Therefore resolved, that the Committee of Investigation and Retrenchment be instructed to inquire into the matter fully and at large, and particularly whether any collusion or improper connection with said business exists on the part of any officer of the United States, and that said committee further inquire whether any person holding office in the custom-house at New York has been detected or is known or believed by his superior officer to have been guilty of bribery or of taking bribes or of other crime or misdemeanor, and said committee is hereby empowered to send for persons and papers.
The Committee of Investigation and Retrenchment had not been appointed when Conkling offered this resolution. It had been agreed upon in the Republican Caucus, but had not been reported to the Senate. Senator Anthony immediately reported the names: Buckingham (Connecticut), Pratt (Indiana), Howe (Wisconsin), Harlan (Iowa), Stewart (Nevada), Pool (North Carolina), Bayard (Delaware). Sumner expressed mild surprise that no Senator who had favored an investigation of the New York Custom-House, or of frauds in general, was a member of the committee, unless Bayard (Democrat) might be counted as such. He quoted from Jefferson"s "Manual of Parliamentary Law" to show that the proper course was to give the leading place in such a committee to the prime mover of it, who was, in this case, undoubtedly Trumbull, but that n.o.body who had shown any interest in the matter to be investigated, not even the Senator from New Hampshire (Patterson), whose investigation of the previous session had uncovered the alleged frauds, and whose familiarity with the case would be most useful now, had any place on it. Anthony contended that inasmuch as all the Senators had voted to raise the Committee, the vote having been unanimous, all the requirements of parliamentary law were satisfied by the appointment of the seven Senators named, or any other seven. Thurman, of Ohio, thought that Anthony was "sticking in the bark" and not reaching the sound wood of the tree. Considerable time was spent in the debate on the composition of the committee, but in the end the list reported by Anthony was adopted, as was Conkling"s resolution, with its bulky preamble. The preamble was doubtless intended to convince Grant that Schurz (not Conkling) made the investigation necessary. The committee went to work early in 1872 and eventually furnished a solution of the Leet and Stocking mystery.
Leet learned in 1868, soon after Grant"s election, that he intended to appoint Moses H. Grinnell collector of the port of New York. He procured from Grant a letter of introduction to Grinnell, but Grant cautioned him, when he gave it, not to use it for the purpose of getting an office. When Leet handed the letter to Grinnell he remarked to him that he (Grinnell) was to be appointed collector of the port. Grinnell had not received any intimation of the fact before, and he inferred that Leet had been designated by the President to inform him of it. He asked Leet what he could do for him, and Leet replied that he wanted the "general order" business of the custom-house. Grinnell thought that this also was a message from the President, and he arranged as soon as possible to give Leet a portion of it. Leet farmed out this portion to a man named Bixby for $5000 per year, plus one half of all the profits in excess of $10,000. Then he went back to Washington and resumed his place as a clerk in the War Department; but he complained bitterly to Grinnell that his share in the "general order" business was not large enough, and he told Grinnell that he would be removed from office if he did not give him the whole of it. After much threatening, Grinnell did give him the whole of it, but he was removed, nevertheless, after holding the office about one year, and Murphy was appointed collector in his place. Murphy kept the "general order" business in the hands of Leet and Stocking until March, 1872, when the committee made its report. On the 14th of March, the newspapers announced that Murphy had been removed as collector and General Arthur appointed in his place, that the "general order" business had been radically reformed, and that Leet and Stocking had disappeared from history. In making this announcement the _Nation_ called the attention of the editor of _Harper"s Weekly_ (George William Curtis), who was still a little deaf to the shortcomings of the Administration, to some things hard to understand.
When the President [it said] became aware that Leet had abused his confidence, disregarded his wishes, made false representations as to his influence over him, and concealed his doings from him,--facts which were revealed by the repeated complaints of prominent merchants and by Leet"s appearance in public as owner of the "plum," and finally by a congressional investigation,--he took no notice of them whatever. So far as we know he gave no sign of displeasure, paid no attention to the complaints against him, and let him go on for nearly two years preying on the commerce of the port, till a second congressional investigation, obtained with great difficulty, and the savage a.s.saults of the press on the eve of an election, made the change we have just witnessed imperatively necessary.
