THE POLITICS OF THE EARLY EIGHTIES
The Hayes administration was scarcely half over when the politicians
began to look forward to the election of 1880. At the outset of his
term, Hayes had advocated a single term for the executive and there was
no widespread movement among the politicians to influence him to change
his attitude. His enemies, indeed, had already turned to General Grant.
There had been a third-term boom for the General during his second
administration and he had indicated that he was not formidably opposed
to further continuance in office. Suddenly, however, the anti-third-term
feeling had risen to impressive proportions, whereupon the House of
Representatives had adopted a resolution which characterized any
departure from the two-term precedent as "unwise, unpatriotic, and
fraught with peril to our free institutions." As the resolution passed
by an overwhelming vote--233-18--nothing further was heard of a
third-term boom.
The Hayes administration put a different complexion on the matter. The
wheel-horses of the party were not enthusiastic over the President or
his policies, and in their extremity they looked to Grant. The New York
State Republican Convention, under control of Roscoe Conkling and his
forces, instructed delegates to support the General as a candidate for
the nomination and endeavored to forestall opposition to a third term.
It declared that the objection to a third presidential term applied only
to a third consecutive term and hence was inapplicable to the
re-election of Grant. Grant, meanwhile, presented a spectacle that was
at once humorous and pathetic. He had not expected, on leaving the
presidency, to return to power again, had dropped consideration of the
political future and had given himself up to the enjoyment of foreign
travel. The royal reception accorded him wherever he went suggested to
his political supporters that they utilize his popularity. It was
foreseen that when he returned to America he would receive a tremendous
ovation, on the wave of which he might be carried into office. He was
flooded with advice and entreaties that he act in accordance with this
plan. His family was eager to return to the position of social eminence
which they had occupied, and pressure from them was incessant. At first
he did nothing either to aid or to hinder the boom, then gave way to the
pressure and at last became extremely anxious to obtain the coveted
prize.
If the politicians did, in truth, desire a relaxation from the patronage
standards of the Hayes regime, they did not make that the ostensible
purpose of their campaign. They argued that the times demanded a strong
man; that foreign travel had greatly broadened the General and given him
a knowledge of other forms of government; that he had been great as a
commander of armies, greater as a President, and that as a citizen of
the Republic he "shone with a luster that challenged the admiration of
the world." Behind him were Conkling and Platt, with the New York state
organization under their control, Don Cameron who held Pennsylvania in
his hand, General Logan, strong in Illinois, and lesser leaders who
wielded much power in smaller states. Many business men were ready to
lend their aid; the powerful Methodist Church, to which he belonged, was
favorable to him; and, of course, his popularity as a military leader
was unbounded. His return to the United States while the enthusiasm was
at its height was the signal for an unprecedented ovation. The opponents
of a third term painted in high colors the danger of a revival of the
scandals of Grant's days in the presidential chair, formed "No Third
Term" leagues, called an "Anti-Third-Term" convention and decried the
danger of continuing a military man in civil office. _The Nation_
scoffed at the educational effect of foreign travel on a man who was
fifty-seven years of age and could understand the language in only one
of the countries in which he travelled. A large fraction of the
Republican press, in fact, was in opposition. "Anything to beat Grant"
and "No third term" were their war-cries. Nor was there any lack of
Republican candidates to oppose the Grant movement and to give promise
of a lively nominating convention. Blaine's popularity was as widespread
as ever. Those who feared the nomination of either Grant or Blaine
favored Senator George F. Edmunds of Vermont or Secretary Sherman. Both
of these men were of statesmanlike proportions, but Edmunds was never
widely popular and Sherman was lacking in the arts of the
politician--"the human icicle," T.C. Platt called him.
The Republican nominating convention of 1880 met in Chicago in a
building described as "one of the most splendid barns" ever built. This
convention is unusually worthy of study because it involved most of the
elements which entered into American politics in the early eighties. It
was long memorable as making a record for that form of enthusiasm which
bursts into demonstrations. "Great applause," "loud laughter," "cheers"
and "hisses long and furious" dot the newspaper accounts of its
deliberations. The members "acted like so many Bedlamites," one of the
delegates said. On one day the opening prayer was so unexpectedly short
that there was applause and laughter. The keen contest for the
nomination resulted in galleries packed with supporters of the several
candidates, who cheered furiously as their favorite delegates appeared.
