A Political History of the State of New York Volume III Part 47

CHAPTER x.x.xVI

CLEVELAND'S ENORMOUS MAJORITY

1881-2

While Conkling was being deposed, John Kelly, to whom responsibility attached for Hanc.o.c.k's defeat, also suffered the penalty of selfish leaders.h.i.+p.[1772] Although his standard of official honesty had always been as low as his standard of official responsibility, it never aroused violent party opposition until his personal resentments brought Democratic defeat. This cla.s.sified him at once as a common enemy. In vain did he protest as Tweed had done against being made a "scape-goat." His sentence was political death, and as a first step toward its execution, Mayor Cooper refused to reappoint him comptroller, an office which he had held for four years. Republican aldermen joined in confirming his successor. Similar treatment, accorded his office-holding a.s.sociates, stripped him of patronage except in the office of register.

[Footnote 1772: "He wantonly sacrificed the Hanc.o.c.k ticket to his unscrupulous quest of local power. The Democracy here and elsewhere perfectly understand his perfidy, and they only await an opportunity for a reckoning. They intend to punish him and make an example of him as a warning to bolting renegades and traitors."--New York _Herald_, November 5, 1880.]

Then his Democratic opponents proposed depriving him of control in conventions, and having failed to reorganise him out of Tammany (April, 1881), they founded the County Democracy. William C. Whitney, corporation counsel, Hubert O. Thompson, the young commissioner of public works, and other leaders of similar character, heading a Committee of One Hundred, became its inspiration. Under the Tammany system twenty-four men const.i.tuted the Committee on Organisation, while a few persons at any a.s.sembly primary might represent all the votes of the district. The new organisation proposed to make its Committee on Organisation consist of six hundred and seventy-eight members and to place the control of all nominations in the hands of the people. It was a catchy scheme and quickly became popular. To carry it into effect a public enrolment was made of the Democratic voters in each election district, who had an opportunity, by registering their names, to join the Election District Committee. When thus affiliated each one could vote for a member of the Committee on Organisation and for delegates to nominating conventions. On October 7 (1881) Abram S. Hewitt, chairman of the Committee of One Hundred, issued an address, declaring that the organisation had 26,500 enrolled members, and had elected delegates to attend the State convention which met at Albany on October 11.

Kelly did not attend the convention. On his way from the depot to the hotel he found the air too chilly and the speech of people far from complimentary. It was plain, also, that the crus.h.i.+ng defeat of Hanc.o.c.k had obliterated factional division in the up-State counties and that Daniel E. Manning was in control. Nevertheless, Tammany's delegates, without the slightest resemblance to penitents, claimed regularity.

The convention answered that the County Democracy appeared upon the preliminary roll. To make its rebuff more emphatic Rufus W. Peckham, in presenting the report on contested seats, briefly stated that the committee, by a unanimous vote, found "the gentlemen now occupying seats ent.i.tled to them by virtue of their regularity."[1773] Kelly's conceit did not blind his penetration to the fact that for the present, at least, he had reached his end.

[Footnote 1773: Appleton's _Cyclopaedia_, 1881, p. 655.

The State ticket was as follows: Secretary of State, William Purcell, Monroe; Comptroller, George H. Lapham, Yates; Attorney-General, Roswell A. Parmenter, Rensselaer; Treasurer, Robert A. Maxwell, Genesee; Engineer, Thomas Evershed, Orleans; Judge, Court of Appeals, Augustus Schoonmaker, Ulster.]

The Republican convention (October 5) proved not less harmonious.

Arthur had become President (September 19),[1774] Conkling did not appear, and Warner Miller's surprising vote for temporary chairman (298 to 190), sustaining the verdict of the Legislature in the prolonged senatorial struggle, completely silenced the Stalwarts.

