Twenty Years of Congress, Volume 2 (of 2)

J >> James Gillespie Blaine >> Twenty Years of Congress, Volume 2 (of 2)

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72

The vote of the Democrats in favor of the Electoral bill, as compared
with the Democrats who voted against it in both branches, was in the
proportion of more than ten to one; whereas but two-fifths of the
Republicans in the two Houses voted for the bill, and three-fifths
against it. Only a single Democrat in the Senate, Mr. Eaton of
Connecticut, cast a negative vote; and he acknowledged in doing it
that the State Senate of Connecticut, controlled by the Democrats,
had requested him to support the bill. All the leading Democrats of
the Senate--Mr. Thurman, Mr. Bayard, Mr. Pinkney Whyte--made earnest
speeches in favor of it. Mr. McDonald of Indiana declared that the
popular sentiment of his State was overwhelmingly in favor of it, and
he reproached Mr. Morton for opposing it. Other prominent Republicans
in the Senate--Mr. Sherman, Mr. Cameron of Pennsylvania, Mr. Hamlin,
Mr. Blaine--earnestly united with Mr. Morton in his opposition to the
measure.

The division was the same in the House. Mr. Henry B. Payne of Ohio,
Mr. Abram S. Hewitt, Mr. Clarkson N. Potter, Mr. Samuel S. Cox, and
nearly all the influential men on the Democratic side, united in
supporting the bill; while General Garfield, Mr. Frye, Mr. Kasson,
Mr. Hale, Mr. Martin I. Townsend, and the leading Republicans of the
House, opposed it. The House was stimulated to action by a memorial
presented by Mr. Randall L. Gibson from New Orleans, demanding the
passage of the bill; while Governor Vance of North Carolina, afterwards
elected senator, telegraphed that the North-Carolina Legislature had
almost unanimously passed resolutions in favor of it. The Democrats,
therefore, had in a remarkable degree concentrated their influence and
their votes in support of the measure.(4) It was fashioned precisely as
they desired it. They agreed to every line and every letter. They
agreed that a majority of the Commission, constituted as they ordained
it should be, might decide these questions, and when the final decision
was made they cried out in anger because it was not in Mr. Tilden's
favor. One of the ablest judges of the Supreme Court, Joseph P.
Bradley, has been made subject of unmerited censure because he decided
the points of law according to his own convictions (sustained by the
convictions of Justices Miller and Strong), and not according to the
convictions of Justices Clifford and Field.

The Democratic dissatisfaction was instinctive and inevitable. In the
very nature of things it is impossible _after an election_ to
constitute a Commission whose decisions will be accepted by both
political organizations as impartial. It is, or it certainly should
be, practicable to establish by law, before the election to which it
may first apply, a permanent mode of adjudicating disputed points in
the return of Presidential votes. Yet with the serious admonition of
1876, Congress has neglected the duty which may well be regarded as
the most important and most imperative that can devolve upon it. The
government of a Republic is left to all the chances of anarchy so long
as there is no mode established by law for determining the election
of its Chief Executive officer.

The disappointment of the Democratic masses continued after the
inauguration of President Hayes, and it took the form of a demand for
an investigation. It was not expected, of course, that any thing could
be done to affect the decision of the Electoral Commission, but the
friends of Mr. Tilden clamored for an exposure of Republican practices
in the Presidential campaign. The Democrats in Congress were less
eager for this course than the Democrats outside of Congress. It was
understood that personal and urgent requests--one coming from Mr.
Tilden himself--were necessary to induce Mr. Clarkson N. Potter to take
the lead by offering on the 13th of May, 1878, a resolution for the
appointment of a select committee of eleven "to inquire into the
alleged false and fraudulent canvass and return of votes by State,
county, parish, and precinct officers in the States of Louisiana and
Florida, and into all the facts which in the judgment of said committee
are connected with or are pertinent thereto." The resolution was
adopted, and a committee was appointed, with power to sit during the
recess of Congress.(5)

Congress adjourned on the 20th of June, and after a short vacation
Mr. Potter's committee entered upon its extensive inquiries. Perhaps
with the view of stimulating the Democratic members of the committee
to zeal in the performance of their duty, Mr. Manton Marble early in
August published a carefully prepared letter on the electoral counting
of 1876. Mr. Marble was unsparing in his denunciation of the
Republicans for having, as he alleged, obtained the election of Hayes
and Wheeler by corruption in the Southern States. He dealt with
unction upon the fact that the _absolute trust of Mr. Tilden and his
adherents in the Presidential contest had been in moral forces_. As
the accusations put forth were attributed to Mr. Tilden, and only the
remarkable rhetoric of the letter to Mr. Marble, the public interest
was fully aroused, and the threatened exposures impatiently awaited.