As the galleries came down nearly to the level of the floor, the
spectators were almost as much members of the convention as the
delegates themselves. It was under such conditions, then, that the
convention proceeded to the serious business of adopting principles and
choosing a leader.
Three hundred and six of the 757 delegates were sworn supporters of
Grant--pledged to die, if they died at all, "with their boots on," one
of their leaders said. In each of the big delegations--those from New
York, Pennsylvania and Illinois--a minority was unfavorable to Grant.
This minority could be counted in the General's column if the convention
could be forced to adopt the so-called "unit-rule," under which the
delegation from a state casts all its votes for the candidate favored by
the majority. In this particular case, the minorities in New York,
Pennsylvania and Illinois numbered more than sixty delegates, so that
the adoption of the rule was a stake worth playing for. The plan
formulated by the Grant leaders was worthy of the time.
Donald Cameron of Pennsylvania was chairman of the National Republican
Committee. Following the usual custom, Cameron was to call the
convention to order and present the temporary chairman who had been
chosen by the Committee. As the Grant supporters were in a minority even
on the Committee, provision was made to meet the emergency in case the
majority insisted on the appointment of an anti-Grant chairman. Cameron
was to announce the name, a Grant delegate was to move to substitute a
Grant man instead, and Cameron would enforce the unit-rule in the
resulting ballot. This would ensure control of the organization of the
convention and, doubtless, of the nomination of the candidate.
Unhappily for this well-laid plan, rumor of it leaked out, and the
majority of the National Committee--opposed to Grant--conveyed
information to Cameron that he must agree to give up such a scheme or be
ousted from his position. Cameron, convinced that his enemies were
determined, gave up his project, and Senator George F. Hoar, who favored
neither Grant nor Blaine, was made temporary and later permanent
chairman.
Although defeated in the first skirmish, the Grant forces pressed
forward for renewed conflict. Conkling presented a resolution that every
member of the convention be bound in honor to support the eventual
candidate, whoever he might be. The resolution passed 716 to three; and
he then moved that the three who had voted in the negative had thereby
forfeited their votes in the convention. James A. Garfield of Ohio led
the opposition to such rough-shod action and Conkling angrily withdrew
his resolution amid hisses. When Garfield reported from the Committee on
Rules in regard to the regulations under which the convention should
deliberate, he moved that the unit rule be not adopted and the
convention upheld him. It was manifest that the delegates were not in a
mood to surrender to a junto of powerful machine politicians.
The way having been now cleared for action, the convention adopted a
platform. This was composed largely of a summary of the achievements of
the party and denunciation of the opposition. Most of the planks were
abstract or perfunctory, or expressed in such a way as not to commit the
party seriously. _Harper's Weekly_, a Republican periodical, regretted
the character of the platform and remarked that such documents are
expected to say
An undisputed thing
In such a solemn way.
Judged by this criterion, the platform was ideal. The obligations of the
country to the veterans were emphasized and the restriction of Chinese
immigration called for. On the tariff, the only utterance was an avowal
that duties levied for the purposes of revenue should discriminate in
favor of labor. After this declaration of faith had been unanimously
adopted, a Massachusetts delegate presented an additional plank
advocating civil service reform.
The convention was now badly put to it. To reject a plank which had been
accepted both in 1872 and in 1876 would discredit the party,
particularly as the platform just adopted had accused the opposition of
sacrificing patriotism "to a supreme and insatiable lust for office."
Nevertheless the opposition to its adoption was formidable, and it had
already been twice rejected in the Committee on Resolutions, which drew
up the platform. There seemed no way of avoiding the issue, however, and
the plank was thereupon adopted, though not before Webster Flanagan of
Texas had blurted out, "After we have won the race ... we will give
those who are entitled to positions office. What are we up here for?"
With the speeches presenting candidates to the convention, the real
business of the week began. Senator Conkling aroused a tempest of
enthusiasm for General Grant in a famous speech which began with the
lines,
When asked what state he hails from,
Our sole reply shall be,
He comes from Appomattox
And its famous apple tree.
