Opening Excerpt

John Porter, The Vertical Mosaic: An Analysis of Social Class and Power in Canada
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1965).
Canada has no history of royalty or aristocracy. Because of this, many believe that
Canada is a “classless” society. Nearly 50 years ago, John Porter challenged the view of a
classless Canadian society. In The Vertical Mosaic, Porter described an elite class of
Canadians, who were nearly all rich, English, and male. Unlike the Marxist analysis of
social class, Porter saw that it was not only economic power that gave the elites their
privilege; it was also the power to control many institutions and to make decisions within
the institutional structure. The Canadian elites had not only economic, but also
bureaucratic and political power. Porter’s book remains one of the most important
sociological analyses of the Canadian social structure.

Essay question: Which sociological perspectives did Porter use in his analysis of the
Canadian social structure? Which perspectives are absent from his analysis?

Chapter Outline
1. WHAT IS SOCIAL STRATIFICATION?
a. Income Distribution
b. Wealth Distribution
A. How is Poverty Defined in Canada?
a. Power
b. Prestige
Go Global: From One Extreme to Another
c. Class Structure in Canada
i. Upper/Elite Class
ii. Upper Middle Class
Think Sociologically: Ashbury College
iii. Middle Class

56
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc.
 Chapter 7: Social Class in Canada

iv. Working Class

v. Lower Class
vi. The Underclass
d. Neighbourhoods and Social Class
B. Social Mobility
Make Connections: Nickel and Dimed into Poverty
2. WHAT ARE THE THEORIES BEHIND SOCIAL STRATIFICATION?
A. Functionalism
B. Conflict Theory
C. Symbolic Interactionism
D. Feminist Theory
Wrap Your Mind Around the Theory
3. WHAT SOCIAL POLICIES HAVE BEEN CREATED TO EASE POVERTY?
A. Social Policy: Welfare for the Poor
B. Social Policy: Minimum Wage

Chapter Overview
This chapter discusses social stratification, the orderly ranking of individuals based
on some objective criteria, usually wealth, power and/or prestige. Wealth is all of your
material possessions including income. Income is the money you earn from work or
investments. Poverty is defined in many different ways. Examples include transitional
poverty, marginal poverty, residual poverty, absolute poverty, and relative poverty. There
is no official definition of poverty in Canada, but Statistics Canada uses three measures
of economic stratification – low income cut-off (LICO), low income measure (LIM), and
the market basket measure (MBM).
Another measure of stratification is power, which is the ability to carry out your will
and impose it on others. Prestige is the level of esteem associated with one's status and
social standing. There are many different ways to divide social classes in Canada. Most
sociologists recognize an upper/elite class, upper-middle class, middle class, working
class, lower class and an underclass.
Neighbourhoods can influence behaviour. The concentration of poverty in a single
geographical area is correlated with high crime rates, increased drug use, and increasing
numbers of single-parent homes. Social mobility is the ability to change social classes.

57
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc.
 Chapter 7: Social Class in Canada

Davis and Moore, functional theorists, stated that a stratification system helps in the
smooth functioning of society. The idea that those who get ahead do so based on their
own effort is called meritocracy. Conflict theorists argue that every society has limited
resources, and it is the struggle for these resources that leads to stratification. Social
inequality is rooted in a system that is more likely to reward you based on where you
start, not just on the abilities you have. Symbolic interactionists focus on how people
perceive poverty and wealth. The higher our socioeconomic status (SES), the less we
believe that social class matters. Feminist theorists talk about the feminization of poverty.
Around the world, women experience poverty at much higher rates than men. In Canada,
there have been several social policies such as welfare and minimum wage put in place to
help ease the burden of poverty.

Chapter Learning Objectives

• How is poverty defined in Canada?
• What is the class structure in Canada?
• What social policies have been created to ease poverty?

Student Goals
 Understand the sociological concept and meaning of social stratification.
 Understand the difference between wealth and income.
 Identify and describe the different ways that poverty is defined in Canada.
 Define different types of social mobility.
 Explain the different measures of stratification and give examples of each.
 Describe the class structure in Canada.
 Explain the relationship between neighbourhoods and social class.
 Compare and contrast the functional, conflict, symbolic interactionist, and feminist
approaches to social stratification.
 Identify and describe social policies which have been created to ease poverty.

58
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc.
 Chapter 7: Social Class in Canada

