SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATURE, AND GOVERNOR
1871 to 1883
After my six years' service in the Lower House of Congress, I
returned home, not expecting ever again to take office, or engage
in politics. There was a contest going on in the State over the
location of the State Capitol. The State had committed itself to
the erection of a new Capitol building, and had really made
considerable progress on its construction.
In the meantime, the question of changing the location from
Springfield to some other city was agitated. Peoria made a very
strong effort for the removal to that city. The work on the new
building, as an immediate result, was stopped. The Legislature
had adjourned, and another election of members was to occur. This
condition of local affairs existed when I returned home after my
service was finished in Washington.
The friends in my home county, in which the State Capitol is located,
waited on me and expressed a desire that I should allow my name to
be used as a candidate for the Legislature. I made known my resolve
not to enter politics again; but they based the proposal upon a
ground that made it extremely difficult and embarrassing not to
accede, to-wit: they had been with me for anything I had ever
wanted, and now they wanted me to reciprocate, and do as _they_
desired. I did not feel that I could disregard their wishes, and
so yielded to their demand; it was nothing less.
They then went to the Hon. Milton Hay, who was a great lawyer, and
as good a man as I ever knew, and made the same demand upon him.
He was under no special obligation to yield to their wishes, for
he had never asked for office at the hands of the people. He
declined; but they also declined to take "No" for an answer. The
result was that both Hay and I became candidates, were both elected,
and the contest over the removal of the State Capitol was renewed.
I was chosen Speaker. Mr. Hay was the foremost lawyer of the
Legislature. One million dollars was reported from the proper
committee of the House, and passed without opposition, and the work
on the Capitol was once more taken up.
Finding myself again in politics, I determined to become a candidate
for Governor. To be successful, it seemed to be important that I
should go back into the Legislature, which I did. After my re-
election I was supported by the Republican party for Speaker for
my second term.
However, the House of Representatives was in control of the
opposition, composed of Democrats and Independents, the latter
being more generally wrong than the Democrats, and much less
reliable. The combination organized the House, the Hon. Elijah
Haines being elected Speaker, and the Republicans casting their
united vote for me. This Legislature has ever since been known as
the "Haines Legislature," the most notorious Legislature ever known
in the State. Haines was a man of ability--especially, to stir up
strife and produce confusion.
The Legislature convened in the Winter of 1875. I was nominated
for Governor early in 1876, elected in November of the same year,
and sworn in January, 1877.
On re-examining my inaugural address, I find much stated there that
is at the present time, and must long remain, of historic interest
to the people of Illinois; but since its length precludes reproduction
here, I can merely touch upon certain points, more fully covered
in the address, that offer many curious aspects and contrasts in
the light of latter-day conditions.
To begin with, the Legislature of that year was the first to meet
in the new Capitol. The effects of the financial panic of 1873
were still felt, but it was pointed out that the State's resources
were in no way impaired; that on the contrary--circumstances to be
proud of--the volume of private indebtedness had been materially
reduced, while the productive wealth of farms, buildings, factories,
mines, and railroads had never before been so great.
Of matters educational, there had been enrolled as pupils the
preceding year (1876) 687,446 persons, and appropriations for public-
school purposes for the corresponding period had amounted to
$8,268,539.58.
Among other matters of local interest adverted to, which to-day
are as alive and momentous as they were then, were the subjects of
navigation--particularly on the Illinois River and the canal--and
the supervision of the railroads by the Railroad and Warehouse
Commission. At that time there were 7,285 miles of railroad in
the State--a greater mileage than any other State in the Union
could boast of.
Only eleven years had elapsed since the close of the Civil War,
and its after-effects still worked like an obnoxious ferment in
the State's political conditions; closely allied with this was the
influence of the Hayes-Tilden contest, all of which commanded a
large proportion of my speech.
One extract I wish to quote in full, since it was prelude to events
which followed so soon afterwards:
"I desire to add one suggestion in reference to the affairs of our
own State, by calling your attention to the Militia Law. I believe
a more perfect law should be enacted, which will secure a more
thorough organization of the State militia.
"The spirit of our institutions and the temper of our people are
hostile to a standing army, and I am opposed to any policy, State
or National, looking to governing the people by bayonet; yet in
the most highly civilized communities a trained militia, recruited
from the intelligent and industrious classes, is an almost
indispensable auxiliary to the civil power in the interests of
peace and good order."
Little did I dream that within six months of my inauguration the
timeliness and force of the suggestions, and any recommendations
contained in the closing paragraphs above, would find convincing
illustrations in conditions throughout the Nation, and especially
in Illinois.
In July, 1877, the famous strike of the railway employees came on.