The majority of the committee reported, though perhaps with greater
elaboration, substantially the same facts and assumptions that had
been brought against the Republicans in the Southern States directly
after the election, nearly two years before. If any thing new was
produced, it was in detail rather than in substance, and undoubtedly
showed some of the loose practices to which the character of Southern
elections has given rise. Between the violence of the rebel
organizers, and the shifts and evasions to which their opponents, both
white and colored, have been subjected, the elections in many of those
States have undoubtedly been irregular; but the Committee did not
establish any fraudulent voting on the part of Republicans. Freely
analyzed, indeed, the accusations against the colored voters were in
another sense still graver accusations against the white voters.
Duplicity is a weapon often employed against tyranny by its victims,
and there is always danger that a popular election where law is
unfairly administered and violence constantly impending, will bring
into play on both sides the worst elements of society.

But all interest in the investigation as it was originally designed,
was suddenly diverted by incidents which were wholly unlooked for when
Mr. Potter moved his resolution and when Mr. Marble wrote his
letter--giving an unexpected conclusion to the grand inquest so
impressively heralded.

It happened that during an inquiry into the Oregon case by a Senate
Committee, some thirty thousand political telegrams (mainly in cipher)
had been brought into the custody of the committee by _subpoenas_ to
the Western Union Telegraph Company. The great mass of these telegrams
were returned to the Company without translation. About seven hundred,
however, had been retained by an _employe_ of the committee. The
re-opening of the Presidential controversy by the Democrats, and
especially the offensive letter of Mr. Marble, led to a renewed effort
to decipher the reserved telegrams. The translation was accomplished
by an able and ingenious gentleman on the editorial staff of the
_New-York Tribune_ (Mr. William M. Grosvenor), and the result disclosed
astonishing attempts at bribery on the part of Democratic agents in
South Carolina, Florida, and Oregon. What may have been done of the
same character in Louisiana can only be inferred, for no dispatches
from that State were found.

The gentlemen who went to Florida in Mr. Tilden's interests were Mr.
Manton Marble, Mr. C. W. Woolley, and Mr. John F. Coyle. Mr. Marble's
_sobriquet_ in the cipher dispatches was _Moses_. Mr. Woolley took
the suggestive pseudonym of _Fox_, while Mr. Coyle was known as _Max_.
Their joint mission was to secure the Electoral vote of the State, by
purchase if need be, not quite as openly, but as directly as if they
were negotiating for a cargo of cotton or offering money for an
orange-grove. Mr. Marble was alarmed soon after his arrival by finding
that the Democratic electors had "only about one hundred majority on
certified copies, while the Republicans claimed the same on returns."
Growing anxious, he telegraphed on November 22 to Mr. William T. Pelton
(a nephew of Mr. Tilden): "Woolley asked me to say let forces be got
together immediately for _contingencies_ either here or in Louisiana."
A few days later Mr. Marble telegraphed: "Have just received a
proposition to hand over at any time required, Tilden decision of Board
and certificate of Governor, for $200,000." Mr. Pelton thought the
"proposition too high," and thereupon Mr. Marble and Mr. Woolley each
found that an Elector could be secured for $50,000, and so telegraphed
Mr. Pelton. Mr. Pelton, with commendable economy, warned them that he
did not wish to pay twice for the same article, and with true
commercial caution advised the Florida agents that "they could not
draw until the vote of the Elector was received." According to Mr.
Woolley the power was received too late, and on the 5th of December Mr.
Marble closed the interesting correspondence with these words to Mr.
Pelton: "Proposition failed. Finished responsibility as Moses. Last
night Woolley found me and said he had nothing, which I knew already.
Tell Tilden to saddle Blackstone."

Mr. Smith W. Weed went on a similar errand to South Carolina. He did
not attempt to hide behind any disguised name, and simply telegraphed
over his own initial. On the 16th of November he informed Mr. Henry
Havermeyer, who seemed to be co-operating with Mr. Pelton in New York,
that "the Board demand $75,000 for giving us two or three electors,"
and that "something beyond will be needful for the interceder, perhaps
$10,000." At a later hour of the same day he thought that he had
made a better bargain, and telegraphed Mr. Havermeyer that "it looks
now as though the thing would work at $75,000 for all seven votes."
The next day Mr. Weed began to fear the interposition of the court,
and advised Mr. Havermeyer to "press otherwheres; for no certainty
here, simply a hope." Twenty-four hours later Mr. Weed's confidence
revived, and on the 18th he telegraphed,--"Majority of board have
been secured. Cost is $80,000,--one parcel to be sent of $65,000;
one of $10,000; one of $5,000; all to be in $500 or $1,000 bills, notes
to be accepted as parties accept and given up upon votes of South
Carolina being given to Tilden's friends. Do this at once and have
cash ready to reach Baltimore Sunday night." Mr. Weed then started to
Baltimore with the intention of meeting a messenger from New York
with the money. Mr. Pelton was there but had not brought the money,
and both went to New York to secure it.