In-Classroom Activities
1. Students have many different opinions about poverty. Ask them to do a free-write in
answer to the question “Why are some people poor?” Students can compare answers
in pairs, small groups, or this could open up a class discussion.
2. Replicate John Carl’s survey of “student opinions on why people get ahead”.
Compare your class’s results with those of John Carl’s students.
3. Divide the class into five equal groups. Tell the class that each group represents
approximately 20 percent of the Canadian population. Each group will receive the
percentage of income based on the latest Census distribution of income for their
group to plan a night on the town for a couple. Have your class use $1,000 to make
things easy. Based on 2005 Census figures, each group should receive the following:
 Group one: 47% = $470 (Richest 20 percent of families)
 Group two: 24% = $240 (Second 20 percent of families)
 Group three: 16% = $160 (Third 20 percent of families)
 Group four: 10% = $100 (Fourth 20 percent of families)
 Group five: 4% = $40 (Poorest 20 percent of families)
Groups should be given approximately 10 minutes to plan their activity. Each group
should share with the class what they planned for the couple to do with their allotted
funds. After each group has reported their planned activity, discuss with the class the
realities of living within each one of these five groups.
4. To understand the idea that occupations may be ranked along different dimensions
(pay, power, and prestige), give students a list of various occupations and ask them to
rank the list according to each of these dimensions. Does the order change if the
ranking is based on a different dimension?
5. For this activity students need to talk with their family members and discuss the
following items with them:
 What structural factors have affected your family’s social mobility during
different time periods?
 How have prestige, class, and status affected your family’s social mobility?
 How have individual factors affected your family’s social mobility?
After students discuss the above items with their families, they need to write a short
family history showing intergenerational social mobility for at least two generations.
Students can give short oral reports on their family history.

59
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc.
 Chapter 7: Social Class in Canada

Out-of-Classroom Activities
1. Think about the high school you attended. What evidence existed of social
stratification? What criteria were used to show status? What impact does social status
have on a high school student’s life? Write a brief essay in which you answer these
questions.
2. Make a list of the various factors that you feel determine the social standing of
college students in general. Next, visit your student union building or some popular
meeting place during lunch, or another busy time, and observe the students first-hand.
How would you classify the students according to social standing? Compare your list
to how you actually classified the students. Do you need to make any adjustments to
your list? Why or why not?

Discussion Questions
1. Which shows the greatest amount of inequality in Canada, the distribution of income
or the distribution of wealth?
2. Is income or prestige the most important indicator of success in Canada?
3. What does the fact that more and more adults are returning to college for more
training indicate about our society?
4. What are the top five reasons why people get ahead in Canada?

Essay Topics
1. What is the difference between wealth, prestige, and power?
2. Explain how the social class structure is set up in Canada.
3. Explain the interaction between education and social class.
4. Distinguish between social mobility, horizontal mobility, vertical mobility,
intragenerational mobility, intergenerational mobility, structural mobility and
exchange mobility.
5. What is the Davis-Moore thesis?
6. What is the conflict theorist explanation of social stratification?
7. What does the symbolic interactionist perspective say about social stratification?
8. What does the feminist theory say about social stratification?

60
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc.
 Chapter 7: Social Class in Canada

Key Words and Terms

income is the money received for work or through investments.

wealth is all of your material possessions.

quintile is one of five groups of households, ranked by income.

transitional poverty is a temporary state of poverty that occurs when someone loses a
job for a short time.

marginal poverty is a state of poverty that occurs when a person lacks stable
employment.

residual poverty is chronic and multigenerational poverty.

power is the ability to carry out your will and impose it on others.

power elite is a small group of people who hold immense power.

prestige is the level of esteem associated with one’s status and social standing.

upper or elite class is a social class that is very small in number and holds significant
wealth.

upper middle class is a social class that consists of high-income members of society who
are often well educated but do not belong to the elite membership of the super wealthy.

middle class is a social class that consists of those who have moderate incomes.

working class is a social class generally made up of people with high school diplomas
and lower levels of education.

lower class is a social class living in poverty.

underclass includes the homeless and people living in substandard housing

social mobility is the ability to change social classes.

horizontal mobility refers to moving within the same status category.

vertical mobility refers to moving from one social status to another.

intragenerational mobility occurs when an individual changes social standing,

especially in the workforce.

61
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc.
 Chapter 7: Social Class in Canada

intergenerational mobility refers to the change that family members make from one
social class to the next through generations.

cycle of poverty refers to the vicious circle where poor children are more likely to be
poor as adults.

structural mobility occurs when social changes affect large numbers of people.

exchange mobility is a concept suggesting that, within a country, each social class
contains a relatively fixed number of people.

meritocracy argument states that those who get ahead do so based on their own merit.

feminization of poverty refers to the fact that around the world women experience
poverty at far higher rates than men.

Lecture Suggestions
1. Invite a panel of speakers representing the various social agencies who work with the
poor or homeless in your area or community. Have them discuss issues concerning
these people, their characteristics, and what solutions are offered in your community
to assist them.
2. Have a discussion with students covering the following issues:
 What causes the gap between the rich and the poor to increase?
 What causes the gap to decrease?
3. Explain the Gini Index (or the Gini Coefficient)—a measure of inequality in the
distribution of income within a society. You can also easily find international
rankings of countries based on the Gini Index. Discuss the various social factors that
would affect the extent of inequality within a country.

Suggested Readings
Maria A. Wallis and Siu-Ming Kwok (eds.), Daily Struggles: The Deepening
Racialization and Feminization of Poverty in Canada (Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press
Inc., 2008).
Jeff Manza and Michael Sauder, Inequality and Society: Social Science Perspectives on
Social Stratification (New York: W.W. Norton, 2009).
J. David Hulchanski et al., Finding Home: Policy Options for Addressing Homelessness
in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010).