It was exceptionally strong in the cities of Illinois--Chicago,
Decatur, Springfield, Galesburg, East St. Louis, and every other
city of considerable size. The State was ill prepared for such a
crisis. The strike ran along for several days with the State
unready to bring the matter to a close. Having been in office but
a few months, I had not yet secured any arms or other military
equipment with which to combat organized violations of the law.
The Illinois National Guard was inchoate--in fact, scarcely organized
at all, except in companies voluntarily formed, which were almost
entirely without military equipment. Finally, however, I determined
to order the National Guard to East St. Louis.
I telegraphed to Chicago for a locomotive and car to take me to
East St. Louis about two o'clock on a specified night. After
ordering the troops from different parts of the State to assemble
at East St. Louis on a given day, I went to East St. Louis myself,
three or four gentlemen accompanying me. There I found several
thousand men sitting about on the curbs of the sidewalks, apparently
perfectly quiet and inoffensive, if not unconcerned, and I concluded
that there was no reason why trains should not move.
However, I first consulted with several railroad men, expressing
the opinion that the strikers and their sympathizers did not seem
desirous of disturbing anybody, and insisted that they proceed to
move out their trains.
The superintendent of one of the roads finally promised to have a
train made up, and undertake to move it.
"All right," said I. "Fire up, and I will come around about the
time you are ready to move." He did as he had promised, and I went
around with the friends who were accompanying me.
But about the time the train was ready to move, these mild-mannered
laboring men, to the number of five or six hundred, gently closed
in upon the train, and put out the fire in the engine so it could
not be moved.
Thereupon, I stood upon the sidewalk and addressed this crowd of
five or six hundred fire-extinguishers. I told them that I had
come there to move the trains, and while I did not want to hurt
any one, that the trains would be started, if everybody who interfered
first had to be disabled. They gradually skulked away, and I
ordered the fire built up again, asserting that I would be back in
half an hour to see the trains move. But the men notified the
engineer that they would kill any man who undertook to take the
train out, and in the fact of that threat no one could be prevailed
upon the man engines or train.
Finally, however, one man agreed, if I would accompany him as far
as Decatur, about a hundred miles, to endeavor to go out with the
train. I told him I could not do that, but I would stand by his
side while he was going through the streets of East St. Louis.
But he would not agree to this, so that my efforts to move a single
train had met with complete failure. The result was that I was
driven to the expediency of calling upon the military arm of the
State authority.
That evening the troops began to arrive. They were stationed at
the strategic points of the city during the night, and the next
morning the trains moved out without a single accident or
disturbance.
In Chicago, the National Guard did not seem to accomplish anything.
The people there did not take them seriously, and the result was
that I called upon the National Government to send to that city a
few companies of regular troops. I think they came from Omaha.
When they arrived, and marched up the streets--that was the end of
the strike in that city.
So I managed to get through the trouble without injury to a single
person, or the loss of any property except that caused by the delay
in the transaction of business. These results were quite different
from those in some other parts of the country. My chief private
secretary was in the East somewhere, and could not return to me
until the trouble was all over.
As Governor of a State in a time when actual war was not flagrant,
I could only watch, as might any other American citizen, the exciting
proceedings at the National Capital, and hope that our country
might issue from the political contest without a weakening of our
institutions or loss of prestige. At the same time, I felt that
I might appropriately express my approval of the attitude of the
National administration, which I did in a letter to the President.
When I was Governor of the State of Illinois, I had the good fortune
of becoming intimately acquainted with one of the great soldiers
of the recent Civil War, who was, in my judgment, the greatest
cavalry leader of modern times,--General Phil Sheridan. He was
Commander of the Department of the Lakes during my administration,
and I had the pleasure of meeting him on numerous occasions.
At an immense reunion of volunteer soldiers from Northern Illinois,
Michigan, and Wisconsin, which was held in Aurora, I, as Governor
of the State, was invited to make the first address. General
Sheridan was invited to be present and take part in this celebration,
and he came down from Chicago, accompanied by his wife. I met them
at Aurora. We rode in the same carriage, at the rear of the
procession, to the fair grounds, a mile or so distant from the
city. The day was hot, and as we entered a dense grove, on the
road, the soldiers halted for a breathing spell, and while at rest
many of them went to a well near by for water. It was observed by
some of the soldiers that General Sheridan remained in the carriage,
and they immediately surrounded us. He greeted all cordially and
good-naturedly, being very fond of soldiers who had fought on the
Union side of the great struggle between the North and the South.
What immediately followed pleased Mrs. Sheridan and those who were
near, and amused Sheridan himself. A big Irish soldier-boy got
hold of Sheridan's hand and pulled him out of the carriage. Being
of small stature, General Sheridan was at the mercy of the stalwart
Irishman, who dealt with him in a very rough way, slapping him on
the back with great force, and with as much earnestness exclaiming:
"Boys, this is the damnedest, bravest little Mick in America!"
As is well known now, the operations of General Sheridan in the
Shenandoah Valley and the region of Richmond called forth the
plaudits of the Nation and the commendation of his superiors. His
victories had much to do with bringing the Civil War to a close.
He was conscious of the power and value of the cavalry arm of the
army. In discussing his great achievements he made the remarkable
statement that with a force of five or ten thousand cavalrymen,
will organized, he could run over an army of almost any size.
Whether this be true or not, it remains that General Grant had
implicit confidence in Sheridan's ability to command the cavalry
forces in a manner superior to any other officer in the Union Army.
It was on the suggestion of Grant that Sheridan was brought from
the West to take command of the cavalry. After coming East, he
was presented to President Lincoln. The President scrutinized him
closely. He did not appear to be the officer recommended to him
by Grant as the one man who could bring the cavalry forces to that
standard which was so much desired.
The first time Lincoln met Grant after Sheridan called on him he
expressed his doubt. "The officer you brought from the West seems
rather a little fellow to handle your cavalry," said he.
Grant, however, unshaken in the belief that he at last had an
officer under him whom he could trust in charge of all the armies
of the Union if necessary, replied: "You will find him big enough
for the purpose before we get through with him."
Sheridan was not only popular with his superior officers and men
under him, but with the people generally. He was held in the
highest esteem by the people of my State. After his promotion to
the rank of Lieutenant-General, the citizens of Chicago presented
him with a house in Washington, as a mark of their friendship and
devotion.
While Governor I rendered a decision in an extradition case, which
formed a precedent, and which is referred to by writers on
extradition.
Moore comments on it as follows:
"In December, 1878, an interesting decision was made by Governor
Cullom, of Illinois, in the case of two persons named Gaffigan and
Merrick, whose surrender was demanded by the Governor of Pennsylvania
on a charge of murder committed in that State in January, 1865.
Accompanying the requisition was an indictment found against them
in Pennsylvania in March, 1865, for the crime for which their
rendition was demanded. It was alleged in their behalf that soon
after the murder was committed, and before the indictment was found,
they left their place of residence in Pennsylvania and went to
Illinois, where they had resided continuously in an open manner,
bearing their own names, transacting daily business, and holding
responsible public positions. In 1870 or 1871 Gaffigan was joined
by his father, who left their former place of residence in Pennsylvania
with the avowed purpose of joining his son in Illinois. The
residence of the latter in Illinois was also known to other persons
in the particular locality in Pennsylvania, among whom were a
constable and a witness whose name was endorsed on the indictment.
On the other hand, the prosecuting attorney in Pennsylvania denied
that there had been any laches in the matter, and declared that he
had acted upon the first knowledge that he had acquired in respect
to the whereabouts of the persons charged. Governor Cullom held
that while it might be inferred from the fact that the accused left
the State of Pennsylvania shortly after the date of the murder that
they were fugitives from justice, yet this character did not always
adhere to them; and that their long residence in Illinois, which
was so entirely unconcealed and well known, that the officers of
justice in Pennsylvania could have been ignorant of it only because
they made no effort to find it out, had purged them of the character
of fugitives from justice. It may be argued that this decision
rests on moral rather than on strictly legal grounds. It is
generally held that there is no limitation as to the time in recovery
of fugitives from justice other than such as may be established by
statutes of limitations of the Governments concerned, and it does
not appear to have been suggested in the case under consideration
that any such limitation had been established either by the laws
of Pennsylvania or of Illinois. The decision of Governor Cullom
may also be thought to involve the theory that the authorities of
the demanding State may be called upon to show that they have used
due diligence in pursuing the fugitives and in seeking their
surrender."
The decision created much comment at the time, some adverse,
suggesting that it amounted to the exercise of the pardoning power
by a Governor of one state for a crime committed in another.
My administration as Governor of Illinois was a very quiet, uneventful
one. I endeavored to give the State strictly a business administration,
and I believe I succeeded. I appointed the very best men that I
could find to State offices. I did not interfere with the conduct
of the various departments and institutions, except to exercise a
general supervision over them. I held my appointees strictly
accountable for the conduct of the affairs of their respective
offices, and did not attempt to dictate to them the appointment of
their subordinates.
During the six years I served as Governor there was not a single
scandal connected with the executive department of Illinois. I
never had the slightest trouble with the Legislature. I never
interfered in the organization of the Senate or House. I believed
then, and I believe now, in the independence of the three co-ordinate
branches of the Government. I no more thought of influencing the
Legislature than I would have thought of attempting to influence
the Judiciary. My recommendations were made in official messages,
as the Constitution prescribes, and generally, I might say, the
Legislature carried out my recommendations. The administration
was an economical one, and it was during this period that the entire
State debt was paid.