Conkling's name, presented as a contesting delegate from Oneida, provoked no support, while Depew, whom the Senator a year earlier had sneeringly referred to as a "creature of no influence," became permanent chairman without opposition. In the selection of State candidates few organization men found favour.[1775] Finally, in their overconfidence the Independents carelessly postponed a resolution reorganising the party in New York City to an hour when their rural support had left the convention, and the most important business before it failed by five majority. "Thus by sheer negligence," said George William Curtis, "the convention has left a formidable nucleus for the reconstruction of the machine which had been overthrown."[1776]

The platform deplored the death of Garfield, expressed confidence in President Arthur, praised Cornell's wisdom, prudence, and economy, and insisted upon equal taxation of corporations and individuals.

[Footnote 1774: "It was a common saying of that time among those who knew him best, '"Chet" Arthur, President of the United States! Good G.o.d!'"--White, _Autobiography_, Vol. 1, p. 193.]

[Footnote 1775: The ticket was as follows: Secretary of State, Joseph B. Carr, Rensselaer; Comptroller, Ira Davenport, Steuben; Attorney-General, Leslie W. Russell, St. Lawrence; Treasurer, James W.

Husted, Westchester; Engineer and Surveyor, Silas Seymour, Saratoga; Judge of the Court of Appeals, Francis M. Finch, Tompkins.]

[Footnote 1776: _Harper's Weekly_, October 15.]

Although the deep silence that characterised the October contest in Ohio pervaded the campaign in New York, Republicans believed that President Arthur, by the moderation and dignity of his course, had favourably impressed the public.[1777] His nomination of Postmaster General James and the tender of the Treasury to Edwin D. Morgan commanded universal approval. When Morgan declined, the nomination of Charles J. Folger, suggested by Morgan, added to his prestige. In fact, the most ardent champions of Garfield had taken little exception to the acts of the new Administration, and although Arthur's supporters had suffered defeat in convention, it was inferred that the President and his friends sincerely desired the triumph of their party. Moreover, the action of Tammany and the County Democracy in nominating separate local tickets had stimulated Republican confidence. It meant that Kelly, in his inevitable desire to defeat his enemy, would trade, combine, and descend to other underhand jobbery, which usually benefited the opposite party.

[Footnote 1777: "I dined at the President's on Wednesday. The dinner was extremely elegant, hardly a trace of the old White House taint being perceptible anywhere, the flowers, the silver, the attendants, all showing the latest style and an abandon in expense and taste."--Mrs. James G. Blaine, _Letters_ (March 13, 1882), Vol. 2, pp.

4, 5.]

However, the harmony blandly predicted did not appear. James W. Husted was overwhelmingly defeated, while his party, for the first time in twelve years, lost both branches of the Legislature.[1778] This amazing disclosure exhibited the bitter animosity of faction. In Albany, Erie, Oneida, and Oswego counties, Stalwart and Independent resolutely opposed each other, even to the point in some instances of supporting the Democratic ticket.

[Footnote 1778: Plurality of Carr, secretary of state, 13,022. Other Republicans had about the same, except Husted, whom Maxwell, treasurer, defeated by 20,943. The Legislature stood: Senate, Democrats, 17; Republicans, 15. a.s.sembly, Democrats, 67; Republicans, 61.]

On the other hand, the County Democracy was exultant. In spite of the combined opposition of Tammany and Irving Hall, the Whitney organisation carried the county by several thousand majority, securing four of the seven senators, twelve of the twenty-four a.s.semblymen, and twelve of the twenty-two aldermen. This left Tammany absolutely without patronage. It was not unnatural that many of Kelly's co-workers should doubt the possibility of longer working harmoniously under his leaders.h.i.+p, and the great secession of prominent men from Tammany after the formation of the County Democracy created little surprise. But that the movement should include the rank and file was an astonis.h.i.+ng revelation.