62
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc.
 Chapter 7: Social Class in Canada

Review Questions
1. What is social stratification?
2. How does Canada define poverty?
3. What are the theories behind social stratification?
4. What social policies have been created to ease poverty in Canada?
5. Compare and contrast the income and wealth distributions in Canada.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. Teachers and police officers are essential for society, but professional athletes are not.
Why do you think there is such discrepancy between the salaries of these three
professions?
2. Why are there increasing numbers of adults going back to school for additional
training and new careers?
3. What can be done to reduce income inequality in Canada?
4. Which sociological perspective offers the best explanation of social stratification?

Discover Sociology in Action

Nearly 30 percent of people who work for minimum wage are over 25 years old. Imagine
you were living alone and working for minimum wage. How much would you earn each
month? Now collect some information on living expenses in your city or town. This
includes rental rates, costs for food, transportation, clothing, utilities. If students are
living on their own, they may have a better idea of what these expenses are, otherwise,
have students work together to make a list of these expenses. Add up the two totals to see
how a person would live on minimum wage. This exercise could be repeated for different
family situations – a single parent or a couple where both work at minimum wage.

63
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Also the facts of the election in Hamilton, where the election
officers exercised no control over the ballot-box, but left it in
unauthorized hands, that it might be tampered with.
Also the reasons why the Attorney General of the State, Wm.
Archer Cocke, as a member of the Canvassing Board, officially
advised the board, and himself voted, to exclude the Hamilton
county and Key West precinct returns, thereby giving, in any event,
over 500 majority to the Republican electoral ticket, and afterwards
protested against the result which he had voted for, and whether or
not said Cocke was afterward rewarded for such protest by being
made a State Judge.

OREGON.

And that said committee is further instructed and directed to

investigate into all the facts connected with an alleged attempt to
secure one electoral vote in the State of Oregon for Samuel J. Tilden
for President of the United States, and Thomas A. Hendricks for
Vice-President, by unlawfully setting up the election of E. A. Cronin
as one of such presidential electors elected from the State of Oregon
on the 7th of November, the candidates for the presidential electors
on the two tickets being as follows:
On the Republican ticket: W. C. Odell, J. C. Cartwright, and John
W. Watts.
On the Democratic ticket; E. A. Cronin, W. A. Laswell, and Henry
Klippel.
The votes received by each candidate, as shown by the official vote
as canvassed, declared, and certified to by the Secretary of State
under the seal of the State,—the Secretary being under the laws of
Oregon sole canvassing officer, as will be shown hereafter,—being as
follows:
 W. K. Odell received 15,206 votes
John C. Cartwright received 15,214 „
John W. Watts received 15,206 „
E. A. Cronin received 14,157 „
W. A. Laswell received 14,149 „
Henry Klippel received 14,136 „

And by the unlawful attempt to bribe one of said legally elected

electors to recognize said Cronin as an elector for President and Vice-
President, in order that one of the electoral votes of said State might
be cast for said Samuel J. Tilden as President and for Thomas A.
Hendricks as Vice-President; and especially to examine and inquire
into all the facts relating to the sending of money from New York to
some place in said Oregon for the purposes of such bribery, the
parties sending and receiving the same, and their relations to and
agency for said Tilden, and more particularly to investigate into all
the circumstances attending the transmission of the following
telegraphic despatches:
“Portland, Oregon, Nov. 14, 1876.

“Gov. L. F. Grover:

“Come down to-morrow if possible.

“W. H. Effinger,
“A. Noltner,
“C. P. Bellinger.”

“Portland, November 16, 1876.

“To Gov. Grover, Salem:

“We want to see you particularly on account of despatches from the East.

“William Strong,
“C. P. Bellinger,
“S. H. Reed,
“W. W. Thayer,
“C. E. Bronaugh.”
 Also the following cipher despatch sent from Portland, Oregon, on
the 28th day of November, 1876, to New York City:
“Portland, November 28, 1876.

“To W. T. Pelton, No. 15 Gramercy Park, New York:

“By vizier association innocuous negligence cunning minutely previously

readmit doltish to purchase afar act with cunning afar sacristy unweighed afar
pointer tigress cattle superannuated syllabus dilatoriness misapprehension
contraband Kountz bisulcuous top usher spiniferous answer.

J. H. N. Patrick.

“I fully endorse this.

“James K. Kelly.”

Of which, when the key was discovered, the following was found to
be the true intent and meaning:
“Portland, November 28, 1876.

“To W. T. Pelton, No. 15 Gramercy Park, New York:

“Certificate will be issued to one Democrat. Must purchase a Republican elector

to recognize and act with Democrats and secure the vote and prevent trouble.
Deposit $10,000 to my credit with Kountz Brothers, Wall Street. Answer.

J. H. N. Patrick.

“I fully endorse this.

“James K. Kelly.”

Also the following:

“New York, November 25, 1876.

“A. Bush, Salem:

“Use all means to prevent certificate. Very important.

C. E. Tilton.”

Also the following:

 “December 1, 1876.

“To Hon. Sam. J. Tilden, No. 15 Gramercy Park, New York:

“I shall decide every point in the case of post-office elector in favor of the highest
Democratic elector, and grant certificate accordingly on morning of 6th instant.
Confidential.