Garfield presented Sherman's name. At the outset General Grant led,
Blame was a close second and Sherman third. This order continued for
thirty-five ballots. By that time Blaine and Grant had fought each other
to a standstill. The General's three hundred and six held together
without a break, and Blaine's forces were equally determined.[1]
There was little chance of compromise, as Grant and Blaine were not on
speaking terms, and Conkling and Blaine looked upon each other with
unconcealed hatred. Since Sherman was handicapped by lack of united
support in his own state, the natural solution of the problem seemed to
be the choice of some other leader who might harmonize the contending
factions. On the thirty-fourth ballot, seventeen votes were given to
Garfield; on the next, fifty; then a stampede began, in spite of a
protest by Garfield, and on the thirty-sixth ballot a union of the
Blaine and Sherman forces made him the choice of the convention. The
nominee for the vice-presidency was Chester A. Arthur, who was one of
the leading supporters of Grant and a member of the Conkling group.
The choice of Garfield was well received by the country, perhaps the
more so as a relief from the danger of a third term. The nominee was a
man of great industry, possessed of a store of information, tactful,
modest, popular, an effective orator, and a veteran of the war. His
rise from canal boy to candidate for the presidency exemplified the
possibilities before industrious youth and gave rise to many a homily
on democratic America. Yet his friends had to defend his relation to a
paving scandal in the District of Columbia and an unwise connection with
the Credit Mobilier of 1873. In neither of these cases does Garfield
seem to have been corrupt, but in neither does he appear in a highly
favorable light.[2]
As the Republicans were dispersing, the Greenback convention was
assembling. Their strength in the campaign was almost negligible but
their platform presaged the future. Money to be issued only by the
government, the volume of money increased, ameliorative labor
legislation, restriction of Chinese immigration, regulation of
interstate commerce, an income tax, government for the people rather
than for classes, wider suffrage,--all these were advocated in concise
and unmistakable terms. James B. Weaver was the presidential candidate.
Among the Democrats, the all important question was whether Tilden would
be a candidate again. He naturally wished for a renomination and an
opportunity to prove by an election that he had been "fraudulently"
deprived of the presidency in 1876. The party, likewise, seemed to need
his services, as no other leader of equal prominence had appeared. On
the other hand, his health had rapidly failed since 1876 and it was
apparent that he was unequal to the exacting labors of the presidency.
Not until just before the meeting of the convention, however, did he
make known his wishes and then he declared that he desired nothing so
much as an honorable discharge from public service and that he
"renounced" the renomination. The party took him at his word and turned
to the adoption of a platform and the choice of another leader.
The platform reflected the bitterness of the party over the "great
fraud" of 1876-1877 and advocated tariff for revenue only, civil service
reform and the restriction of Chinese immigration. In other words,
except for the usual self-congratulation and the denunciation of the
opposition, the Democratic platform closely resembled that of the
Republicans. The convention then nominated for the presidency General
Winfield S. Hancock, a modest, brave Union soldier, of whom Grant once
said, "his name was never mentioned as having committed in battle a
blunder for which he was responsible." He was not an experienced
politician, but was popular even in the South.
On the whole the Democratic convention was much less interesting than
its Republican predecessor. There were no fierce factional quarrels to
arouse the emotions to concert pitch. The applause spurted out here and
there like the "jets from a splitting hose" in the "Ki yi yi yi" which
characterized the cheers of the lower wards of New York, in contrast to
the rolling billows of applause which formed so memorable an element in
the opposition gathering. The New York Tribune, although hostile to
everything Democratic, perhaps stated the fact when it commented on the
lack of enthusiasm. The convention, the Tribune noted, was well-behaved,
but a mob without leaders; there were no Conklings or Garfields or
Logans, only John Kelleys and Wade Hamptons.
The campaign of 1880 reflected the lack of definite utterances in the
party platforms. Since each side was loath to press forward to the
solution of any real problem facing the nation, the campaign was
confined, for the most part, to petty or even corrupt partisanship. The
career of General Garfield was carefully overhauled for evidences of
scandal. Arthur's failings as a public officer were duly paraded.
