The Republican State convention which a.s.sembled at Saratoga on September 7 was not so harmonious as the Tammany body. For several years Senator Morgan and Governor Fenton had represented the two sections of the party, the latter, soon after his inauguration on January 1, 1865, having commenced building his political machine. As an organiser he had few equals. One writer declares him "the ablest after Van Buren."[1245] At all events he soon became the head of the party, controlling its conventions and distributing its patronage.
After entering the Senate he paid a.s.siduous attention to the President. The repeal of the Tenure-of-Office Act and an effort to secure the confirmation of Alexander T. Stewart for secretary of the treasury opened the way to Grant"s heart, and for these and other favours he received the lion"s share of appointments. In the meantime his opponents insisted that under cover of loud radical professions he had relied wholly upon trickery for success, banning able men and demoralising the party.[1246]
[Footnote 1245: Charles E. Fitch, formerly editor of the Rochester _Democrat-Chronicle_.]
[Footnote 1246: _Harper"s Weekly_, June 24, 1871.]
To these criticisms and Conkling"s advances the President presented a listening ear. Conkling had not thrust himself upon Grant, but the more the President tired of Fenton"s importunities, the more he liked Conkling"s wit and sarcasm and forceful speech. As patronage gradually disappeared Fenton redoubled his efforts to retain it, until in his desperation he addressed a letter to the Chief Executive, referring to his own presidential aspirations, and offering to withdraw and give him New York if the question of offices could be satisfactorily arranged.[1247] This ended their relations.
[Footnote 1247: Conkling"s speech, New York _Times_, July 24, 1872.]
Subsequent appointments, however, did not meet with more favour.
Fenton declared them fatal to party harmony, since some of the new officials, besides holding confidential relations with Tammany, had been friendly to the Philadelphia movement in 1866 and to Hoffman in 1868. Bitter criticism especially followed the nomination of Thomas Murphy for collector of New York in place of Moses H. Grinnell. "The President appointed Murphy without consulting either Senator," says Stewart, for thirty years a senator from Nevada. "Grant met him at Long Branch, and being thoroughly acquainted with the country and quite a horseman he made himself such a serviceable friend that the Chief Executive thought him a fit person for collector."[1248] The New York _Times_ said, "the President has taken a step which all his enemies will exult over and his friends deplore."[1249] The _Tribune_ was more severe. "The objection is not that he belongs to a particular wing of the Republican party," it said, "but that he does not honestly belong to any; that his political record is one of treachery well rewarded; his business record such that the merchants of New York have no confidence in him; and the record of his relations to the government such that, until cleared up, he ought to hold no place of trust under it."[1250] Yet Murphy bore endors.e.m.e.nts from men of the highest respectability. "Of those who in writing recommended his appointment or confirmation," said Conkling, "are Edwin D. Morgan, George Opd.y.k.e, Henry Clews, John A. Griswold, Charles J. Folger, Matthew Hale, George Dawson, and others. Their signatures are in my possession."[1251]
[Footnote 1248: William M. Stewart, _Reminiscences_, p. 255.]
[Footnote 1249: June 17, 1870.]
[Footnote 1250: September 19, 1871.]
[Footnote 1251: New York _Times_, July 24, 1872.]
Nevertheless, Conkling preferred another, and until urged by his friend Stewart to secure Murphy"s confirmation "to avoid the possible appointment of a less deserving man," he hesitated to act. "I told him that the struggle to confirm Murphy would enlighten the President as to the political situation in New York, and that he would undoubtedly accord him the influence to which he was ent.i.tled. Then, to force the fight, Conkling, at my suggestion, objected to further postponement."[1252]
The contest came on July 11, 1870.
[Footnote 1252: Stewart, _Reminiscences_, pp. 255-256.]