Governor.”

Also the following:

“San Francisco, December 5.

“Ladd & Bush, Salem:

“Funds from New York will be deposited to your credit here to-morrow when
bank opens. I know it. Act accordingly. Answer.

W. C. Griswold.”

Also the following, six days before the foregoing:

“New York, November 29, 1876.

“To J. H. N. Patrick, Portland, Oregon:

“Moral hasty sideral vizier gabble cramp by hemistic welcome licentiate

muskeete compassion neglectful recoverable hathouse live innovator brackish
association dime afar idolator session hemistic mitre.”

[No signature.]

Of which the interpretation is as follows:

“New York, November 29, 1876.

“To J. H. N. Patrick, Portland, Oregon:

“No. How soon will Governor decide certificate? If you make obligation
contingent on the result in March, it can be done, and slightly if necessary.”

[No signature.]

Also the following, one day later:

“Portland, November 30, 1876.
 “To W. T. Pelton, No. 15 Gramercy Park, New York:

“Governor all right without reward. Will issue certificate Tuesday. This is a
secret. Republicans threaten if certificate issued to ignore Democratic claims and
fill vacancy, and thus defeat action of Governor. One elector must be paid to
recognize Democrat to secure majority. Have employed three lawyers, editor of
only Republican paper as one lawyer, fee $3,000. Will take $5,000 for Republican
elector; must raise money; can’t make fee contingent. Sail Saturday. Kelly and
Bellinger will act. Communicate with them. Must act promptly.”

[No signature].

Also the following:

“San Francisco, December 5, 1876.

“To Kountze Bros., No. 12 Wall St., New York:

“Has my account credit by any funds lately? How much?

“J. H. N. Patrick.”

Also the following:

“New York, December 6.

“J. H. N. Patrick, San Francisco:

“Davis deposited eight thousand dollars December first.

Kountze Bros.”

Also the following:

“San Francisco, December 6.

“To James K. Kelly:

“The eight deposited as directed this morning. Let no technicality prevent

winning. Use your discretion.”

[No signature.]

And the following:

“New York, December 6.
 “Hon. Jas. K. Kelly:

“Is your matter certain? There must be no mistake. All depends on you. Place no
reliance on any favorable report from three southward. Sonetter. Answer quick.”

[No signature.]

Also the following:

“December 6, 1876.

“To Col. W. T. Pelton, 15 Gramercy Park, N. Y.:

“Glory to God! Hold on to the one vote in Oregon! I have one hundred thousand
men to back it up!

“Corse.”

And said committee is further directed to inquire into and bring to

light, so far as it may be possible, the entire correspondence and
conspiracy referred to in the above telegraphic despatches, and to
ascertain what were the relations existing between any of the parties
sending or receiving said despatches and W. T. Pelton, of New York,
and also what relations existed between said W. T. Pelton and
Samuel J. Tilden, of New York.
April 15, 1878, Mr. Kimmel introduced a bill, which was never
finally acted upon, to provide a mode for trying and determining by
the Supreme Court of the United States the title of the President and
Vice-President of the United States to take their respective offices
when their election to such offices is denied by one or more of the
States of the Union.
The question of the title of President was finally settled June 14,
1878, by the following report of the House Judiciary Committee:
 Report of the Judiciary Committee.