General Hancock was ridiculed as "a good man weighing two hundred and
forty pounds." Some attempt was made by the Republicans to make an issue
of the tariff, and a remark of Hancock to the effect that the tariff was
a "local issue" was jeered at as proving an ignorance of public
questions. There was little response to the "bloody shirt" and little
interest in "the great fraud." A modicum of enthusiasm was injected into
the canvass by the participation of Conkling and General Grant. The
former was not happily disposed toward the Republican candidate and
Grant had always refused to make campaign speeches, but as the autumn
came on and defeat seemed imminent, these two leaders were prevailed
upon to lend their assistance. Near the end of the campaign a letter was
circulated in the Pacific states, purporting to have been written by
Garfield to a Mr. Morey, and expressing opposition to the restriction of
Chinese immigration. The signature was a forgery, but complete exposure
in the short time before election day was impossible and the letter
perhaps injured Garfield on the coast. Nevertheless Garfield and Arthur
won, although their popular plurality was only 9,500 in a total of about
nine millions. The electoral vote was 214 to 155 and showed that the
division among the states was sectional, for in the North Hancock
carried only New Jersey, together with Nevada and five electoral votes
in California, the result probably of the Morey letter.
Two aspects of the campaign had especial significance. The attempt by
Conkling and his associates to choose the Republican nominee through the
shrewd manipulation of political machinery, and against the wishes of
the rank and file of the party, was a move on the part of the greater
state bosses to get control of the national organization, so that they
might manage it as they managed their local committees and conventions.
The second notable circumstance concerned the collection and expenditure
of the campaign funds.
Even before the convention met, the Republican Congressional Committee,
pursuing the common practice of the time, addressed a letter to all
federal employees, except heads of departments, in which the suggestion
was made that the office holders would doubtless consider it a
"privilege and a pleasure" to contribute to the campaign funds an amount
equal to two per cent. of their salaries. The Republican National
Committee also made its demands on office holders--usually five per
cent. of a year's salary. The Democrats, having no hold on the federal
offices, had to content themselves with the cultivation of the
possibilities in states which they controlled. In New York, Senator
Platt was chairman of the executive committee and he sent a similar
communication to federal employees in the state. Even the office boy in
a rural post office was not overlooked, and when contributions were not
forthcoming, the names of delinquents were sent to their superiors.
Other developments appeared after the election was over. In February,
1881, a dinner was given in honor of Senator S.W. Dorsey, secretary of
the Republican National Committee, to whom credit was given for carrying
the state of Indiana. General Grant presided and grace was asked by
Reverend Henry Ward Beecher. Dorsey was an Arkansas carpet-bagger, who
had been connected with a railroad swindle and was soon, as it turned
out, to be indicted for complication in other frauds. The substance of
the speeches was that the prospect of success in the campaign seemed
waning, that Indiana was essential to success and that Dorsey was the
agent who accomplished the task. Arthur, who was one of the speakers,
explained the _modus operandi_: "Indiana was really, I suppose, a
Democratic State. It had been put down on the books always as a State
that might be carried by close and perfect organization and a great deal
of--(laughter). I see the reporters are present, therefore I will simply
say that everybody showed a great deal of interest in the occasion and
distributed tracts and political documents all through the State."
With the victory accomplished, the politicians turned from the contest
with the common enemy to the question of the division of the spoils;
from the ostensible issue of platforms, to the real issue that Flanagan
had personified. Although the Republicans had presented a united front
to their opponents, there were factional troubles within the party that
all but dwarfed the larger contest. The "Stalwarts" were composed of the
thorough "organization men" like Conkling, Platt and Arthur; the
"Half-breeds" were anti-organization men and more sympathetic with the
administration. The commander of the Stalwarts and one of the most
influential leaders in the country was Roscoe Conkling, Senator from New
York. In person Conkling was a tall, handsome, imperious man, with
something of the theatrical in his appearance and manner. As a
politician he was aggressive, fearless, scornful, shrewd and adroit when
he chose to be, and masterful, always. As an orator he knew how to play
on the feelings of the crowd; his vocabulary, when he turned upon one
whom he disliked, was memorable for its wealth of invective and
ridicule, and especially he uncorked the vials of his wrath on any who
were not strictly organization men. Although an able man and a
successful lawyer, Conkling seems to have had less interest in the
public welfare than in conventions, elections and patronage.
The announcement of Garfield's choice of a Cabinet was the signal for a
fierce patronage fight. James G. Blaine, the choice for Secretary of
State, was distasteful in the extreme to Conkling. Many years before,
during a debate in the House, Blaine had compared Conkling to Henry
Winter Davis as
Hyperion to a satyr, Thersites to Hercules, mud to marble,
dunghill to diamond, a singed cat to a Bengal tiger, a whining
puppy to a roaring lion.
