the result was that the British obtained practically all the territory
for which they had contended. The peaceful ending of the episode,
and the gratification of the public over the President’s assertion
of the national dignity, as most men viewed it, left Cleveland with
increased prestige. The editors of the _Evening Post_ never changed
their opinion, but the incident, of course, did not materially shake
their esteem of Cleveland. When he went out of office, the newspaper
reviewed his eight years as the most satisfactory since the Civil War,
praised his plain speech, courage, and honesty highly, and declared
that he had made “a deeper mark upon the history of his time than any
save the greatest of his predecessors.”
CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO
GODKIN’S WAR WITHOUT QUARTER UPON TAMMANY
When William Dean Howells summed up Mr. Godkin’s career, he wrote that,
influential as were his discussions of national and international
issues, his greatest reputation was won by his assaults upon the
indecent corruption of the government of New York city. “For a long
series of years he cried aloud and spared not; his burning wit, his
crushing invective, his biting sarcasm, his amusing irony, his pitiless
logic, were all devoted to the extermination of the rascality by nature
and rascals by name who misruled that hapless city, where they indeed
afterwards changed their name but not their nature.” In this contest,
Howells believed, he became “not only a great New York journalist, but
distinctively the greatest, since he was more singly devoted to civic
affairs than any other great New York journalist ever was.” The only
contemporary editor whose prominence equaled his own, Charles A. Dana,
aligned himself for the most part upon the Tammany side.
Howells thought that the editor wore himself out while apparently
accomplishing little, because the people tired of the contest before
he did. But Mr. Godkin had the pleasure in 1895 of writing the preface
to a volume called “The Triumph of Reform,” which really chronicled a
temporary triumph--that following the Lexow investigation; while he
powerfully aided in the slow arousal of the public conscience which has
made each renewal of the city’s misgovernment a little less bad. He
enjoyed the struggle, as he enjoyed all hot fighting, an unusual number
of amusing episodes gave zest to it, and there is no evidence that he
felt discouraged at the end.
When in 1884 Godkin first began treating municipal affairs in the
_Evening Post_ with his usual aggressive style, the city had biennial
elections and the certainty that a Democratic Mayor would always be
chosen. None but a Democrat had been elected since 1872, and none
was to be elected until 1894, a state of things which a number of
Republican bosslets--“Johnny” O’Brien, “Mike” Cregan, “Barney” Biglin,
“Jake” Hess, and “Steve” French--regarded with complacency because they
shared the Tammany pickings. The essential question was always whether
the Mayor should be a Tammany Democrat or a Democrat representing the
reform wing (the County Democracy), and in the determination of this
the willingness or unwillingness of the Republican rank and file to
join hands with the reform Democrats was always a leading factor. In
every election in the eighties the Republican bosslets put their own
ticket into the field, thus drawing the fire of non-partisan reformers
like Mr. Godkin, but sometimes the majority of Republicans could be
brought behind what was really a coalition nomination.
At the outset, in 1884, occurred one of the most gratifying surprises
in the whole history of New York politics--the election of William R.
Grace, a reform Democrat, over the Tammany candidate, a disreputable
politician named Hugh J. Grant. The victory was the more unexpected
because it was generally believed that John Kelly, the Tammany
Chieftain who had succeeded Tweed, had made an infamous compact with
the Blaine Republicans, by which they were to trade votes and give
the State to Blaine and the city to Grant. Kelly had always disliked
Cleveland. Just before the election Thomas A. Hendricks, who was
running for the Vice-Presidency with Cleveland, made a thousand-mile
journey from Indiana to hold a protracted night conference with Kelly,
and many have held that he succeeded in winning him over to support
the national ticket. But Godkin refused to accept this explanation of
the result. Kelly had failed to deliver the vote, he wrote, because
Grace was an honored Catholic who drew many Irish Democrats away from
Grant, while Republicans by thousands had voted for Blaine and Grace
when they were expected to vote for Blaine and Grant. Kelly, though
the most stolid of men, was confined to his house for weeks by nervous
depression, and soon retired. His downfall inspired Godkin to utter
a prophecy which time, bringing Richard Croker to the front, partly
belied:
We doubt if the city will ever again be afflicted with a boss who
will be Kelly’s equal in ability and power. There will, of course,
be other bosses, but they will be of a different kind. They must
possess qualities which will enable them to rule under the new
conditions which will prevail after Jan. 1 next. Kelly succeeded
Tweed, and for a time was almost his equal in power, but he was
a different boss from Tweed. He was never personally corrupt. He
arranged “fat things for the boys,” and put into our local offices
and into the Legislature about the worst succession of political
speculators and strikers that the city has ever been called upon to
endure. He stole nothing himself, but he enabled others to steal
with great freedom. His power rested mainly upon his standing
as a good Catholic. Connected by marriage with the very head of
the church in this country, he was able to command that blind
obedience of his followers which exists only within the pale of
the church.... He had a lecture upon some topic of church interest
which he delivered in aid of all kinds of the Church’s charities....
Two years later another happy ending crowned the famous three-cornered
campaign between Theodore Roosevelt (Rep.), Henry George (Labor),
and Abram S. Hewitt (United Democrat)--the choice of Hewitt. The
_Evening Post_ was surprised when Tammany joined with the County
Democracy behind Hewitt, a man of the highest reputation. The _Times_
and _Tribune_ supported Roosevelt, but Mr. Godkin contended that he
could not be elected, and that every vote for him simply gave a larger
chance of victory to Henry George. He was justified by the result,
Hewitt polling 90,552 votes, George 68,110, and Roosevelt only 60,435.
In 1884 the _Post_ had first published a “Voters’ Directory,” short
biographical sketches of the candidates, and its characterizations of
the three party leaders this autumn are still of interest:
ABRAM S. HEWITT (United Dem.)--Has served continuously in Congress,
with the exception of one term, since 1874; is a large iron
manufacturer, and is distinguished for his generous dealing with
his employees; is a high authority upon politico-economic subjects,
and a thoroughly trained public man in all respects; declares that
he was nominated without pledges....
THEODORE ROOSEVELT (Rep.)--Is twenty-eight years of age; served
three terms in the Assembly, where he was of great service in
securing reform legislation for this city; it was through his
labors at the head of a committee of investigation that the “fee
system” was abolished and other evils exposed and corrected; he
went to the Chicago Convention openly and strongly opposed to
Mr. Blaine’s nomination because of his bad personal record, but
subsequently consented to support him.
HENRY GEORGE (Labor.)--Is best known as the author of “Progress
and Poverty,” of which the leading idea is that all property
should be confiscated by the State through the taxing power,
without compensation to the owners; is the candidate of Socialists,
boycotters, etc.; has declared since his nomination that if he were
elected “there would be no more policemen acting as censors,” that
he “will loosen the bonds of the police and make them servants of
the people”; that the horse cars “ought to be as free as air” to
the public; and that the “French Revolution is about to repeat
itself here.”
Unfortunately, in 1888 Hewitt was defeated by the old Tammany favorite,
“Hughie” Grant, and the corruptionists returned to their former power
and spoils. Worst of all, Grant’s election was accepted without alarm,
and even with satisfaction, by the educated classes. The new Mayor,
an ignorant and unprincipled son of a saloonkeeper, was given “social
recognition,” asked to dinner in the best circles, and opened a ball
with Mrs. Astor. When he said, “If I don’t prove a good Mayor, it will
be because I don’t know how,” this remark was repeated as if it were
a gem of aphoristic wisdom. _Harper’s Weekly_, which with the help of
the cartoonist Nast had done so much to drive Tweed from power, yielded
to this folly, and (July 13, 1889) published a long article extolling
a “New Tammany,” with high aims, which it said was governed by a “big
four” consisting of Richard Croker, Mayor Grant, Thomas F. Gilroy,
and Bourke Cockran. The article declared that Croker was pre-eminent
for “his political sagacity, political honesty, great knowledge of
individuals, and spotless personal integrity.” It described Grant as
“well-educated,” “shrewd and far-seeing,” remarkable for “personal
honesty and trustworthiness,” and “entirely fearless.” Gilroy was
praised as “a genial, pleasant, obliging man,” who was “remarkably
gifted with business ability.” In short, the brilliancy and integrity
of Tammany were pictured as startling.
Every one at the time was thinking of the projected World Columbian
Exposition, and many New Yorkers were bent upon making Central Park or
some other part of the city its site. Mayor Grant lost no opportunity
to increase his prestige by frequent conferences upon the subject with
admiring business men.
Watching this madness with disgust, as the year 1890--that of another
city election--opened, the _Evening Post_ resolved to make a stand
against it even if it had to do so single-handed. It had never ceased
to maintain that Mayor Grant was illiterate, that all his associations
from youth up had been low, that his administration as sheriff had
been so loose and corrupt that a grand jury had rebuked it by a
scathing presentment, and that his appointments had been wretched.
The men he put in office were of the worst Tammany type. Moreover, it
ridiculed the idea that there could be a “New Tammany,” arguing that
the character of the organization made it impossible for it to change
without committing suicide; that it necessarily drew its support from
the criminal and semi-criminal population of the city, and from levies
upon vice, so that if this were cut off it would wither. “The society,”
wrote Godkin, “is simply an organization of clever adventurers, most
of them in some degree criminal, for the control of the ignorant
and vicious vote of the city in an attack upon the property of the
taxpayers. There is not a particle of politics in the concern any more
than in any combination of Western brigands to ‘hold up’ a railroad
train and get the express packages. Its sole object is plunder in any
form which will not attract immediate notice from the police.”
How could this fact be pressed home to the consciousness of the
citizens? Mr. Godkin, Horace White, Joseph Bucklin Bishop, and the
managing editor resolved upon a thorough-going biographical exposure
of the real character of the men who constituted Tammany. They felt
that while decent New Yorkers knew in a general way that some of the
district leaders and their henchmen were low in character and morals,
they did not appreciate just how noisome was the gulf of boodle, vice,
ignorance, and crime out of which these men emerged. They determined to
probe that gulf, to give the city a whiff of its fumes, and to show how
the Tammany organizers reeked with its slime.
On April 3, 1890, therefore, the _Evening Post_ published in nine
columns of close print biographical sketches of the twenty-seven
members of the Tammany Executive Committee, including the “big four”
of the “New Tammany.” This document, which in ensuing months sold in
tens of thousands of copies as a pamphlet, is a permanently valuable
contribution to New York’s political and social history. It abounds in
a miscellany of roguery rich enough to outfit a picaresque novelist.
At the head of the list came Mayor Grant, whom the _Post_ accused of
dividing, while sheriff, illegal fees with an auctioneer aggregating
$42,497, and of taking illegal “extra compensation” fees. Under the
name of John Scannell, the _Post_ printed details of the murder
which this district leader had committed in a basement poolroom, and
showed how he had planned it for two years, though he was acquitted
on the ground of “emotional insanity.” Another district leader was
shown to be an accused murderer, and several more to have committed
notoriously brutal assaults. A scandal in certain asphalt contracts
let by Thomas F. Gilroy, now the Commissioner of Public Works, had
already been exposed by the _Post_, and the facts were repeated.
Several committeemen were declared at one time to have received stolen
goods, and several more to have kept disorderly houses. The newspaper
described a saloon once kept by “Barney” Martin, one of Grant’s
appointees, as the resort for the most distinguished professors of the
art of acquiring other people’s property in the country.