June 14—Mr. Hartridge, from the Committee on the Judiciary,

made the following report:
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom were referred the bill
(H. R. No. 4315) and the resolutions of the Legislature of the State of
Maryland directing judicial proceedings to give effect to the electoral
vote of that State in the last election of President and Vice-President
of the United States, report back said bill and resolutions with a
recommendation that the bill do not pass.
Your committee are of the opinion that Congress has no power,
under the Constitution, to confer upon the Supreme Court of the
United States the original jurisdiction sought for it by this bill. The
only clause of the Constitution which could be plausibly invoked to
enable Congress to provide the legal machinery for the litigation
proposed, is that which gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction
in “cases” or “controversies” between a State and the citizens of
another State. The committee are of the opinion that this expression
“cases” and “controversies” was not intended by the framers of the
Constitution to embrace an original proceeding by a State in the
Supreme Court of the United States to oust any incumbent from a
political office filled by the declaration and decision of the two
Houses of Congress clothed with the constitutional power to count
the electoral votes and decide as a final tribunal upon the election for
President and Vice-President. The Forty-fourth Congress selected a
commission to count the votes for President and Vice-President,
reserving to itself the right to ratify or reject such count, in the way
prescribed in the act creating such commission. By the joint action of
the two Houses it ratified the count made by the commission, and
thus made it the expression of its own judgment.
All the Departments of the Federal Government, all the State
governments in their relations to Federal authority, foreign nations,
the people of the United States, all the material interests and
industries of the country, have acquiesced in, and acted in
accordance with, the pronounced finding of that Congress. In the
opinion of this committee, the present Congress has no power to
undo the work of its predecessor in counting the electoral vote, or to
confer upon any judicial tribunal the right to pass upon and perhaps
set aside the action of that predecessor in reference to a purely
political question, the decision of which is confided by the
Constitution in Congress.
But apart from these fundamental objections to the bill under
consideration, there are features and provisions in it which are
entirely impracticable. Your committee can find no warrant of
authority to summon the chief justices of the supreme courts of the
several States to sit at Washington as a jury to try any case, however
grave and weighty may be its nature. The right to summon must
carry with it the power to enforce obedience to the mandate, and the
Committee can see no means by which the judicial officers of a State
can be compelled to assume the functions of jurors in the Supreme
Court of the United States.
There are other objections to the practical working of the bill
under consideration, to which we do not think it necessary to refer.
It may be true that the State of Maryland has been, in the late
election for President and Vice-President deprived of her just and
full weight in deciding who were legally chosen, by reason of frauds
perpetrated by returning boards in some of the States. It may also be
true that these fraudulent acts were countenanced or encouraged or
participated in by some who now enjoy high offices as the fruit of
such frauds. It is due to the present generation of the people of this
country and their posterity, and to the principles on which our
Government is founded, that all evidence tending to establish the
fact of such fraudulent practices should be calmly, carefully, and
rigorously examined.
But your committee are of the opinion that the consequence of
such examination, if it discloses guilt upon the part of any in high
official position, should not be an effort to set aside the judgment of a
former Congress as to the election of a President and Vice-President,
but should be confined to the punishment, by legal and
constitutional means, of the offenders, and to the preservation and
perpetuation of the evidences of their guilt, so that the American
people may be protected from a recurrence of the crime.
Your committee, therefore, recommend the adoption of the
accompanying resolution:
Resolved, That the two Houses of the Forty-fourth Congress
having counted the votes cast for President and Vice-President of the
United States, and having declared Rutherford B. Hayes to be elected
President, and William A. Wheeler to be elected Vice-President,
there is no power in any subsequent Congress to reverse that
declaration, nor can any such power be exercised by the courts of the
United States, or any other tribunal that Congress can create under
the Constitution.

We agree to the foregoing report so far as it states the reasons for

the resolution adopted by the committee, but dissent from the
concluding portion, as not having reference to such reasons, as not
pertinent to the inquiry before us, and as giving an implied sanction
to the propriety of the pending investigation ordered by a majority
vote of the House of Representatives, to which we were and are
opposed.

Wm. P. Frye.
O. D. Conger.
E. G. Lapham.

Leave was given to Mr. Knott to present his individual views, also
to Mr. Butler (the full committee consisting of Messrs. Knott,
Lynde, Harris, of Virginia, Hartridge, Stenger, McMahon,
Culberson, Frye, Butler, Conger, Lapham.)
The question being on the resolution reported by the committee, it
was agreed to—yeas 235, nays 14, not voting 42.
 The Hayes Administration.

It can be truthfully said that from the very beginning the

administration of President Hayes had not the cordial support of the
Republican party, nor was it solidly opposed by the Democrats, as
was the last administration of General Grant. His early withdrawal of
the troops from the Southern States,—and it was this withdrawal and
the suggestion of it from the “visiting statesmen” which overthrew
the Packard government in Louisiana,—embittered the hostility of
many radical Republicans. Senator Conkling was conspicuous in his
opposition, as was Logan of Illinois; and when he reached
Washington, the younger Senator Cameron, of Pennsylvania. It was
during this administration, and because of its conservative
tendencies, that these three leaders formed the purpose to bring
Grant again to the Presidency. Yet the Hayes administration was not
always conservative, and many Republicans believed that its
moderation had afforded a much needed breathing spell to the
country. Toward its close all became better satisfied, the radical
portion by the President’s later efforts to prevent the intimidation of
negro voters in the South, a form of intimidation which was now
accomplished by means of rifle clubs, still another advance from the
White League and the Ku Klux. He made this a leading feature in his
annual message to the Congress which began December 2d, 1878,
and by a virtual abandonment of his earlier policy he succeeded in
reuniting what were then fast separating wings of his own party. The
conference report on the Legislative Appropriation Bill was adopted
by both Houses June 18th, and approved the 21st. The Judicial
Expenses Bill was vetoed by the President June 23d, on the ground
that it would deprive him of the means of executing the election laws.
An attempt on the part of the Democrats to pass the Bill over the veto
failed for want of a two-thirds vote, the Republicans voting solidly
against it. June 26th the vetoed bill was divided, the second division
still forbidding the pay of deputy marshals at elections. This was
again vetoed, and the President sent a special message urging the
necessity of an appropriation to pay United States marshals. Bills
were accordingly introduced, but were defeated. This failure to
appropriate moneys called for continued until the end of the session.
The President was compelled, therefore, to call an extra session,
which he did March 19th, 1879, in words which briefly explain the
cause:—

THE EXTRA SESSION OF 1879.