Fenton recalled Murphy"s malodorous army contracts, spoke of his disloyalty to the party while a member of the State Senate, submitted proof of his unscrupulous business relations with the leaders of Tammany, and denounced his political treachery in the gubernatorial contest of 1866. In this fierce three hours" arraignment the Senator spared no one. He charged that Charles J. Folger and Chester A. Arthur had appeared in Washington in Murphy"s behalf, because to the latter"s potent and corrupt influence with Tammany, Folger owed his election to the Court of Appeals in the preceding May,[1253] while Arthur, through Murphy"s unclean bargaining with Tweed, was fattening as counsel for the New York City Tax Commission.[1254]
[Footnote 1253: Under the provisions of the new judiciary article of the Const.i.tution a chief justice and six a.s.sociate justices of the Court of Appeals were elected on May 17, 1870, each party being allowed to put up only four candidates for a.s.sociate justices. To complete their ticket the Democrats selected Folger and Andrews, two of the four Republican candidates. The election resulted in the choice of the Democratic ticket.]
[Footnote 1254: New York _Times_, July 12, 1870.]
In his reply Conkling spoke for an hour in his most vigorous style.
"Every sentence," said Stewart, "was replete with logic, sarcasm, reason, and invective. Sometimes the senators would rise to their feet, so great was the effect upon them. Toward the conclusion of his speech Conkling walked down the aisle to a point opposite the seat of Fenton. "It is true," he said, "that Thomas Murphy is a mechanic, a hatter by trade; that he worked at his trade in Albany supporting an aged father and mother and crippled brother, and that while thus engaged another visited Albany and played a very different role." At this point he drew from his pocket a court record, and extending it toward Fenton, he continued,--"the particulars of which I will not relate except at the special request of my colleague." Fenton"s head dropped upon his desk as if struck down with a club. The scene in the Senate was tragic."[1255]
[Footnote 1255: Stewart, _Reminiscences_, pp. 256-7.
"In early life Fenton, having undertaken to carry $12,000 to Albany, reported the money lost. He was arrested and discharged after much testimony was taken. Whether accused justly or unjustly (most persons thought unjustly) it blurred his career. Conkling had a copy of the proceedings before the criminal court."--_Ibid._ See also _The Nation_, July 14, 1870.]
It was a desperate battle. For several weeks heated politicians, with pockets full of affidavits, had hurried to Washington from all parts of New York, and while it was admitted that the appointee was not a shining credit to his backers, the belief obtained that the control of the party in the State depended upon the result. The two Senators so understood it, and their preparation for the contest omitted all amenities. Fenton, regardless of whom he hit, relied upon carefully drawn charges sustained by affidavits; Conkling trusted to a fire of scathing sarcasm, supported by personal influence with his Democratic colleagues and the President"s power in his own party. The result showed the senior Senator"s shrewdness, for when he ceased talking the Senate, by a vote of 48 to 3, confirmed the appointment.
From Washington the contest was transferred to Saratoga. Fenton, desiring to impress and coerce the appointing power, made a herculean effort to show that although Conkling had the ear of the President, he could control the convention, and his plan included the election of Charles H. Van Wyck for temporary chairman and himself for permanent president. No doubt existed that at this moment he possessed great power. Delegates crowded his headquarters, and a score of lieutenants reported him far in the lead. From Fenton"s accession to the governorship a majority of the State Committee had supported him, while chairmen, secretaries, and inspectors of the Republican district organisations in New York City, many of whom held munic.i.p.al appointments under Tweed, had been welded together in the interest of the Chautauquan"s ascendency. To try to break such a combine was almost attempting the impossible. Indeed, until the President, in a letter dated August 22, expressed the wish that Conkling might go as a delegate, the Senator had hesitated to attend the convention.[1256]
Even on the eve of its meeting he counselled with friends on the policy of not taking his seat, while his backers talked of harmony and proposed George William Curtis for chairman. The confident Fenton, having retired for the night, would listen to no compromise. Meanwhile the senior Senator, accompanied by Thomas Murphy, visited the rooms of the up-State delegates, telling them that a vote for Fenton was a blow at the Administration.[1257] This was the argument of desperation. It meant to one man the loss of a federal office and to another the hope that one might be gained. Such a significant statement, addressed by the favourite of the President to internal revenue and post-office officials, naturally demoralised the Fenton ranks, and when the convention acted Curtis had 220 votes to 150 for Van Wyck.[1258]
Promptly upon this announcement Conkling, with great cunning, as if acting the part of a peacemaker, moved that the committee on organisation report Van Wyck for permanent president. The acceptance of this suggestion without dissent settled Fenton, who an hour later heard Conkling named at the head and himself at the foot of the committee on resolutions.
