EFFECTS OF THE REFORM ADMINISTRATION IN MISSISSIPPI
Because the Democrats carried the election in Mississippi in 1875, they
did not thereby secure control of the State Government. That election
was for members of the Legislature, members of Congress and county
officers. Only one State officer was elected,--a State Treasurer,--to
fill the vacancy created by the death of Treasurer Holland. All the
other State officers were Republicans. But the Democrats could not
afford to wait until Governor Ames' term expired. They were determined
to get immediate control of the State Government. There was only one way
in which this could be done, and that was by impeachment.
This course they decided to take. It could not be truthfully denied that
Governor Ames was a clean, pure, and honest man. He had given the State
an excellent administration. The State judiciary had been kept up to the
high standard established by Governor Alcorn. Every dollar of the public
money had been collected, and honestly accounted for. The State was in a
prosperous condition. The rate of taxation had been greatly reduced,
and there was every prospect of a still further reduction before the end
of his administration. But these facts made no difference to those who
were flushed with the victory they had so easily won. They wanted the
offices, and were determined to have them, and that, too, without very
much delay. Hence, impeachment proceedings were immediately instituted
against the Governor and Lieutenant-Governor,--not in the interest of
reform, of good government or of low taxes, but simply in order to get
possession of the State Government.
The weakness of the case against the Governor was shown when it
developed that the strongest charge against him was that he had entered
into an alleged corrupt bargain with State Senator Cassidy, resulting in
Cassidy's appointment as one of the Judges of the Chancery Court.
Cassidy had been elected a member of the State Senate as a Democrat.
Notwithstanding that fact he voted for Mr. Bruce, the Republican caucus
nominee for United States Senator, and subsequently publicly identified
himself with the Republican party. Later his brother, William P.
Cassidy, and his law partner, Hon. J.F. Sessions, did likewise. In 1874
Sessions was elected to the State Senate as a Republican to serve out
the unexpired term of his law partner, Cassidy, who had resigned his
seat in the Senate upon his appointment as a Judge of the Chancery
Court.
Cassidy was a brilliant young man, and an able lawyer. That the
Governor should have selected him for an important judicial position was
both wise and proper. It was one of his best and most creditable
appointments and was generally commended as such when it was made. The
fact that he had been elected to the State Senate as a Democrat, and
shortly thereafter joined the Republican party was made the basis of the
charge that his change of party affiliation was the result of a corrupt
bargain between the Governor and himself, for which the Governor, but
not the Judge, should be impeached and removed from office. There were a
few other vague and unimportant charges, but this one, as weak as it
was, was the strongest of the number.
When the articles of impeachment were presented to the House, it was
seen that they were so weak and so groundless that the Governor believed
it would be an easy matter for him to discredit them even before an
antagonistic legislature. With that end in view, he employed several of
the ablest lawyers in the country to represent him. They came to Jackson
and commenced the preparation of the case, but it did not take them long
to find out that their case was a hopeless one. They soon found out to
their entire satisfaction that it was not to be a judicial trial, but a
political one and that the jury was already prepared for conviction
without regard to the law, the Constitution, the evidence, or the
facts. Governor Ames was to be convicted, not because he was guilty of
any offense, but because he was in the way of complete Democratic
control of the State Government.
Personally they had nothing against Ames. It was not the man but the
office they wanted, and that they were determined to have. They knew he
had committed no offense, but, as matters then stood, being a Republican
was an offense which justified removal from office. To punish him
otherwise, for anything he had done or failed to do, did not at any time
enter into their calculations. The Governorship was the prize at stake.
In this matter there was no concealment of their purposes and
intentions. As soon as the Governor's legal advisers found out what the
actual situation was, they saw it was useless to continue the fight.
Upon their advice, therefore, the Governor tendered his resignation,
which was promptly accepted. He then left the State never to return
again. If the impeachment proceedings had been instituted in good
faith,--upon an honest belief that the chief executive had committed
offenses which merited punishment,--the resignation would not have been
accepted. The fact that it was accepted,--and that, too, without
hesitation or question,--was equivalent to a confession that the purpose
of the proceedings was to get possession of the office. Short work was
made of the Lieutenant-Governor's case; and State Senator John M.