It has been the custom of the friends of the Administration hitherto, whenever charges of this kind are brought up, instead of answering them, to tell you that they endear the President more than ever to the American people; that his renomination is a sure thing, etc.; and that Horace Greeley is a friend of Hank Smith. Now is this satisfactory? Let us have a candid answer, without allusions to cigars, or fast horses, or investments, or summer vacations, Hank Smith, or Horace Greeley.
No dollar of the Leet and Stocking "plum" ever reached President Grant or any member of his family. We are left to conjecture what were his reasons for allowing the scandal to continue so long after the facts became known. Judging his course here by his second term, we are forced to conclude that his combativeness was aroused by the criticisms of Schurz, Trumbull, and others, which he interpreted as marks of personal hostility to himself. In fact, his senatorial supporters so interpreted them in public discussions. He probably upheld Leet for the same reasons that he shielded Babc.o.c.k in the greater scandal of the St. Louis Whiskey Ring in 1876.[124] It was a mistake, however, to suppose (if he did suppose) that Trumbull was moved by any personal hostility. An interview with the latter, dated December 3, 1871, published in the Louisville _Courier-Journal_,[125] shows that he was still on friendly terms with the President. His interlocutor began by asking him if he would consent to the use of his name as a conservative candidate for the Presidency against General Grant, to which the "Illinois statesman replied with more than usual emphasis, "No sir, I would not.""
Then the following conversation ensued:
Why not?
For many reasons. In the first place, I am satisfied where I am. I consider a seat in the Senate of the United States a position in which I can be more useful than in any other, and I believe it to be as honorable as any under the Government if its duties be efficiently and properly discharged. In the next place, I do not agree with the programme which has been marked out by those who refuse to support the candidacy of the President for reelection. I am conscious of the need for many reforms, and I am daily striving to accomplish them. But I do not believe that a revolution of parties would be salutary. I do not believe that either the people of the North or of the South are ready to profit by such a change.
And why not?
Because the people of the South have really accepted nothing, and are not willing to cooperate with the Liberals of the North in settling the practical relations of society on a sure and generous basis. I know that the South has much to complain of.
But so have the Liberal Republicans. It is not the rebel element, perhaps, but the nature of things, that the South should not realize the complete overthrow of the old order and the necessity for a complete change of the domestic policy. I believe that the defeat of General Grant would involve a reaction at the South whose consequences would be even worse than the present state of affairs.
Don"t you think General Grant meditates the permanent usurpation of the Executive office?
No, I do not. My opinion is that General Grant is, in the main, a conservative man. He has made mistakes. But I cannot say they justify his removal.
What are your personal relations?
Very friendly. I have opposed some of his measures, but I have no personal feeling, and, indeed, this is one of the reasons why it is disagreeable to have my name mentioned in the connection you name.
The interview closed with the writer"s a.s.surance that the views of Senator Sumner coincided with those of Trumbull. A Washington letter in the _Nation_ of December 28 said:
From what I see and hear, the conviction is forced upon me that there will be no lead given by men like Trumbull voluntarily.
They may be forced by the Administration party into opposition, but they will go reluctantly and timidly.
Among the letters received by Trumbull at this time was the following from a man of high repute and influence in Ohio:
COLUMBUS, December 15, 1871.
You may remember me sufficiently to know who I am and my position in Ohio. My special object in this writing is to congratulate you for your proper and patriotic position on the Retrenchment Resolution. Messrs. Morton, Sherman _et al_, are grievously mistaken as to the state of public sentiment in regard to the Administration and the President. I am bold to say that outside of the Grand Army of the Republic and the office-holders (an _imperium in imperio_), more than one half of the Republicans are intensely dissatisfied with General Grant. His indecent interference in Missouri and Louisiana, his disgusting nepotism, his indefensible course in regard to San Domingo, and his recent complimentary letter to Collector Murphy have produced the conviction that he is intellectually and morally unqualified for his present position. He will hear deep and alarming thunder before the Kalends of November, 1872.