He had contemptuously referred to Conkling's "haughty disdain, his
grandiloquent swell, his majestic, supereminent, overpowering,
turkey-gobbler strut." Accordingly when Garfield disregarded Conkling's
wishes in regard to the representation which New York should have in the
cabinet, Conkling laid the blame upon his old enemy.[3]
As soon as the administration was in office, the Senate met in executive
session to act on appointments, and it appeared that the parties were
evenly divided, the balance of power lying in the hands of two
Independents. President Garfield sent in his list of nominees for office
without consulting Conkling in regard to New York appointments. Among
them was William H. Robertson for the coveted position of collector for
the port of New York. As Robertson had been opposed to Grant and to the
unit rule in the Republican convention, Conkling's rage reached a fever
pitch. In an attempt to discredit the President before the country, he
made public a letter from Garfield giving countenance to the practice of
levying campaign assessments on federal employees. Conkling's point of
view is not difficult to understand. Consultation with the senators from
a state with regard to nominations to offices within its boundaries was
the common custom; Conkling had sunk his dislike of Garfield during the
campaign in order to assist in a party victory; moreover, he and Platt,
the other New York senator, understood that Garfield had agreed to
dispense New York patronage in conformity to the wishes of the
Stalwarts, in case Conkling took the stump. He had carried out his part
of the bargain and now desired his _quid pro quo_.
Meanwhile the Senate was trying to organize and having failed because of
the even division of the parties, stopped the attempt long enough to act
on the nominations. The President then withdrew all except that of
Robertson, thus indicating that offices in which other senators were
concerned would not be filled until the New York case was settled.
Foreseeing that the members would wish to clear the way for their own
interests and that Robertson's nomination was likely to be agreed to,
Conkling and Platt resigned their posts and appealed to the New York
legislature for a re-election as a vindication of the stand they had
taken. As the legislature was Republican and as Vice-President Arthur
went to Albany to urge their case, they seemed likely to succeed; but to
their mortification they were both defeated after an extended contest,
and Conkling retired permanently to private life. Platt, who was
promptly dubbed "Me Too," also relinquished public office, but only for
a time. In the meanwhile, as soon as Conkling and Platt had left the
Senate, the nomination of Robertson had been approved, and Garfield was
triumphant.
Further light was thrown upon political conditions by the investigations
of the "star routes." These were routes in the South and West where
mails had to be carried by stage lines, and were under the control of
the Second Assistant Postmaster-General, Thomas J. Brady. Rumors had
been common for some years that they were a source of corruption.
Garfield's Postmaster-General, Thomas L. James, had already made a
reputation as the reform postmaster of New York, and he set himself
to investigate the reports. Among other things it was discovered that a
combination of public men and contractors had succeeded in raising the
compensation on 134 star routes from $143,169 to $622,808, dividing the
extra profits among themselves. Brady and Senator Dorsey, the active
agent in the campaign in Indiana, were accused of being in the "ring"
and were indicted on the ground of conspiracy to defraud the government.
Brady attempted to block the investigation by threatening Garfield with
an exposure of the campaign methods, and when the threat failed he made
public a letter from the President to "My dear Hubbell," chairman of the
Congressional Committee, similar to that which Conkling had earlier
published. The trials of the conspirators dragged on until 1883 and
resulted in the acquittal of all the accused except one of the least
important. Yet some good was accomplished, for the ring was broken up.
Dorsey retired from public life, and renewed attention was drawn to the
need of better federal officials.
During the course of the trials, the country was shocked by the
assassination of the President on July 2, 1881, at the hands of a
disappointed office seeker named Guiteau. Despite a strong constitution
Garfield grew slowly weaker and died on September 19. The catastrophe
affected the country the more profoundly because of its connection with
the factional quarrel in the Republican party and because, following the
recent murder of the Russian Czar, it seemed to show that democratic
government was no guarantee against violence.[4]
The consternation with which the elevation of Chester A. Arthur to the
presidency was received was not confined to the Democrats. An
oft-repeated remark made at the time was expressive of the opinion of
those best acquainted with the new executive: "'Chet' Arthur President
of the United States! Good God!" In truth Arthur's previous career
hardly justified anything except consternation. He had been identified
always with machine politics and particularly with the Conkling group;
he had been a prominent figure in the opposition to Hayes when the
latter attempted to improve conditions in the New York Customs House;
and had taken an active and undignified share in the quarrel between
Garfield and Conkling. Chester A. Arthur, however, was a combination of
characteristics such as enlist the interest of the student of human
nature. Of Vermont birth, educated at Union College where he had taken
high rank, he had taught school for a time, had entered the practice of
law in New York, had made a good war record, and had been a member of
the Republican party from its beginning. In many ways Arthur was made
for politics. He was the "man of the world" in appearance, polished,
refined, well-groomed, scrupulously careful about his attire, a
_bon-vivant_. Yet he was equally at home in the atmosphere of politics
in the early eighties; a leader of the "Johnnies" and "Jakes," the
"Barneys" and "Mikes" of New York City. Dignity characterized him,
whether in the "knock-down" and "drag-out" caucus or at an exclusive
White House reception. He possessed a refinement, especially in his home
life, that is not usually associated with ward politics but which forms
an element of the "gentleman" in the best sense of that abused word.
Yet they who feared that President Arthur would be like Chester A.
Arthur, the collector of the port, were treated to a revelation. The
suddenness with which the elevation to the responsibility of the
executive's position broadened the view of the President proved that he
possessed qualities which had been merely hidden in the pursuit of
ordinary partisan politics. Platt, expectant of the dismissal of
Robertson, now that a Stalwart was in power, fell back in disgust and
disowned his former associate, for it appeared that Arthur intended to
further the principles of reform. His first annual message to Congress
contained a sane discussion of the civil service and the needed
remedies, which committed him whole-heartedly to the competitive system.
Although he did not go as far as some reformers would have had him, he
went so much farther than was expected that commendation was
enthusiastic, even on the part of the most prominent leaders in the
reform element. In the same message he urged the repeal of the
Bland-Allison silver-coinage act, the reduction of the internal revenue,
revision of the tariff, a better navy, post-office savings banks, and
enlightened Indian legislation. Altogether it was clear that he had laid
aside much of the partisan in succeeding to his high office.[5]
The Chinese problem soon provided him with an opportunity to show an
independence of judgment, together with an indifference to mere
popularity, which were in keeping with the new Arthur, but which were a
surprise to his former associates. As a result of the changes in the
Burlingame treaty, which gave the United States authority to suspend the
immigration of Chinese laborers, Congress passed a bill in 1882 to
prohibit the incoming of laborers for twenty years, western Republicans
joining with the Democrats in its passage.[6] Arthur vetoed the measure
on the ground that a stoppage for so great a period as twenty years
violated those provisions of the treaty which allowed us merely to
suspend immigration, not to prohibit it. An attempt to overcome the veto
failed for lack of the necessary two-thirds majority. Congress did,
however, pass legislation suspending the immigration of laborers for ten
years, and this bill the President signed. Later acts have merely
extended this law or made it more effective.
Arthur also exercised the veto upon a rivers and harbors bill. It had,
of course, long been the custom for the federal government to aid in the
improvement of the harbors and internal water-ways of the country. But
the modest sums of _ante-bellum_ days grew rapidly after the war,
stimulated by immense federal revenues, until the suggested legislation
of 1882 appropriated nearly nineteen million dollars. It provided not
merely for the dredging of great rivers like the Mississippi and Ohio,
but also for the Lamprey River in New Hampshire, the Waccemaw in North
Carolina, together with Goose Rapids and Cheesequake Creek. Some of
these, the opposition declared, might better be paved than dredged.[7]
It might seem that a bill against which such obvious objections could be
raised would be doomed to failure. But the argument of Ransom of North
Carolina, who had charge of the bill in its later stages in the Senate,
seems to have been a decisive one. Somebody had objected that the
members of the committee had cared for the interests of their own
states, merely. Ransom repelled the charge. He showed that the New
England states had been looked out for; "Look next to New York, that
great, grand, magnificent State ... that empire in itself ... Go to
Delaware, little, glorious Delaware." The committee had retained $20,000
for Delaware. "Go next ... to great, grand old Virginia." Virginia had
received something. "Go to Missouri, the young, beautiful, growing,
powerful State of my friend over the way." And so on--all had been
treated with thoughtful care. Ransom was wise in his day and generation.