Nevertheless, Kelly, gathering up his three senators and eight a.s.semblymen, carried the war to Albany. Strangely enough Republican discord had given him the balance of power in each legislative body, and until the Democrats acceded to his terms (February 2) the a.s.sembly remained without a speaker.[1779] Two weeks later, upon the announcement of the a.s.sembly committees, Tammany, declaring its agreement violated, joined the Republicans in modifying the rules of the Senate so as to permit the Lieutenant-Governor to appoint its committees and complete its organisation.

[Footnote 1779: Kelly demanded the chairmans.h.i.+p of cities in both Houses, a satisfactory composition of the committees on railroads and on commerce and navigation, a share in the subordinate offices, and the exclusion of John C. Jacobs of Kings from the presidency of the Senate.]

No one knowing Kelly expected him to act otherwise. Nor can it be seriously doubted that he fully expected the Democracy, at the very next opportunity, to make substantial concessions. At all events Kelly presented with great confidence Tammany's claims to representation in the State convention which a.s.sembled at Syracuse on September 22 (1882).[1780] He knew it was a critical moment for the Democracy. The poverty of the Republican majority in the preceding election, and the Administration's highhanded efforts to defeat Cornell for renomination, seemed to put the State within the grasp of a united party. Yet the Tilden leaders, although divided among themselves, shrank from giving him power. This feeling was intensified by the renewed activity of the old ca.n.a.l ring. The presence, too, of Stephen T. Arnot of Chemung, who served as a member of the Kelly State Committee in 1879, added to their hostility. Indeed, so p.r.o.nounced was the resentment that on the first day of the convention Tammany was refused tickets of admission.

[Footnote 1780: The Greenback-Labour party held its convention at Albany on July 19, nominating Epenetus Howe of Tompkins, for governor.

It reaffirmed the principles of the party.

A labour convention was held at Buffalo on September 12, but no nominations were made. It favored abolition of the contract-labour system in prisons; of cigar factories in tenements; of child labour under fourteen; enforcement of the compulsory education act; reduction of labour to ten hours a day, etc.

An anti-monopoly convention a.s.sembled at Saratoga on September 13. No nominations were made. It demanded commissioners to supervise and control corporation charges; advocated free ca.n.a.ls; government owners.h.i.+p of the telegraph; postal savings banks; discontinuance of railroad grants; prohibition of combinations to control prices, etc.]

But behind Kelly stood the two leading candidates for governor.[1781]

In his canva.s.s of the State Roswell P. Flower, hopeful of Kelly's support, had created a strong sentiment favourable to Tammany's admission, while Henry W. Sloc.u.m, mindful of Tammany's dislike, had also done what he could to smooth its way. Under such pressure the leaders, after recognising the County Democracy as the regular organisation with thirty-eight votes, gave Tammany twenty-four and Irving Hall ten.

[Footnote 1781: There were eight candidates for governor: Erastus Corning of Albany, Homer A. Nelson of Dutchess, Grover Cleveland of Erie, Roswell P. Flower of Jefferson, Henry W. Sloc.u.m of Kings, and Allan Campbell, Waldo M. Hutchins, and Perry Belmont of New York.]

Although this preliminary struggle did not clarify the gubernatorial situation, it had the effect of materially weakening Flower. Of his popularity no doubt existed. As an industrious young man in Watertown he had been a general favourite, and in New York, whither he went in early manhood to take charge of his sister's property, left by her millionaire husband, he became the head of a prosperous banking house and the friend of all cla.s.ses. The liberality of his charities equalled the splendour of his social entertainments, while a few months in Congress as the successor of Levi P. Morton and the successful opponent of William W. Astor, had introduced him to the voters of the metropolis. He was now forty-four years old, with ample wealth, a wide acquaintance, and surrounded by scores of experienced political diplomats.

But Manning distrusted Flower. Back of him were Arnot, DeWolf, and other anti-Tilden leaders. He also deeply resented Flower's support of Kelly. It gave the Boss a new lease of power and practically paralysed all efforts to discipline him. Besides, it betrayed an indisposition to seek advice of the organisation and an indifference to political methods. He seemed to be the rich man in politics, relying for control upon money rather than political wisdom. Nor did it improve Flower's chances among the country delegates that one of the convention speakers thought him guided by Jay Gould, in whose questionable deals he had generously partic.i.p.ated.