[Footnote 1256: A.R. Conkling, _Life of Roscoe Conkling_, p. 328. New York _World_, September 8, 1870.]
[Footnote 1257: The _Nation_, September 15, 1870.]
[Footnote 1258: "During the vote the delegates commenced a system of cheering, first for Conkling, then for Fenton. Senator Conkling was very conspicuous throughout the balloting. His friends gathered around him, while the other side surrounded Fenton, and whenever either moved their friends cheered.... Had there been a secret ballot Fenton would have won in spite of the threats and bribes."--New York _World_, September 8, 1870.]
Thus far Conkling"s success had been as unexpected as it was dazzling.
Heretofore he had been in office but not in power. Now for the first time he had a strong majority behind him. He could do as he liked. He possessed the confidence of the President, the devotion of his followers, and the admiration of his opponents, who watched his tactics in the selection of a candidate for governor with deepest interest. It was a harrowing situation. For several weeks Horace Greeley had been the princ.i.p.al candidate talked of, and although the editor himself did not "counsel or advise" his nomination, he admitted that "he would feel gratified if the convention should deliberately adjudge him the strongest candidate."[1259] Several circ.u.mstances added to his strength. Conkling had encouraged his candidacy to checkmate Fenton"s support of Marshall O. Roberts. For this reason the President also favoured him. Besides, Stewart L. Woodford, who really expected little, offered to withdraw if Greeley desired it,[1260] while DeWitt C. Littlejohn, always a t.i.tan in the political arena, likewise side-stepped. These influences, as Conkling intended, silenced Fenton and suppressed Roberts.
[Footnote 1259: New York _Tribune_, August 27, 1870.]
[Footnote 1260: _Ibid._, September 8.]
On the other hand, Greeley"s old-time enemies had not disappeared. No one really liked him,[1261] while party managers, the shadow of whose ill-will never ceased to obscure his chances, shook their heads.
Reasons given in 1868 were repeated with greater emphasis, and to prevent his nomination which now seemed imminent, influences that had suddenly made him strong were as quickly withdrawn. It was intimated that the President preferred Woodford, and to defeat Fenton"s possible rally to Roberts use was again made of Curtis. The latter did not ask such preferment, but Conkling, who had made him chairman, promised him the governorship and Curtis being human acquiesced. In the fierce encounter, however, this strategy, as questionable as it was sudden, destroyed Greeley, humiliated Curtis, and nominated Woodford.[1262]
Conkling"s tactics neither commended his judgment nor flattered his leadership. But Conkling did not then possess the nerve openly to make war upon Greeley. On the contrary, after secretly informing his lieutenants of his preference for Curtis, he dodged the vote on the first ballot and supported Greeley on the second, thus throwing his friends into confusion. To extricate them from disorder he sought an adjournment, while Fenton, very adroitly preventing such an excursion to the repair-shop, forced the convention to support Woodford or accept Greeley. The feeling obtained that Conkling had lost the prestige of his early victory, but in securing control of the State Committee he began the dictatorship that was destined to continue for eleven years.
[Footnote 1261: Edward Cary, _Life of George William Curtis_, p. 230.]