Go forward with your a.s.sociates, Schurz, Sumner, Patterson, and Tipton, in your exposure of the faults and frauds of the Administration, and the best cla.s.s of Republicans will honor your magnanimity and patriotism. I know General Grant personally. I have not asked him for any favor. As Senatorial Elector I traversed the state, and advocated the Republican principles and policy, but I have the pleasant consciousness and delightful remembrance that I never eulogized General Grant nor recommended him as suitable for the place. As long as he is under the special superintendence of Morton, Chandler, and Cameron, he must necessarily deteriorate, as none of them has ever been suspected of having any profound sense of right or wrong.
Confidentially yours,
SAM"L GALLOWAY.
HON. LYMAN TRUMBULL, U.S.S.
FOOTNOTES:
[122] _Cong. Globe_, 1871, p. 51.
[123] See House report No. 50, 37th Congress, 3d session, page 38.
[124] Rhodes, _History of the United States_, VII, 182-89.
[125] This interview was reprinted in the New York _Times_ of December 6. It is corroborated in sentiment by the Trumbull ma.n.u.scripts of that date, but it was probably not intended for publication. It purports to be a conversation between Trumbull and an ex-Senator.
CHAPTER XXV
THE CINCINNATI CONVENTION
The Liberal Republicans of Missouri held a state convention at Jefferson City, January 24, 1872. They adopted a platform which affirmed the sovereignty of the Union, emanc.i.p.ation, equality of rights, enfranchis.e.m.e.nt, complete amnesty, tariff reform, civil service reform, local self-government, and impartial suffrage. They also called a national ma.s.s convention to meet at Cincinnati on the first Monday in May.
This call was at once endorsed by General J. D. c.o.x, George Hoadley, Stanley Matthews, and J. B. Stallo, four of the most eminent citizens of Ohio, the first of whom had been a member of President Grant"s Cabinet.
Mr. Matthews, in an interview, expressed the hope that the Democrats would join in nominating a candidate for the presidency of the type of Charles Francis Adams, William S. Groesbeck, Lyman Trumbull, or Salmon P. Chase.
The movement spread like wildfire. Groups of Republicans, eminent in character and in public service in all the states, proclaimed their adhesion to it and declared their intention to partic.i.p.ate in the convention. It had also the active support of the Springfield _Republican_, the Cincinnati _Commercial_, and the Chicago _Tribune_, and the sympathy of the New York _Evening Post_, the _Nation_, and the New York _Tribune_. Democratic sympathy was manifested early and found expression in the columns of the Louisville _Courier-Journal_, whose editor, Henry Watterson, took a keen interest in the preliminaries of the Cincinnati meeting and whose cooperation was gladly welcomed. The New York _World_, edited by Manton Marble, gave pa.s.sive support to the movement by advising Democrats to conform to present facts and not seek to revive or sustain the dead issues of the war and Reconstruction.
Under date, New Orleans, April 23, Marble wrote to Schurz:
It is due to you that I should say, before you go to Cincinnati, that in my clear judgment the nomination of Charles Francis Adams would defeat the reelection of Grant. It has always been obvious that Mr. Adams would be among the best of Presidents. He has been growing, during the last few months, to be the best of candidates. I could not name another so safe to win. Adams and Palmer would be a quite perfect ticket.--This is founded on careful consideration.
