Between 1860 and 1876 the Presidential nominations of the Republican
party had been predetermined and practically unopposed. The second
nomination of Mr. Lincoln and the two nominations of General Grant
were so unmistakably dictated by public opinion that they came without
a contest. In 1876, for the first time since the Republican party had
acquired National power, the candidate was not selected in advance,
and the National Convention met to make a choice, not simply to
register a popular decree. This freedom of action imparted a personal
interest to the preliminary canvass and a struggle in the Convention
itself, which previous nominations had lacked. The public excitement
was enhanced by the close and doubtful balance between the two parties.
For the first time since its original success, the power of the
Republican party had been seriously broken in 1874. The war and
reconstruction periods were receding, and with the lessening stress of
their demands, the popular conviction of the necessity of Republican
rule was losing much of its force. New questions were pressing
forward, and parties were largely judged by these later tests.
The open field and free choice on the Republican side developed several
competitors for the nomination.--Senator Morton of Indiana naturally
held a prominent place. His ability, his party devotion, his fearless
services as the War Governor of a State which was disturbed with tumult
and sedition, his conspicuous part in the Reconstruction contests in
the Senate, all marked him as entitled to great consideration.
--Senator Conkling was earnestly sustained by the Republican
organization of New York, of which he was then the undisputed chief.
His friends went to the National Convention with the power of the
largest delegation and with the influence of the most important State.
He had the additional aid of the good will and good wishes of President
Grant.
--Mr. Bristow of Kentucky was also a candidate. As Secretary of the
Treasury he had been zealous in pushing investigation and prosecution
of the whiskey frauds then rife. His mode of procedure created the
impression that he was acting independently of the Administration of
which he was a part, if not in studied conflict with it, and this
demonstration, while objectionable to many, commended him to a
considerable body of Republicans who were inclined on that account to
associate him with the growing cry for administrative reform. He had
the advantage also of strong local influence. He came from a State
adjoining the city where the Convention was to be held, and through
the newspapers the surrounding atmosphere was colored in his favor.
--But Ohio, which has long held a prominent part in shaping the
National counsels, had a candidate more distinctively her own.
Rutherford B. Hayes had been chosen Governor the preceding year under
circumstances which attested his popular strength. In 1873 the
Democrats had elected the venerable William Allen, and had won a still
more emphatic victory the following year in choosing members of the
House of Representatives. In 1875 the Republicans put forward General
Hayes to defeat Mr. Allen and reclaim the State, and his success
vindicated the wisdom of their choice. He had already served two terms
as Governor, and was regarded as a safe and judicious executive. He
was entirely free from factional entanglements, and was considered by
many wise political leaders to be a peculiarly available candidate.
--The delegates from Pennsylvania, like those from Ohio, presented
their Governor as a candidate. But worthy as General Hartranft was
conceded to be, the circumstances surrounding the movement for him
inspired the general belief that he was brought forward less with the
expectation of a serious effort on his behalf than for the purpose of
making his candidacy the means of holding the delegation in hand.
--The only other candidate who had an active support was Mr. Blaine of
Maine.
The National Convention met at Cincinnati on the 14th of June and
became at once the centre of popular attention. Among the delegates
were many men of position and influence in their respective States, and
some with national reputation. Massachusetts sent E. Rockwood Hoar,
George F. Hoar, Richard A. Dana, jun., and James Russell Lowell. Among
the Maine delegates were Eugene Hale, William P. Frye, Nelson Dingley,
jun., Charles A. Boutelle, and Seth L. Milliken. General Hawley and
Samuel Fessenden came from Connecticut, and Governor Van Zandt and
Nelson W. Aldrich from Rhode Island. New York had a strong
representation, including Alonzo B. Cornell, Theodore M. Pomeroy,
James N. Matthews of the _Buffalo Express_, George William Curtis,
Stewart L. Woodford, Clarence A. Seward, William H. Robertson, Charles
Emory Smith, then editor of the _Albany Journal_, Frank Hiscock, and
Thomas C. Platt. The Ohio delegation was led by the venerable Senator
Wade and by Governor Noyes. J. Donald Cameron, then Secretary of War,
Henry M. Hoyt, afterward Governor, General Bingham, John Cessna, and
Edward McPherson, appeared at the head of the Pennsylvania forces.