“The failure of the last Congress to make the requisite

appropriation for legislative and judicial purposes, for the expenses
of the several executive departments of the Government, and for the
support of the Army, has made it necessary to call a special session of
the Forty-sixth Congress.
“The estimates of the appropriations needed, which were sent to
Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury at the opening of the last
session, are renewed, and are herewith transmitted to both the
Senate and the House of Representatives.
“Regretting the existence of the emergency which requires a
special session of Congress at a time when it is the general judgment
of the country that the public welfare will be best promoted by
permanency in our legislation, and by peace and rest, I commend
these few necessary measures to your considerate attention.”
By this time both Houses were Democratic. In the Senate there
were 42 Democrats, 33 Republicans and 1 Independent (David
Davis). In the House 149 Democrats, 130 Republicans, and 14
Nationals—a name then assumed by the Greenbackers and Labor-
Reformers. The House passed the Warner Silver Bill, providing for
the unlimited coinage of silver, the Senate Finance Committee
refused to report it, the Chairman, Senator Bayard, having refused to
report it, and even after a request to do so from the Democratic
caucus,—a course of action which heralded him every where as a
“hard-money” Democrat.
The main business of the extra session was devoted to the
consideration of the Appropriation Bills which the regular session
had failed to pass. On all of these the Democrats added “riders” for
the purpose of destroying Federal supervision of the elections, and
all of these political riders were vetoed by President Hayes. The
discussions of the several measures and the vetoes were highly
exciting, and this excitement cemented afresh the Republicans, and
caused all of them to act in accord with the administration. The
Democrats were equally solid, while the Nationals divided—Forsythe,
Gillette, Kelley, Weaver, and Yocum generally voting with the
Republicans; De La Matyr, Stevenson, Ladd and Wright with the
Democrats.
President Hayes, in his veto of the Army Appropriation Bill, said:
“I have maturely considered the important questions presented by
the bill entitled ‘An Act making appropriations for the support of the
Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, and for other
purposes,’ and I now return it to the House of Representatives, in
which it originated, with my objections to its approval.
“The bill provides, in the usual form, for the appropriations
required for the support of the Army during the next fiscal year. If it
contained no other provisions, it would receive my prompt approval.
It includes, however, further legislation, which, attached as it is to
appropriations which are requisite for the efficient performance of
some of the most necessary duties of the Government, involves
questions of the gravest character. The sixth section of the bill is
amendatory of the statute now in force in regard to the authority of
persons in the civil, military and naval service of the United States ‘at
the place where any general or special election is held in any State.’
This statute was adopted February 25, 1865, after a protracted
debate in the Senate, and almost without opposition in the House of
Representatives, by the concurrent votes of both of the leading
political parties of the country, and became a law by the approval of
President Lincoln. It was re-enacted in 1874 in the Revised Statutes
of the United States, sections 2002 and 5528.