August Belmont, of New York, the most influential Democrat in that state not holding any public office, took an active part, both by correspondence and by personal solicitation, in the endeavor to secure the nomination by the Cincinnati Convention of a candidate whom the Democrats could support, and to induce the latter to abstain from making a separate nomination. From Vincennes, Indiana, April 23, he wrote to Schurz that, after having seen many prominent men of both parties, he had found the Cincinnati movement even stronger with them, and the people, than he had antic.i.p.ated. He added:
Everybody looks for the action of your convention, and if you make a good _national_ platform denouncing the abuses and corruption of the Executive, the military despotism of the South, the centralization of power and the subordination of the civil power to the military rule, and declare boldly for general amnesty and a revenue tariff, you will find every Democrat throughout the land ready to vote for your candidate, provided you name one whom our convention can endorse.... I found in the West and in New York an overwhelming desire for Charles F. Adams. Adams is the strongest and least vulnerable man; he will draw more votes from Grant than will any other candidate. The whole Democratic party will follow him.
There was a full delegation from Pennsylvania, composed of honorable men, who were not office-seekers. The meeting which appointed them was presided over by Colonel A. K. McClure, who announced, when taking the chair, that inasmuch as the Cincinnati Convention was a ma.s.s meeting, the persons attending it would not be entangled in the usual political machinery. The movement was on the lines of the Republican party; it was a movement of Republicans by necessity, who did not mean to be bound by the Government party as it then stood. General William B. Thomas said that he and other gentlemen had issued the call for this meeting to send a delegation to Cincinnati. He was engaged in work looking to the annihilation of the Republican party. He had helped to build up that party, but now he was free to say that it was the most corrupt party on the face of the earth. He was opposed to any candidate to be nominated by the coming Philadelphia Convention; Grant, or any other man. Colonel McClure said that the plain English of the whole thing was rebellion against the party and the bringing of it to the dignity of a revolution.
Five years ago there might have been a necessity for the exercise of military power in the South, but not now. The South, to his mind, had been more desolated since the close of the war than before.
The Pennsylvanians had fifty-six votes in the convention. On the first roll-call they cast all of them for Governor A. G. Curtin. On all subsequent ones they gave a plurality for Adams.[126]
Numerous letters reached Trumbull before the call for the Cincinnati Convention was issued suggesting that he be a candidate for the presidency in opposition to Grant. One of these, dated Roslyn, Long Island, November 30, 1871, was from John H. Bryant, brother of William Cullen Bryant, who said that both himself and his brother desired to see him elected President and that if he should be a candidate he could count on the support of the _Evening Post_.
Silas L. Bryan, of Salem, Illinois, the father of William Jennings Bryan, wrote under date, December 19, 1871, that he considered Trumbull the Providential man for the present crisis and that if he would consent to be a candidate for the highest office he (Bryan) would take steps to promote that desirable end. To this letter Trumbull replied that to be talked about for the presidency impaired the influence he might otherwise have to promote the reforms which he labored to bring about.
He did not, however, refuse Judge Bryan"s offer of a.s.sistance.
Joseph Brown, Mayor of St. Louis, wrote that he would rather see Trumbull nominated for the presidency than any other man of either party. To this letter Trumbull made a reply similar to that given to Judge Bryan.
Walter B. Scates, ex-judge of the supreme court of Illinois, wrote: "You saved the Republican party in the impeachment trial and I now hope you may save the country from corruption, pillage, high tax, cla.s.s legislation, and central despotism."
Jesse K. Dubois, auditor of Illinois, perhaps the most sagacious and experienced politician in the state, wrote, after signing the call for the Cincinnati Convention: "With you as our candidate I would wager we carry this state anywhere from 30,000 to 50,000 majority as against Grant."
On February 23, Trumbull made a speech in the Senate defending the Missouri Convention"s platform against the objections of Senator Morton, who had stigmatized it as a Democratic movement, because that party in Connecticut had endorsed it in their state convention. In this speech Trumbull took up each resolution in the platform and showed that it was either in accord with Republican doctrine as affirmed in the national platforms of the party, or had been commended by President Grant in official messages to Congress. On the subject of civil service reform, to promote which Grant had appointed the George William Curtis Commission, he said: