Subsequent events strengthened Mr. Conkling in his opinion, but those
events did not change my opinion of Mr. Blaine's integrity of purpose
in the conversations of which I have spoken.
My knowledge of the events, not important in themselves, but which
seem to have the relation of a prelude to the great tragedy, was
derived from three persons, Mr. Conkling, Mr. Blaine, and Mr. Marshall
Jewell. At the request of the President, Mr. Conkling called upon him
the Sunday preceding the day of catastrophe. The President gave Mr.
Conkling the names of persons that he was considering favorably for
certain places. To several of these Mr. Conkling made objections, and
in some cases other persons were named. As Mr. Conkling was leaving
he said, "Mr. President, what do you propose about the collectorship
of New York?" The President said, "We will leave that for another
time." These statements I received from Mr. Conkling.
From Mr. Jewell I received the following statement as coming from the
President: When the New York nominations were sent to the Senate, the
President was forthwith in the receipt of letters and despatches in
protest, coupled with the suggestion that everything had been
surrendered to Conkling. Without delay and without consultation with
any one, the President nominated Judge Robertson to the office of
collector of New York. Further, the President said, as reported by Mr.
Jewell, Mr. Blaine heard of the nomination, and he came in very pale
and much astonished.
From Mr. Blaine I received the specific statement that he had no
knowledge of the nomination of Judge Robertson until it had been made.
These statements are reconcilable with each other, and they place the
responsibility for the sudden and fatal rupture of the relations
between Mr. Conkling and the President upon the President. Mr. Conkling
could not fail to regard the nomination of Robertson as a wilful and
premeditated violation of the pledge given at the Sunday conference.
It was, however, only an instance of General Garfield's impulsive and
unreasoning submission to an expression of public opinion, without
waiting for evidence of the nature and value of that opinion. That
weakness had been observed by his associates in the House of
Representatives, and on that weakness his administration was wrecked.
Mr. Conkling was much misrepresented and of course he was much
misunderstood. As a Senator from New York he claimed a right to be
consulted in regard to the principal appointments in the State. His
recommendations were few and they were made with great care. He
confined himself to the chief appointments. It was quite difficult
to secure his name or his favorable word in behalf of applicants for
the subordinate places.
In my experience with him, which was considerable in the Internal
Revenue Office and in the Treasury, I found him ready to concede to
the opinions of the Executive Department. He was one of those who
held to the opinion that it was the duty of Representatives and Senators
to give advice in regard to appointments and to give it upon their
responsibility as members of the Government. Senators and
Representatives are not officers of the Government, they are members
of the Government, and the duty of giving aid to the administration
rests upon them.
When a man is chosen to represent a State or a district, a presumption
should arise that he will act for the good of the country to the best
of his ability. Advice in regard to appointments is a part of his
duty, and in the main the Senators and Representatives are worthy of
confidence. The present Civil Service system rests upon the theory that
they are not to be trusted and that three men without a constituency
are safer custodians of power.
Upon the death of Garfield and the accession of Arthur, Mr. Conkling
looked for one thing, and one thing only--the removal of Robertson.
When this was not done he separated from Arthur. I have no knowledge
of the reasons which governed the President, but I think his career
would have been more agreeable to himself if he had so far vindicated
his own course and the course of his friends as to have removed from
office the man who had contributed so largely to the defeat of the wing
of the Republican Party with which Mr. Arthur was identified.
When General Garfield died, the Republican Party was broken, and it
seemed to be without hope. President Arthur's conciliatory policy did
much to restore harmony of all the elements except the wing represented
by Mr. Conkling.
It is probable, however, that a better result might have been secured by
the early removal of Robertson. That course of action would have been
satisfactory to Conkling, and given strength to the party in New York,
where strength was most needed. With Mr. Conkling's aid in 1884, Mr.
Arthur might have been nominated, and if nominated it is probable that
he might have been elected with Mr. Conkling's aid. Arthur's error was
that he offended two important factions of the party. By retaining
Robertson he alienated Conkling, and by the removal of Blaine he
alienated him and his friends. Hence in 1884 two elements of the party
that were bitterly opposed to each other harmonized in their opposition
to Arthur.
XLI
FROM 1875 TO 1895