“Upon the assembling of this Congress, in pursuance of a call for

an extra session, which was made necessary by the failure of the
Forty-fifth Congress to make the needful appropriations for the
support of the Government, the question was presented whether the
attempt made in the last Congress to engraft, by construction, a new
principle upon the Constitution should be persisted in or not. This
Congress has ample opportunity and time to pass the appropriation
bills, and also to enact any political measures which may be
determined upon in separate bills by the usual and orderly methods
of proceeding. But the majority of both Houses have deemed it wise
to adhere to the principles asserted and maintained in the last
Congress by the majority of the House of Representatives. That
principle is that the House of Representatives has the sole right to
originate bills for raising revenue, and therefore has the right to
withhold appropriations upon which the existence of the
Government may depend, unless the Senate and the President shall
give their assent to any legislation which the House may see fit to
attach to appropriation bills. To establish this principle is to make a
radical, dangerous, and unconstitutional change in the character of
our institutions. The various Departments of the Government, and
the Army and Navy, are established by the Constitution, or by laws
passed in pursuance thereof. Their duties are clearly defined, and
their support is carefully provided for by law. The money required
for this purpose has been collected from the people, and is now in the
Treasury, ready to be paid out as soon as the appropriation bills are
passed. Whether appropriations are made or not, the collection of
the taxes will go on. The public money will accumulate in the
Treasury. It was not the intention of the framers of the Constitution
that any single branch of the Government should have the power to
dictate conditions upon which this treasure should be applied to the
purpose for which it was collected. Any such intention, if it had been
entertained, would have been plainly expressed in the Constitution.”
The vote in the House on this Bill, notwithstanding the veto, was
148 for to 122 against—a party vote, save the division of the
Nationals, previously given. Not receiving a two-thirds vote, the Bill
failed.
The other appropriation bills with political riders shared the same
fate, as did the bill to prohibit military interference at elections, the
modification of the law touching supervisors and marshals at
congressional elections, etc. The debates on these measures were
bitterly partisan in their character, as a few quotations from the
Congressional Record will show:
The Republican view was succinctly and very eloquently stated by
General Garfield, when, in his speech of the 29th of March, 1879, he
said to the revolutionary Democratic House:
“The last act of Democratic domination in this Capitol, eighteen
years ago, was striking and dramatic, perhaps heroic. Then the
Democratic party said to the Republicans, ‘If you elect the man of
your choice as President of the United States we will shoot your
Government to death;’ and the people of this country, refusing to be
coerced by threats or violence, voted as they pleased, and lawfully
elected Abraham Lincoln President of the United States.
“Then your leaders, though holding a majority in the other branch
of Congress, were heroic enough to withdraw from their seats and
fling down the gage of mortal battle. We called it rebellion; but we
recognized it as courageous and manly to avow your purpose, take all
the risks, and fight it out on the open field. Notwithstanding your
utmost efforts to destroy it, the Government was saved. Year by year
since the war ended, those who resisted you have come to believe
that you have finally renounced your purpose to destroy, and are
willing to maintain the Government. In that belief you have been
permitted to return to power in the two Houses.
“To-day, after eighteen years of defeat, the book of your
domination is again opened, and your first act awakens every
unhappy memory and threatens to destroy the confidence which
your professions of patriotism inspired. You turned down a leaf of
the history that recorded your last act of power in 1861, and you have
now signalized your return to power by beginning a second chapter
at the same page; not this time by a heroic act that declares war on
the battle-field, but you say if all the legislative powers of the
Government do not consent to let you tear certain laws out of the
statute book, you will not shoot our Government to death as you
tried to do in the first chapter; but you declare that if we do not
consent against our will, if you cannot coerce an independent branch
of this Government against its will, to allow you to tear from the
statute books some laws put there by the will of the people, you will
starve the Government to death. [Great applause on the Republican
side.]
“Between death on the field and death by starvation, I do not know
that the American people will see any great difference. The end, if
successfully reached, would be death in either case. Gentlemen, you
have it in your power to kill this Government; you have it in your
power, by withholding these two bills, to smite the nerve-centres of
our Constitution with the paralysis of death; and you have declared
your purpose to do this, if you cannot break down that fundamental
element of free consent which up to this hour has always ruled in the
legislation of this Government.”
The Democratic view was ably given by Representative Tucker of
Virginia, April 3, 1879: “I tell you, gentlemen of the House of
Representatives, the Army dies on the 30th day of June, unless we
resuscitate it by legislation. And what is the question here on this
bill? Will you resuscitate the Army after the 30th of June, with the
power to use it as keepers of the polls? That is the question. It is not a
question of repeal. It is a question of re-enactment. If you do not
appropriate this money, there will be no Army after the 30th of June
to be used at the polls. The only way to secure an Army at the polls is
to appropriate the money. Will you appropriate the money for the
Army in order that they may be used at the polls? We say no, a
thousand times no. * * * The gentlemen on the other side say there
must be no coercion. Of whom? Of the President? But what right has
the President to coerce us? There may be coercion one way or the
other. He demands an unconditional supply. We say we will give
him no supply but upon conditions. * * * When, therefore, vicious
laws have fastened themselves upon the statute book which imperil
the liberty of the people, this House is bound to say it will
appropriate no money to give effect to such laws until and except
upon condition that they are repealed. [Applause on the Democratic
side.] * * * We will give him the Army on a single condition that it
shall never be used or be present at the polls when an election is held
for members of this House, or in any presidential election, or in any
State or municipal election. * * * Clothed thus with unquestioned
power, bound by clear duty, to expunge these vicious laws from the
statute book, following a constitutional method sanctioned by
venerable precedents in English history, we feel that we have the
undoubted right, and are beyond cavil in the right, in declaring that
with our grant of supply there must be a cessation of these
grievances, and we make these appropriations conditioned on
securing a free ballot and fair juries for our citizens.”
The Senate, July 1, passed the House bill placing quinine on the
free list.
 The extra session finally passed the Appropriation bills without
riders, and adjourned July 1st, 1879, with the Republican party far
more firmly united than at the beginning of the Hayes
administration. The attempt on the part of the Democrats to pass
these political riders, and their threat, in the words of Garfield, who
had then succeeded Stevens and Blaine as the Republican
Commoner of the House, reawakened all the partisan animosities
which the administration of President Hayes had up to that time
allayed. Even the President caught its spirit, and plainly manifested
it in his veto messages. It was a losing battle to the Democrats, for
they had, with the view not to “starve the government,” to abandon
their position, and the temporary demoralization which followed
bridged over the questions pertaining to the title of President Hayes,
overshadowed the claims of Tilden, and caused the North to again
look with grave concern on the establishment of Democratic power.
If it had not been for this extra session, it is asserted and believed by
many, the Republicans could not have so soon gained control of the
lower House, which they did in the year following; and that the plan
to nominate General Hancock for the Presidency, which originated
with Senator Wallace of Pennsylvania, could not have otherwise
succeeded if Tilden’s cause had not been kept before his party,
unclouded by an extra session which was freighted with disaster to
the Democratic party.
 The Negro Exodus.

During this summer political comment, long after adjournment,

was kept active by a great negro exodus from the South to the
Northwest, most of the emigrants going to Kansas. The Republicans
ascribed this to ill treatment, the Democrats to the operations of
railroad agents. The people of Kansas welcomed them, but other
States, save Indiana, were slow in their manifestations of hospitality,
and the exodus soon ceased for a time. It was renewed in South
Carolina in the winter of 1881–82, the design being to remove to
Arkansas, but at this writing it attracts comparatively little notice.
The Southern journals generally advise more liberal treatment of the
blacks in matters of education, labor contracts, etc., while none of the
Northern or Western States any longer make efforts to get the benefit
of their labor, if indeed they ever did.
 Closing Hours of the Hayes Administration.