[Footnote 1262: Three ballots were cast as follows:
Woodford 153 170-1/2 258 Greeley 143 139 105-1/2 Curtis 104-1/2 87-1/2 20 ------- ------- ------- Total 390-1/2 397 383-1/2
The following ticket was nominated: Governor, Stewart L. Woodford, Kings; Lieutenant-Governor, Sigmund Kaufman, Kings; Comptroller, Abiah W. Palmer, Dutchess; Ca.n.a.l Commissioners, Absalom Nelson, Erie; Alexander Barkley, Washington; Prison Inspector, John Parkhurst, Clinton.]
The New York _Times_ charged Greeley"s defeat upon Fenton, insisting that "the fault is not to be laid at the door of Senator Conkling."[1263] Conkling also explained that "Greeley was pertinaciously supported by all those connected with the custom-house.
He failed from a want of confidence in him, so general among the delegates that electioneering and persuasion could not prevail against it, and even those who voted for him declared, in many instances, that they did so as a harmless compliment, knowing that he could not be nominated."[1264] Greeley himself avoided the controversy, but his acknowledgment of Fenton"s loyal support and his sharp censure of Curtis indicated full knowledge of Conkling"s strategy, to whom, however, he imputed no "bad faith," since "his aid had not been solicited and none promised."[1265] Nevertheless, the great editor did not forget!
[Footnote 1263: September 10 and 14, 1870.]
[Footnote 1264: From speech of July 23, 1872, New York _Times_, July 24, 1872.]
[Footnote 1265: New York _Tribune_, September 13, 1870.]
CHAPTER XIX
TWEED WINS AND FALLS
1870
The campaign that followed the control of Tweed and Conkling combined the spectacular and the dramatic. The platform of each party was catchy. Both congratulated Germany for its victories and France for its republic. Cuba also was remembered. But here the likeness ceased.
Democrats praised Hoffman, arraigned Grant, sympathised with Ireland, demanded the release of Fenian raiders and the abolition of vexatious taxes, declared the system of protection a robbery, and resolved that a license law was more favourable to temperance than prohibition. On the other hand, Republicans praised the President, arraigned the Governor, applauded payments on the national debt and the reduction of taxation, denounced election frauds and subventions to sectarian schools, and resolved that so long as towns and cities have the right to license the sale of liquor, they should also have the right to prohibit its sale. The live issue, however, was Tammany and the Tweed frauds. Congress had authorised Circuit Courts of the United States to appoint in every election district one person from each party to watch the registration and the casting and the count of votes. It had also empowered United States marshals to appoint deputies to keep order at the polls and to arrest for offences committed in their presence.
Against these acts the Democrats vigorously protested, declaring them unconst.i.tutional, revolutionary, and another step toward centralisation, while Republicans pointed out their necessity in the interest of a fair vote and an honest count.
To Conkling the result of the campaign was of the utmost importance.
He had suddenly come into power, and success would materially aid him in carrying out his policy of reorganising the party in the metropolis. For many years, under an arrangement with Tammany, Republicans had held important munic.i.p.al positions. This custom had grown out of the appointment of mixed commissions, created by Republican legislatures, which divided the patronage between the two parties. But since 1865, under Fenton"s skilful manipulation, these Tammany-Republicans, as they were called, had become the ardent promoters of the Fenton machine, holding places on the general and district committees, carrying primaries with the aid of Democratic votes, and resorting to methods which fair-minded men did not approve.
Among other things it was charged that Fenton himself had a secret understanding with Democratic leaders.[1266] These rumours had aroused the suspicions of many Republicans, who thought it time to dissolve the Tammany partnership, and having obtained control of the State Committee in the late convention, Conkling proposed to reorganise the New York general committee. Fenton was not unmindful of Conkling"s purpose. It had been disclosed in the convention, and to defeat it the Chautauquan was indifferent to ways and means. During much of the campaign he absented himself from the State, while threats of avenging the appointment of Murphy and the removal of Grinnell created the apprehension that his faction would secretly oppose the ticket.[1267]
[Footnote 1266: A.R. Conkling, _Life of Roscoe Conkling_, p. 329.]