Written with sparkle and gusto, these biographical sketches abound
in interesting anecdotes. The biography of “Georgie” Plunkett tells
us that a friend remarked: “You say Georgie is rich? He ought to be;
he never missed an opportunity.” We are told that H. D. Purroy’s
secessionist element in Tammany was known as the Hoy Purroy. The sketch
of John Reilly states that he had been nominated for Assistant Alderman
while still living in Ireland, through the efforts of “me brother
Barney,” a Manhattan saloonkeeper. It was recalled that when a protest
had been made to Sheriff Grant by his friends against the appointment
of “Barney” Martin to some post, Grant had made an indignant reply:
“What do youse fellows want? Do yez want to break up the organization?”
Summing up, the _Evening Post_ listed the Executive Committee as
follows:
Professional politicians, 27; convicted murderer, 1; acquitted
of murder, 1; convicted of felonious assault, 1; professional
gamblers, 4; former dive-keepers, 5; liquor dealers, 4; former
liquor-dealers, 5; sons of liquor-dealers, 3; former pugilists, 3;
former toughs, 4; members of Tweed gang, 6; officeholders, 17.
The sensation produced by this publication was profound. Within a few
days the _Evening Post_ reprinted delighted comments from half of the
important newspapers of the East. As for Tammany, its disturbance
and outcry led Godkin to compare the inquiry by the newspaper with
the introduction of a ferret into a cellar. You knew the rats were
there, but until the ferret appeared you didn’t know where. “When they
become aware of his presence out they scuttle, from the coal hole, the
ash barrel, the garbage can, the woodpile, brown and black, big and
little, squealing and showing their teeth.” The three things a Tammany
leader most dreaded, he concluded, were, in the ascending order of
repulsiveness, the penitentiary, honest industry, and biography.
Immediately two of the men favored with biographies began suits for
criminal libel. One was “Barney” Martin, the other Judge “Pete”
Mitchel, who had been described by the _Evening Post_ as a “nominal”
lawyer, a “thug,” a “tough,” and a one-time adviser in a keno game.
Bourke Cockran, their voluble attorney, known for his eloquence as the
Tammany Chrysostom, began what Godkin called “a minatory flux like
the rush of Croton through a water-gate.” The _Evening Post’s_ answer
to the libel suits was to add two more counts to its charges against
“Pete” Mitchel, saying that at one time he had received stolen goods
and at another had been a partner in a rumshop with a murderer named
Sharkey. Within a week (April 29) the grand jury dismissed the two
suits against the _Post_, evidence of the unassailable solidity of its
charges. Once more there was an outburst of congratulation from the
press of the country, the paper in one issue reprinting editorials
from other journals in Boston, Pittsfield, Springfield, Philadelphia,
Wilmington, Portland, Me., and Milwaukee.
While these suits were pending (one was soon after revived, and four
in all were vainly brought) Tammany did its utmost to make them an
annoyance to Mr. Godkin, serving summons after summons at the most
inconvenient hours possible. He was arrested three times in one day,
to the great delight of Dana. But only once did his persecutors really
succeed in vexing him. A policeman came with a summons at an early hour
one Sunday morning, when Mr. Godkin was looking after the welfare of
some guests. With characteristic impulsiveness, he gave the officer $5
to leave and come back a little later. His enemies at once saw their
opportunity. Godkin the reformer bribing an officer of the law to
evade arrest! Next morning, when he came down to work and found his
associates somewhat staggered by the printed reports, he was puzzled,
and did not really understand the situation until he lunched with some
other reform workers at noon. But of course an explanation was easily
given the public.