At the regular session of Congress, which met December 1st, 1879,

President Hayes advised Congress against any further legislation in
reference to coinage, and favored the retirement of the legal tenders.
The most important political action taken at this session was the
passage, for Congress was still Democratic, of a law to prevent the
use of the army to keep the peace at the polls. To this was added the
Garfield proviso, that it should not be construed to prevent the
Constitutional use of the army to suppress domestic violence in a
State—a proviso which in the view of the Republicans rid the bill of
material partisan objections, and it was therefore passed and
approved. The “political riders” were again added to the
Appropriation and Deficiency bills, but were again vetoed and failed
in this form to become laws. Upon these questions President Hayes
showed much firmness. During the session the Democratic
opposition to the General Election Law was greatly tempered, the
Supreme Court having made an important decision, which upheld its
constitutionality. Like all sessions under the administration of
President Hayes and since, nothing was done to provide permanent
and safe methods for completing the electoral count. On this
question each party seemed to be afraid of the other. The session
adjourned June 16th, 1880.
The second session of the 46th Congress began December 1st,
1880. The last annual message of President Hayes recommended the
earliest practicable retirement of the legal-tender notes, and the
maintenance of the present laws for the accumulation of a sinking
fund sufficient to extinguish the public debt within a limited period.
The laws against polygamy, he said, should be firmly and effectively
executed. In the course of a lengthy discussion of the civil service the
President declared that in his opinion “every citizen has an equal
right to the honor and profit of entering the public service of his
country. The only just ground of discrimination is the measure of
character and capacity he has to make that service most useful to the
people. Except in cases where, upon just and recognized principles,
as upon the theory of pensions, offices and promotions are bestowed
as rewards for past services, their bestowal upon any theory which
disregards personal merit is an act of injustice to the citizen, as well
as a breach of that trust subject to which the appointing power is
held. Considerable space was given in the Message to the condition
of the Indians, the President recommending the passage of a law
enabling the government to give Indians a title-fee, inalienable for
twenty-five years, to the farm lands assigned to them by allotment.
He also repeats the recommendation made in a former message that
a law be passed admitting the Indians who can give satisfactory proof
of having by their own labor supported their families for a number of
years, and who are willing to detach themselves from their tribal
relations, to the benefit of the Homestead Act, and authorizing the
government to grant them patents containing the same provision of
inalienability for a certain period.
The Senate, on the 19th, appointed a committee of five to
investigate the causes of the recent negro exodus from the South. On
the same day a committee was appointed by the House to examine
into the subject of an inter-oceanic ship-canal.
The payment of the award of the Halifax Fisheries Commission—
$5,500,000—to the British government was made by the American
minister in London, November 23, 1879, accompanied by a
communication protesting against the payment being understood as
an acquiescence in the result of the Commission “as furnishing any
just measure of the value of a participation by our citizens in the
inshore fisheries of the British Provinces.”
On the 17th of December 1879, gold was sold in New York at par. It
was first sold at a premium January 13, 1862. It reached its highest
rate, $2.85, July 11, 1864.
The electoral vote was counted without any partisan excitement or
disagreement. Georgia’s electoral college had met on the second
instead of the first Wednesday of December, as required by the
Federal law. She actually voted under her old Confederate law, but as
it could not change the result, both parties agreed to the count of the
vote of Georgia “in the alternative,” i. e.—“if the votes of Georgia
were counted the number of votes for A and B. for President and
Vice-President would be so many, and if the votes of Georgia were
not counted, the number of votes for A and B. for President and Vice-
President would be so many, and that in either case A and B are
elected.”
Among the bills not disposed of by this session were the electoral
count joint rule; the funding bill; the Irish relief bill; the Chinese
indemnity bill; to restrict Chinese immigration; to amend the
Constitution as to the election of President; to regulate the pay and
number of supervisors of election and special deputy marshals; to
abrogate the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty; to prohibit military interference
at elections; to define the terms of office of the Chief Supervisors of
elections; for the appointment of a tariff commission; the political
assessment bill; the Kellogg-Spofford case; and the Fitz-John Porter
bill.
The regular appropriation bills were all completed. The total
amount appropriated was about $186,000,000. Among the special
sums voted were $30,000 for the centennial celebration of the
Yorktown victory, and $100,000 for a monument to commemorate
the same.
Congress adjourned March 3d, 1881, and President Hayes on the
following day retired from office. The effect of his administration
was, in a political sense, to strengthen a growing independent
sentiment in the ranks of the Republicans—an element more
conservative generally in its views than those represented by
Conkling and Blaine. This sentiment began with Bristow, who while
in the cabinet made a show of seeking out and punishing all
corruptions in government office or service. On this platform and
record he had contested with Hayes the honors of the Presidential
nominations, and while the latter was at the time believed to well
represent the same views, they were not urgently pressed during his
administration. Indeed, without the knowledge of Hayes, what is
believed to be a most gigantic “steal,” and which is now being
prosecuted under the name of the Star Route cases, had its birth, and
thrived so well that no important discovery was made until the
incoming of the Garfield administration. The Hayes administration,
it is now fashionable to say, made little impress for good or evil upon
the country, but impartial historians will give it the credit of