Meanwhile the Canvassing Board of South Carolina reported the returns
to the court, showing on their face the election of the Hayes Electors,
and of a Democratic Legislature which would count the vote for
Governor. The Board also reported that the votes of Lawrence and
Edgefield Counties ought to be thrown out, which would make a
Republican Legislature. On the 22d the court issued an order to the
Board to certify the members of the Legislature according to the face
of the returns, but to revise and correct the Electoral vote
according to the precinct returns. Without receiving this order the
Canvassing Board, whose powers expired by statutory limitation on that
day, perceiving the purpose of the Court to prevent any count of the
Electoral vote, declared and certified the election of the Republican
electors, rejected the votes of Lawrence and Edgefield Counties,
certified the election of a Republican Legislature, and then
adjourned without day.

This result put an end to the plans of Mr. Weed and Mr. Pelton for
bribing the Canvassing Board. But their resources were not yet
exhausted. On the 4th of December Mr. Pelton offered to furnish
$20,000 if it "would secure several electors." This plan also failing,
he telegraphed, advising "that the Court under the pending _quo
warranto_ proceedings should arrest the Electors for contempt, and
imprison them separately during Wednesday," the day for casting their
votes for President and Vice-President; "for," as he plaintively
added, "_all depends on your State_." Imprisoning "separately" was
essential, for if they were imprisoned together they could have cast
the Electoral vote.

In Oregon the attempt to bribe was quite as bold as in the two Southern
States. Mr. George L. Miller of Omaha, member of the National
Democratic Committee for Nebraska, had been requested by Mr. Pelton to
go to Oregon, but had sent in his stead one J. N. H. Patrick, who
upon his arrival at Portland began an active telegraphic
correspondence with Mr. Pelton. On the 28th of November he telegraphed
Mr. Pelton that Governor Grover would issue a certificate of election
to one Democratic Elector (Cronin), and added, "Must purchase
Republican Elector to recognize and act with the Democrat, and secure
vote to prevent trouble. Deposit $10,000 to my credit." This telegram
was endorsed by Senator Kelly, to whom Mr. Abram S. Hewitt had on the
17th of November telegraphed at San Francisco when on his way to
Washington, that circumstances required his immediate return to Oregon
to consult Governor Grover. Mr. Pelton replied to Mr. Patrick, "If you
will make obligation, contingent on result in March, it will be done,
and _incremable_ slightly if necessary," to which Mr. Patrick responded
that the fee could not be made contingent; whereupon the sum of $8,000
was deposited to his credit on the 1st of December, in New York, but
intelligence of it reached Oregon too late to carry out any attempt to
corrupt a Republican Elector.

As nothing had been known of these extraordinary facts when Mr. Potter
moved for the appointment of his investigating committee, the House of
Representatives, on the 20th of January, 1879, directed that committee
to investigate the cipher telegrams. Before this committee the
genuineness of the telegrams and the correctness of the translation
by the _Tribune_ were abundantly established. Some of the principal
persons connected with them appeared before the committee to explain
and to excuse. Senator Kelly had previously stated that he endorsed
Mr. Patrick's dispatch without knowing its contents, a statement
probable in itself and sustained by Mr. Kelly's good reputation. Mr.
Marble swore that he transmitted to headquarters information of the
opportunities for corruption merely "as danger signals." Mr. Weed
admitted and tried to justify his efforts to bribe the South Carolina
Canvassing Board. Mr. Pelton admitted all his attempts and took upon
himself the full responsibility, saying that if money became actually
necessary, he intended to call for it upon Mr. Edward Cooper and the
members of the National Democratic Committee. Mr. Cooper swore that he
first knew that Mr. Pelton was conducting such negotiations when he
went to Baltimore; and that when on the next day he received from Mr.
Pelton a cipher telegram requesting that the $80,000 should be sent to
him at Baltimore, he informed Mr. Tilden what Pelton was doing,
whereupon he was recalled and "the thing was stopped." Under
cross-examination by Mr. Reed of Maine, Mr. Tilden swore that he knew
nothing of any of the telegrams; that the first he knew of the Florida
transactions was when they were mentioned to him by Mr. Marble after
his return from Florida; that he was informed by Mr. Cooper of the
South Carolina negotiations and stopped them; that he scorned to
defend his title by such means as were employed to acquire a felonious
possession. Neither Mr. Patrick nor Mr. Woolley appeared before the
committee.

