One of my last acts as Secretary was to advise the President to nominate
a Mr. Hitchcock for collector of the port of San Diego, California.
Hitchcock was a lawyer by profession, a graduate of Harvard and a man of
good standing in San Diego. Mr. Houghton, the member for the San Diego
district, had recommended a man who was a saloon-keeper and a Democrat
in politics, but he had supported Houghton in the canvass. Houghton's
request was supported by Senator Sargent. Upon the facts as then
understood the President nominated Hitchcock and one of the first
questions of interest to me was the action of the Senate upon the
nomination of Hitchcock which I supported.
Sargent appealed to what was known as the courtesy of the Senate a rule
or custom which required Senators of the same party to follow the lead
of Senators in the matter of nominations from the respective States. To
this rule I objected. I refused to recognize it, and I said that I
would never appeal to the "courtesy" of the Senate in any matter
concerning the State of Massachusetts. Hitchcock was rejected. The
President nominated Houghton's candidate.
This action on my part was followed by consequences which may have
prevented my re-election to the Senate. When Judge Russell, who was
collector of the port of Boston, was about to resign, General Butler,
who had early knowledge of the purpose of Russell, secured from General
Grant the nomination of his friend William A. Simmons. Simmons had been
in the army, he had had experience in the Internal Revenue Service and
his record was good. He was, however, Butler's intimate friend, and
all the hostility in the State against Butler, which was large, was
directed against the confirmation. I was not personally opposed to
Simmons, but I thought that his appointment was unwise in the extreme,
and therefore I opposed his confirmation. There were fair offers of
compromise on men who were free from objections, all of which were
refused by Butler. The President declined to withdraw the nomination
unless it could be made to appear that Simmons was an unfit man. This
could not be done. I was upon the Committee on Commerce to which the
nomination was referred, and upon my motion the report was adverse to
the nomination. Butler came to my room and denounced my action,
saying that he would spend half a million dollars to defeat my re-
election. I said in reply:--
"You can do that if you choose, but you cannot control my action now."
In the Senate I opposed the confirmation on the ground that a majority
of the Republican Party were dissatisfied, that it was an unnecessary
act of violence to their feelings, that there were men who were
acceptable who could be considered, and that the means by which the
nomination was secured could not be defended. I was then challenged to
say whether I appealed to the courtesy of the Senate. I said:
"No, I do not. I ask for the rejection of Simmons upon the ground that
the nomination ought not to have been made."
Sumner appealed to the courtesy of the Senate, but he had then wandered
so far from the Republican Party that his appeal was disregarded.
Simmons was confirmed.
Enough of the proceedings were made public to enable my opponents to
allege that I might have defeated Simmons, and that my action was
insincere. As a result I had no further political intercourse with
Butler, and when the contest came in 1877 his action aided Mr. Hoar in
securing the seat in the Senate. I presume, however, that Butler
preferred my election, but he had hopes for himself, or at least that
the election would go to a third party. A day or two before the
election he sent me a friendly despatch urging me to go to Boston. I
had already determined to avoid any personal participation in the
contest. That non-interference I have never regretted.