Sloc.u.m had likewise sinned. Manning thought well of the distinguished soldier whom he promised one hundred votes, which he delivered. But his support of Kelly had been distasteful to the County Democracy.

Besides, he was charged with voting, when in Congress, for the "salary grab," and one delegate, speaking on the floor of the convention, declared that as a trustee of the Brooklyn Bridge, "Sloc.u.m would be held responsible for the colossal frauds connected with its erection."[1782] It added to the chaos of the situation that Flower's supporters resented Sloc.u.m's activity, while Sloc.u.m's friends excepted to the County Democracy's use of Allan Campbell as a stalking horse.

[Footnote 1782: New York _Tribune_, September 23.]

Grover Cleveland's candidacy seemed not very important. He was not wholly unknown throughout the State. Lawyers recognised him as a prominent member of the profession, and politicians knew him as sheriff of Erie County in the early seventies and as the recently elected mayor of Buffalo. But people outside the Lake city knew nothing of his character for stubborn independence, uncompromising honesty, and fearless devotion to duty. His friends tried to tell the delegates that he insisted upon public officials treating the people's money as its trustees, and that he had promptly vetoed every departure from this rule. They claimed also that he could neither be coaxed nor constrained into the approval of men or measures that were not honest and proper, citing several ill.u.s.trations that had greatly gratified and aroused his home people. This was the gist of Daniel N. Lockwood's short, happy, and forceful speech in presenting his name to the convention.

But such recommendations of candidates were not unusual, and although Erie and the surrounding counties mustered fifty or sixty votes, no movement toward Cleveland existed other than that growing out of the peculiar political situation. If Sloc.u.m and Flower failed, Nelson or Corning might benefit. Edward Murphy of Rensselaer, then mayor of Troy for the fourth term and closely a.s.sociated with Manning in leaders.h.i.+p, represented Corning with spirit, while the Dutchess friends of Homer A. Nelson exhibited their devotion by an energetic canva.s.s. Yet Cleveland possessed one strategic point stronger than either of them.

His absolute freedom from the political antagonisms of New York and King counties commended him to the County Democracy. This organisation of extraordinary leaders.h.i.+p had tired of deals and quarrels. The hammering of Tilden, the sacrifice of Robinson, the defeat of Hanc.o.c.k, and the hold-up in the last Legislature made a new departure necessary, and it may be said with truth and without injustice that the night before the convention opened the nomination of Cleveland, if it could be accomplished, seemed to the County Democracy the wisest and safest result.

When the roll-call began Kelly, playing for position, divided Tammany's vote among the possible winners, giving Flower seven, Sloc.u.m six, Cleveland six, and Corning five. The County Democracy voted for Campbell. Corning's withdrawal and large secessions from Nelson and Belmont sent Sloc.u.m and Flower far in the lead on the second ballot, while Cleveland moved up five points with the help of Kelly and others. The County Democracy again voted for Campbell. On the third ballot a break was inevitable. Hutchins had remained stationary, Nelson and Belmont were practically out of the race, and Sloc.u.m and Flower stood even. It was now in the power of the County Democracy to nominate Sloc.u.m. Manning approved it and Murphy had already given him the Corning vote. But the County Democracy, inspired by men of prescience and of iron nerve, went to Cleveland in a body, making the hall resound with cheers. Had Tammany, the next delegation called, followed suit, Kelly might have divided with his opponents the honour of Cleveland's nomination. Instead, it practically voted as before.

But Albany, Rensselaer, and other counties, catching the tide at its turn, threw the convention into a bedlam. Finally, when Kelly could secure recognition, he changed Tammany's vote to Cleveland.