Although Arthur objected to the bill on the grounds of extravagance and
of the official demoralization which accompanied it, nevertheless
Republicans and Democrats alike joined in passing over the veto an act
which would get money into their home states.
The congressional elections in the fall of 1882 indicated that the
factional disputes among the Republicans, and their failure to reform
conditions in the civil service had presented the opposition with an
opportunity. In the House of Representatives, Republican control was
replaced by a Democratic majority of sixty-nine; the state legislatures
chosen were Democratic in such numbers as to make sure the even division
of the Senate when new members were elected; in Pennsylvania, a
Democratic reformer, Robert E. Pattison, was elected governor, and in
New York another, Grover Cleveland, was successful by the unprecedented
majority of 190,000.
The results of the campaign added interest to a civil service reform
bill which had been drafted by some reformers led by Dorman B. Eaton,
and which had been presented to the Senate by George F. Pendleton, of
Ohio. The debate elicited several points of view. Pendleton set forth
the evils of the existing system of appointments, and emphasized the
superior advantages of appointment after competitive examination. The
Democrats were in distress. Although Pendleton was himself a Democrat
and the party platforms had been advocating reform, nevertheless the
election of 1884 was not far ahead, Democratic success seemed likely,
and the party leaders desired an unrestrained opportunity to fill the
offices with their followers. Senator Williams expressed a conviction
that the Republican party was a party of corruption and continued:
The only way to reform is to put a good honest Democratic
president in in 1884; then turn on the hose and give him a
good hickory broom and tell him to sweep the dirt away.
The Republicans, on their side, were fearful of the same clean sweep
that Williams hoped for, and they therefore looked with greater
equanimity upon a bill which might retain in office the existing
office-holders, most of whom belonged to their party. This aspect of the
situation was not lost upon such Democrats as Senator Brown who moved
that the measure be entitled "a bill to perpetuate in office the
Republicans who now hold the patronage of the government." In the Senate
only five members voted against its passage, but thirty-three absented
themselves; and in the House forty-seven opposed, while eighty-seven
were absent. A little study of the debate makes it clear that the
passage of the act was due to conviction in favor of reform on the part
of a few and to fear of public opinion on the part of many others.
Undoubtedly many of the absentees were members who would not vote for
the measure and were fearful of the results of voting against it. The
President signed the bill January 16, 1883.
The Pendleton act left large discretion in the hands of the President.
It authorized the appointment of a commission of three who should
prepare and put into effect suitable rules for carrying out the law. The
act also provided that government offices should be arranged in classes
and that entrance to any class should be obtained by competitive
examination; that no person should be removed from the service for
refusing to contribute to political funds; and that examinations should
be held in one or more places in each state and territory where
candidates appeared. The system was to be inaugurated in customs
districts and post offices where the number of employees was as many as
fifty, but could be extended later under direction of the President. The
soliciting or receiving of contributions by federal officials of all
grades, for political purposes, was forbidden. With the exceptions just
mentioned, officers could be removed from office as before, but the
purpose of removal was now gone. Since the appointee to the vacancy must
be the successful competitor in an examination, the chief who removed an
officer could not replace him with a personal friend or party worker.
The first commission was headed by Dorman B. Eaton. The work of grading
officials and placing them within the protection of the law began at
once, and by the close of President Arthur's term nearly 16,000 were
classified. Fortunately, the work of the commission was carried on
sensibly and slowly, and no backward steps had to be taken.
The attitude of Congress toward tariff revision illustrates many of the
characteristics of congressional action during the early eighties. In
his first message to Congress, Arthur said that the surplus for the year
was $100,000,000, and therefore urged the reduction of the internal
revenue taxes and the revision of the tariff. In May, 1882, Congress
authorized a tariff commission to investigate and report, and in
conformity with the law Arthur appointed its nine members. All of them
were protectionists and the chairman, John L. Hayes, was secretary of
the Wool Manufacturers' Association. After holding hearings in more than
a score of cities and examining some hundreds of witnesses, the
commission recommended reductions varying from nothing in some cases to
forty or fifty per cent. in others. The average reduction was twenty to
twenty-five per cent.