Stone, the Democratic President pro tem. of the State Senate, was duly
sworn in and installed as the acting Governor of the State. Thus
terminated a long series of questionable acts, the inauguration of which
had no other purpose than to secure the ascendency of one political
party over another in the administration of the government of the State.
The sanguinary revolution in the State of Mississippi in 1875 was
claimed to be in the interest of good administration and honest
government; it was an attempt to wrest the State from the control of
dishonest men,--negroes, carpet baggers, and scalawags,--and place it in
control of intelligent, pure, and honest white men. With that end in
view, Geo. M. Buchanan, a brave and gallant ex-Confederate soldier, was,
through questionable and indefensible methods, defeated for the office
of State Treasurer, and Wm. L. Hemmingway was declared elected. Yet when
the change took place it was found that every dollar of the public money
was accounted for. During the whole period of Republican administration
not a dollar had been misappropriated, nor had there been a single
defalcation, although millions of dollars had passed through the hands
of the fiscal agents of the State and of the different counties.
How was it with the new reform administration? Treasurer Hemmingway had
been in office only a comparatively short while when the startling
information was given out that he was a defaulter to the amount of
$315,612.19. William L. Hemmingway a defaulter! Could such a thing be
possible? Yes, it was an admitted and undisputed fact.
Mr. Hemmingway had been quite prominent in the politics of the State;
but those who knew the man, and I was one of those, had every reason to
believe that he was an honest man, and that he was the personification
of integrity. He was neither a speculator nor a gambler. Even after the
defalcation was made known there was nothing to indicate that any part
of the money had been appropriated to his own use. Yet the money had
mysteriously disappeared. Where was it? Who had it? These were questions
the people of the State desired to have answered, but they have never
yet been answered and, it is safe to say, they never will be. Hemmingway
no doubt could and can answer those questions, but he has not done so
and the probabilities are that he never will. He evidently believed that
to turn State's evidence would render him more culpable than to be
guilty of the act which he had allowed to be committed. He might have
been forced to make a confession, or at least been compelled to give the
prosecution a clue to the real criminal or criminals if the prosecution
had been in charge of persons who could not be suspected of being the
political beneficiaries of the methods by which it was possible for him
to be placed in charge of the office. It was hardly reasonable to expect
such men to make very much of an effort to secure a confession. In fact,
it seems to have been a relief to them to have the accused take the
position that he alone was the responsible party and that he was willing
to bear all the blame and assume all the consequences that would result
from the act. The names, therefore, of those who were the beneficiaries
of this remarkable defalcation will, no doubt, remain a secret in the
bosom of William L. Hemmingway, and will be buried with him in his
grave.
Hemmingway was tried, convicted, sentenced and served a term in the
State Prison; all of which he calmly endured rather than give the name
of any person having connection with that unfortunate affair. All the
satisfaction that the public can get with reference to it,--other than
the punishment to which Hemmingway was subjected,--is to indulge in
conjectures about it. One conjecture, and the most reasonable and
plausible one, is that if Hemmingway had made a full confession it might
have involved not only some men who were prominent and influential, but
perhaps the Democratic State organization as well. For it was a
well-known fact that in 1875 nearly every Democratic club in the State
was converted into an armed military company. To fully organize, equip,
and arm such a large body of men required an outlay of a large sum of
money. The money was evidently furnished by some persons or through some
organization. Those who raised the money, or who caused it to be raised,
no doubt had an eye to the main chance. A patriotic desire to have the
State redeemed (?) was not with them the actuating motive. When the
redemption (?) of the State was an accomplished fact they, no doubt,
felt that they were entitled to share in the fruits of that redemption.
Their idea evidently was that the State should be made to pay for its
own salvation and redemption, but the only way in which this could be
done was to have the people's money in the State treasury appropriated
for that purpose otherwise than by legislative enactment. This, as I
have already stated, is only a conjecture, but, under the circumstances,
it is the most reasonable and plausible one that can be imagined.
The case of Treasurer Hemmingway is conclusive evidence that in point of
efficiency, honesty and official integrity the Democratic party had no
advantage over the party that was placed in power chiefly through the
votes of colored men. What was true of Mississippi in this respect was
also true,--in a measure, at least,--of the other reconstructed States.