To the tally-clerks Cleveland's nomination by two majority was known before the completion of the ballot. Yet upon the insistence of the Sloc.u.m men, because of confusion in making changes, the convention refused to receive the result and ordered another roll-call. This gave Cleveland eighteen votes to spare.[1783]

[Footnote 1783: Whole number of votes, 385; necessary to a choice, 193. First ballot: Sloc.u.m, 98; Flower, 97; Cleveland, 66; Corning, 35; Campbell, 37; Nelson, 26; Belmont, 12; Hutchins, 13. Second ballot: Sloc.u.m, 123; Flower, 123; Cleveland, 71; Campbell, 33; Nelson, 15; Belmont, 6; Hutchins, 13. Third ballot: Sloc.u.m, 156; Flower, 15; Cleveland, 211.]

The result brought the Democrats into perfect accord for the first time in many years. It had come without the exercise of illegitimate influences or the incurrence of personal obligation. To no one in particular did Cleveland owe his nomination. Besides, his success as a politician, his character as a public official, and his enthusiastic devotion to the clients whose causes he championed, challenged the most careful scrutiny. He was then unmarried, forty-four years old, tall, stoutly-built, with a large head, dark brown hair, clear keen eyes, and a generous and kindly nature concealed under a slightly brusque manner. His st.u.r.dy old-fas.h.i.+oned rect.i.tude, and the just conviction that by taste and adaptability for public life he had peculiar qualifications for the great office of governor, commended him to popular confidence. In Buffalo, where he had lived for a quarter of a century, people knew him as a man without guile.

Two days before Cleveland's nomination (September 20), the Republicans had selected Charles J. Folger, then secretary of the treasury. In character for honesty and ability the two men were not dissimilar, but the manner of their selection was antipodal. Of the five candidates who appealed to the convention, Cornell was the only real opponent of the Secretary.[1784] For more than a year, ever since he took office, in fact, Cornell had counted upon a renomination. He cleverly strengthened the State machine, surrounded himself with able lieutenants, and never failed to make appointments promotive of his ambition. The confirmation of Isaac V. Baker as superintendent of prisons with the aid of Tammany's three senators, especially ill.u.s.trated his skill in reaching men. But he had done more than organise. His numerous vetoes called attention to his discriminating work, indicating honesty, efficiency, activity in promoting the people's interests, and fidelity to Republican principles. An honest public sentiment recognised these good features of his work. Indeed, his administration admittedly ranked with the best that had adorned the State for a century, and his friends, including Independents and many Stalwarts, rallied with energy to his support. It was known, too, that the wisdom of Blaine permeated his councils.

[Footnote 1784: The candidates were Charles J. Folger, Alonzo B.

Cornell, James W. Wadsworth of Genesee, John H. Starin of New York, and John C. Robinson of Broome.]

Nevertheless, Conkling and the President marked him for defeat. It was notorious that their hostility grew out of the Governor's pa.s.sivity in the senatorial election, Arthur feeling the humiliation of that defeat scarcely less than Conkling, while memories of Crowley's failure and of the Governor's exultation had not faded. Conkling, not less bitter, had more recent cause for resentment. As the attorney of Jay Gould he had indicated a willingness to forgive and forget the past if the Governor would approve legislation favourable to the Gould properties.

But Cornell, satisfied of its unfairness, courageously refused.[1785]

When he did so he knew and subsequently declared, that if he had signed the bill, neither Gould nor Conkling would have opposed his renomination.[1786]

[Footnote 1785: The bill provided that the elevated railroad companies of New York should, in lieu of other public charges, pay a tax of four per cent. on their gross receipts. As first submitted the bill had the approval of the mayor and comptroller of the city, but after its modification they withdrew their approval and opposed its pa.s.sage on the ground that it unjustly discriminated in favour of these particular corporations and deprived the city of a large amount of revenue.--Appleton's _Cyclopaedia_, 1882, p. 600.]

[Footnote 1786: Albany _Evening Journal_, August 20, 1882.]