The _Evening Post_ hastened to follow up its first biographies with
an exposure of the Tammany Committee on Organization, numbering 1,070
members, of whom it found 161 to be rumsellers, 133 criminal rumsellers
(that is, open after hours or on Sundays), and 235 without specified
occupation or not in the city directory, a suspicious circumstance,
since professional gamblers never had an assigned occupation. In the
weeks just before election there was published a searching examination
of the Tammany General Committee, numbering 4,564 men, of whom no fewer
than 654 were rumsellers, 565 criminal rumsellers, and 1,266 not in the
directory, most of them for good reasons. Detailed biographies of the
most despicable committeemen were printed, of which one of the shortest
may be extracted:
ELEVENTH DISTRICT.--Classed among the rumsellers of this district
is August Heckler, familiarly known as “Gus.” While the nominal
proprietor of the rumshop called “The Bohemia” at No. 1257
Broadway, he recently obtained much notoriety by turning the upper
stories of the building into what for the sake of decency is called
by him a hotel. For this his liquor license was taken away, and so
far as can be learned there are now no intoxicating liquors sold on
the premises. The hotel, which is a most disorderly house, still
flourishes, however, while Heckler is “on the road” selling a brand
of champagne. Technically, Heckler cannot be classed among the
criminal rumsellers; yet he is a good deal worse than most of them.
Heckler made a personal call upon Mr. Godkin, and assured him that his
hotel was respectable, whereupon the editor called in the efficient
reporters who gathered material for the biographies, and proved that it
was not.
So far as that fall’s election went, the _Evening Post’s_ labors were
in vain. Because 30,000 registered Republicans, jealous of the reform
Democrats, stayed from the polls, Mayor Grant beat the anti-Tammany
nominee, Francis M. Scott, by a vote of 116,000 to 94,000. Not only
that, but two years later, in 1892, Thomas F. Gilroy, called “a
business candidate,” was easily elected to succeed Grant. Before his
term was well advanced it was generally admitted that Tammany had
become so well entrenched behind the offices that it would be useless
to elect a reform Mayor without legislation which would enable him to
dismiss nearly all the city officials.
Nevertheless, the spade-work of Mr. Godkin had been so well done that
the idea of a “New Tammany” was now laughed at, and the organization
was regarded with thorough suspicion by decent elements. His campaign
in 1890 brought him letters from Eastman Johnson, Bishop Potter,
S. G. Ward, Charles Loring Brace, Gen. Wm. F. Smith, and other
public-spirited men. The city began to awake. Other newspapers, notably
the _World_ early in 1894, imitated the _Post_ by publishing Tammany
biographies which stung the grafters to the quick. On April 4, 1892,
the City Club was organized with a Board of Trustees which included
men deeply interested in the reformation of the city government, the
most prominent being James C. Carter, R. Fulton Cutting, W. Bayard
Cutting, August Belmont, and William J. Schieffelin. With the special
encouragement of the City Club, more than two-score local Good
Government Clubs were shortly founded (Carl Schurz helped establish
one among the German-Americans) and although Dana of the _Sun_
contemptuously nicknamed them “Goo-Goos,” they exerted an important
educational influence. There was ample basis for suspicion of the city
rulers under both Grant and Gilroy. Mayor Grant had sworn in 1888 that
two years earlier Croker was “very poor indeed.” But by the end of 1893
he had invested $250,000 in a stock-farm, $103,000 in race-horses,
$80,000 in a Fifth Avenue mansion, and drove about in carriages costing
$1,700. The _Post_ further stated that Croker paid $12,000 a year to a
jockey, and $5,000 to the manager of his stock farm, and that on a trip
to the Pacific Coast early in 1894 he made the journey in a private
car costing $50 a day. Where did he get the money? Godkin harped
continually upon the outrageous appointments made under both Mayors.
Thus when in December, 1890, Patrick Divver was appointed a police
justice at $8,000 a year, the _Post_ reprinted his biography:
PATRICK DIVVER.--Commonly called “Paddy,” is the Tammany leader
in the Second Assembly District. He is the keeper of a sailors’
boarding house, and is the proprietor, or has interests, in several
liquor saloons. He is an ex-member of the Board of Aldermen, a
race-track frequenter, and the friend and confidant of gamblers.
He is on terms of intimacy with “Johnny” Matthews and “Jake”
Shipsey, two members of the sporting and gambling fraternity, whose
particular methods of gaining a livelihood are unknown to the
frequenters of Paddy Divver’s and other rumshops on Park Row, where
they are generally to be found.