Two general conclusions may safely be drawn from the voluminous
evidence: _first_, that the Democratic agents in the contested States
of Florida, South Carolina, and Oregon earnestly and persistently
endeavored to change the result from Hayes to Tilden by the use of
large sums of money as bribes to official persons to violate their
duty; _second_, that the negotiations for that purpose do not show
that any member of any Canvassing Board or any Presidential Elector
ever contemplated betraying his trust for such inducement. The
interest throughout the investigation centred upon Mr. Tilden, and
concerning him and his course there followed general discussion--angry
accusation and warm defense. There is nothing in the testimony to
contradict the oath taken by Mr. Tilden and there has been no desire
to fasten a guilty responsibility upon him. But the simple fact
remains that a Presidential canvass which began with a ponderous
manifesto in favor of "reform" in every department of the Government,
and which accused those who had been entrusted with power for sixteen
years of every form of dishonesty and corruption, ended with a
persistent and shameless effort to bribe the electors of three States!

[(1) The joint committee respecting the mode of counting the electoral
votes consisted of the following members:--

SENATORS: George F. Edmunds of Vermont, F. T. Frelinghuysen of New
Jersey, John A. Logan of Illinois, Oliver P. Morton of Indiana, _Allen
G. Thurman_ of Ohio, _Thomas F. Bayard_ of Delaware, and _Matt W.
Ransom_ of North Carolina.

General Logan was detained in Illinois, and Mr. Conkling was
substituted on the committee.

REPRESENTATIVES: _Henry B. Payne_ of Ohio, _Eppa Hunton_ of Virginia,
_Abram S. Hewitt_ of New York, _William M. Springer_ of Illinois,
George W. McCrary of Iowa, George F. Hoar of Massachusetts, and George
Willard of Michigan.]

[(2) The Commission as organized was as follows:--

JUSTICES of the Supreme Court: Nathan Clifford, Samuel F. Miller,
Stephen J. Field, William Strong, Joseph P. Bradley.

SENATORS: George F. Edmunds, Oliver P. Morton, Frederick T.
Frelinghuysen, Thomas F. Bayard, Allen G. Thurman.

REPRESENTATIVES: Henry B. Payne, Eppa Hunton, Josiah G. Abbott, James
A. Garfield, George F. Hoar.]

[(3) The following counsel attended:--

On the Democratic side: Judge Jeremiah S. Black, Charles O'Connor,
John A. Campbell, formerly of the Supreme Court, Lyman Trumbull,
Montgomery Blair, Matthew H. Carpenter, Ashbel Green, George Hoadly,
Richard T. Merrick, William C. Whitney, Alexander Porter Morse.

On the Republican side: William M. Evarts, Stanley Matthews, E. W.
Stoughton, Samuel Shellabarger. In addition to regular counsel the
objectors to any certificate or vote were allowed to be heard by two
of their number. Senators Howe, Christiancy, Sherman, McDonald,
Sargent, Mitchell, C. W. Jones, Conover and Cooper, together with
Representatives Kasson, William Lawrence, David Dudley Field, Tucker,
Hunt, McCrary, Hurlbut, Dunnell, Cochrane, Thompson and Woodburn were
appointed to this duty.]

[(4) The following is an exact statement of the vote on the Electoral
Bill in both branches:--

In the Senate 26 Democrats voted for the Bill and 1 against it.
" " " 21 Republicans " " " " " 16 " "
In the House 160 Democrats " " " " " 17 " "
" " " 31 Republicans " " " " " 69 " "

In the two Houses jointly, 186 Democrats voted for the Electoral Bill
and 18 against it, while 52 Republicans voted for the Bill and 75
against it.]

[(5) The following were the members composing the committee:--

_Clarkson N. Potter_ of New York, _William R. Morrison_ of Illinois,
_Eppa Hunton_ of Virginia, _William S. Stenger_ of Pennsylvania,
_John A. McMahon_ of Ohio, _J. C. S. Blackburn_ of Kentucky, _William
M. Springer_ of Illinois, Benjamin F. Butler of Massachusetts, Jacob
D. Cox of Ohio, Thomas B. Reed of Maine, Frank Hiscock of New York.]