Using the report as a foundation, the Senate drew up a tariff measure,
added it to a House bill which provided for a reduction of the internal
revenues, and passed the combination. Meanwhile, lobbyists poured into
Washington to guard the interests of the producers of lumber, pig-iron,
sugar and other materials upon which the tariff might be reduced. When
the Senate bill reached the House it contained lower duties than the
protectionist members desired. The latter, although in possession of the
organization of the House, were not strong enough to restore higher
rates, but under the shrewd management of Thomas B. Reed, one of their
number, they were able to refer the bill to a conference committee of
the two houses which contained seven strong protectionists out of ten
members. Reed admitted that the proceedings were "unusual in their
nature and very forcible in their character" but he felt that a change
in the tariff had been promised and that the only way to bring it about
in the face of Democratic opposition was to settle the details "in the
quiet of a conference committee." A "great emergency" having arisen, he
would take extraordinary measures. The bill produced under these
circumstances reduced the internal revenue taxes, lowered some of the
tariff duties and raised others, but left the general level at the point
where it had been at the close of the war. _The Nation_, favorable to
reform, scornfully characterized the act as "taking a shaving off the
duty on iron wire, and adding it to the duty on glue!" Senator Sherman,
a protectionist member of the conference committee, wrote an account of
the whole procedure many years afterward. After commending the spirit
and proposals of the tariff commission and mentioning the successful
efforts of many persons to have their individual interests looked out
for, he expressed a regret that he did not defeat the bill, as he could
have done in view of the evenly balanced party situation in the Senate
at that time.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
The election of 1880 is well treated by Sparks, Stanwood, Andrews, and
Rhodes. Senator G.F. Hoar, the chairman of the Republican nominating
convention, has a valuable chapter in his _Autobiography of Seventy
Years_. Such newspapers as the New York _Times_ and _Tribune_ are
invaluable for a discussion of the conventions.
The events of the administration, such as the tariff debates, the
passage of the civil service law and others are discussed in the special
works mentioned in Chapter V. Consult also: Edward Stanwood, _J.G.
Blaine_; T.C. Platt, _Autobiography_; and A.R. Conkling, _Life and
Letters of Roscoe Conkling_. The _Annual Cyclopaedia _contains several
excellent articles on the tariff (1882, 1883), civil service reform
(1883), star route trials (1882, 1883). H.C. Thomas, _The Return of the
Democratic Party to Power in 1884_ (1919), contains useful chapters on
Garfield and Arthur.
* * * * *
[1] For Platt's account of the annual reunion and banquet of the three
hundred and six--"The Old Guard"--see _Autobiography_, 115.
[2] Garfield's early career as a canal boy led to such campaign songs
as the following:
He early learned to paddle well his own forlorn canoe,
Upon Ohio's grand canal he held the hellum true.
And now the people shout to him: "Lo! 't is for you we wait.
We want to see Jim Garfield guide our glorious ship of state."
[3] William Windom, of Minn., was Secretary of the Treasury; E.T.
Lincoln, of Ill., Secretary of War; Wayne MacVeagh, of Pa.,
Attorney-General; T.L. James, of N.Y., Postmaster-General; W.H. Hunt,
of La., Secretary of the Navy; S.J. Kirkwood, of Ia., Secretary of
the Interior.
[4] The death of the President emphasized the need of a presidential
succession law. Under an act of 1792, the president and vice-president
were succeeded by the president of the Senate and the speaker of the
House. When Garfield died, the Senate had not yet elected a presiding
officer and the House had not met. The death of Arthur would have left
the country without a legal head. The Presidential Succession Act of
1886 remedied the fault by providing for the succession of the cabinet
in order, beginning with the Secretary of State. The presiding officers
of the Senate and House were omitted, because they might not be of the
dominant party.
[5] The cabinet was composed of F.T. Frelinghuysen, N.J., Secretary of
State; C.J. Folger, N.Y., Secretary of the Treasury; R.T. Lincoln, Ill.,
Secretary of War; B.H. Brewster, Pa., Attorney-General; T.O. Howe, Wis.,
Postmaster-General; W.E. Chandler, N.H., Secretary of the Navy; H.M.
Teller, Colo., Secretary of the Interior.
[6] Above, p. 145.
[7] Some thoroughly unselfish members of Congress like Senator Hoar,
however, believed the bill a justifiable one and voted for it. See Hoar,
_Autobiography_, II, chapter VIII.