CHAPTER XXVI.

President Hayes was inaugurated on the 5th day of March (1877)--the
4th falling on a Sunday. As matter of precaution the oath of office
was administered to him by Chief Justice Waite on Sunday--Mr. Hayes
deeming it wise and prudent that he should be ready as President of
the United States to do his official duty if any Executive act should
that day be required for the public safety. Although his title had
been in doubt until within forty-eight hours of his accession, he had
carefully prepared his Inaugural address. It was made evident by his
words that he would adopt a new policy on the Southern question and
upon the question of Civil Service Reform. It was plainly his
determination to withdraw from the South all National protection to
the colored people, and to put the white population of the
reconstructed States upon their good faith and their honor, as to
their course touching the political rights of all citizens.

The Inaugural address did not give satisfaction to the radical
Republicans, but was received with every mark of approbation by the
more conservative elements of the party. Many Democrats would have
supported Mr. Hayes cordially but for the mode of his election. It
was impossible for them to recover from the chagrin and disappointment
of Mr. Tilden's defeat. The new President, therefore, began his
administration with a bitter personal opposition from the Democracy,
and with a distrust of his own policy on the part of a large number of
those who had signally aided in his election.

The one special source of dissatisfaction was the intention of the
President to disregard the State elections in the three States upon
whose votes his own title depended. The concentration of interest was
upon the State of Louisiana, where Governor Packard was officially
declared to have received a larger popular majority than President
Hayes. By negotiation of certain Commissioners who went to Louisiana
under appointment of the President, the Democratic candidate for
Governor, Francis T. Nicholls, was installed in office and Governor
Packard was left helpless.(1) No act of President Hayes did so much to
create discontent within the ranks of the Republican party. No act of
his did so much to give color to the thousand rumors that filled the
political atmosphere, touching a bargain between the President's
friends and some Southern leaders, pending the decision of the
Electoral Commission. The election of the President and the election
of Mr. Packard rested substantially upon the same foundation, and many
Republicans felt that the President's refusal to recognize Mr. Packard
as Governor of Louisiana furnished ground to his enemies for disputing
his own election. Having been placed in the Presidency by a title as
strong as could be confirmed under the Constitution and the laws of the
country, it was, in the judgment of the majority of the Republican
party, an unwise and unwarranted act on the part of the President to
purchase peace in the South by surrendering Louisiana to the Democratic
party.

The Cabinet selected by President Hayes was regarded as one of great
ability. Mr. Evarts, Secretary of State, Mr. Sherman, Secretary of
the Treasury, Mr. Schurz, Secretary of the Interior, were well known.

--The Secretary of War, George W. McCrary of Iowa, had steadily grown
in public esteem by his service in the House of Representatives, and
possessed every quality desirable for the administration of a great
public trust.

--Mr. Richard W. Thompson of Indiana, appointed Secretary of the Navy,
was in his sixty-eighth year, and had been a representative in Congress
thirty-five years before. He was known throughout the West as an
ardent Whig and an equally ardent Republican.

--Charles Devens of Massachusetts was appointed Attorney-General. His
standing as a lawyer can be inferred from the fact that he had left
the Supreme Bench of his State to accept the position. To eminence in
his profession he added an honorable record as a soldier, having
served with distinction in the civil war and attained the rank of
Brigadier-General. As a private gentleman he was justly and widely
esteemed.

--For Postmaster-General the President selected David M. Key of
Tennessee, who during the previous session had served in the Senate,
by appointment of the Governor of his State, to fill the vacancy caused
by the death of Ex-President Johnson. The selection of Mr. Key was
made to emphasize the change of Southern policy which President Hayes
had foreshadowed in his Inaugural address. Mr. Key was a Democrat,
and personally popular. A Southern Democrat in a Republican Cabinet
presented a novel political combination, and it is evidence of the tact
and good sense of Mr. Key that he administered his Department in such
manner as to secure, not merely the respect of the Republican party,
but the sincere friendship of many of its leading members. He was wise
enough and fortunate enough to induce Hon. James N. Tyner, whom he
succeeded as Postmaster-General, to remain in the Department as First
Assistant, in order that Republican senators and representatives might
freely communicate upon party questions, which Mr. Key delicately
refrained from even hearing. The suggestion was made, however, by men
of sound judgment, that in projecting a new policy towards the South,
which was intended to be characterized by greater leniency in certain
directions, it would have been wiser in a party point of view, and more
enduring in its intrinsic effect, to make the overture through a
Republican statesman of rank and ability.