Among other notable delegates were Robert G. Ingersoll and Charles B.
Farwell of Illinois; Richard W. Thompson of Indiana; Judge Harlan,
later of the Supreme Court, and Ex-Attorney-General Speed of Kentucky;
Governor Packard and Senator Kellogg of Louisiana; Henry P. Baldwin and
William A. Howard of Michigan; William J. Sewell, George A. Halsey,
Garrett A. Hobart, and Frederick Potts of New Jersey; Alexander Ramsey
and Dwight M. Sabin of Minnesota; John P. Jones of Nevada; Nathan Goff,
jun., of West Virginia; Philetus Sawyer of Wisconsin; Jerome B. Chaffee
and Henry M. Teller of Colorado,--all of whom were then or at a later
period prominent in the public councils. Theodore M. Pomeroy of New
York was made temporary chairman of the Convention, and Edward
McPherson of Pennsylvania permanent president. The first day was
chiefly occupied with political addresses.
The report of the committee on resolutions was looked for with especial
interest. The exigent political issue of the hour was the Currency
question. Congress had the year before passed the Resumption Act
providing for a return to specie payments in 1879. While there was no
serious conflict among Republicans over the general policy, there were
differences of opinion as to the wisdom of explicitly indorsing the act
with its designation of time and its obligation of immediate
preparatory measures. A long struggle took place in the committee on
these points and on cognate questions. After a protracted debate the
whole subject of framing the platform was entrusted to a sub-committee,
composed of General Hawley, Ex-Attorney-General Speed, Governor Dingley
of Maine, Governor Chamberlain of South Carolina, James H. Howe of
Wisconsin, Governor C. C. Waters of Arkansas, and Charles Emory Smith
of New York. Several of these gentlemen possessed experience in the
line of duty to which they were assigned. The youngest man of the
list, Mr. Emory Smith, then editor of the _Albany Journal_, had for
years taken part in preparing the platforms for Republican conventions
in New York, and had become distinguished for the skill and felicity
of his language, the aptness with which he embodied the popular
thought, and the precision with which he described the issue at stake.
The platform reported to the Convention was clear and emphatic upon
the leading issues. It improved the occasion of the Centennial year
to repeat the cardinal truths and principles of the Declaration of
Independence; it recognized the pacification of the South and the
protection of all its citizens as a sacred duty; the enforcement of
the Constitutional Amendments was enjoined; and the obligation of
removing any just cause of discontent was coupled with that of securing
to every American citizen complete liberty and exact equality in the
exercise of all civil, political, and public rights; the Public Credit
Act, the measure first signed by President Grant, was referred to with
the declaration that its "pledge must be fulfilled by a continuous and
steady progress to specie payments." The platform also embraced a
distinct declaration for a radical reform of the civil service, making
a broader and more precise enunciation than was contained in the
Liberal platform of 1872, though the assigned reason for that revolt,
as given by its champions, was the alleged hostility of the Republican
party to improvement in the Government service. The Protective policy
was upheld; the extirpation of polygamy was demanded; and an
investigation into the Chinese question, then beginning to distract
California, was recommended.
With the platform adopted, the Convention proceeded at once to the task
of nominating candidates. Mr. Thompson of Indiana presented Senator
Morton. The name of Mr. Bristow was submitted by Judge Harlan, and
supported by Mr. Curtis and Richard H. Dana, jun. Colonel Ingersoll
followed in advocacy of Mr. Blaine, with a speech which placed him at
once in the front rank of popular orators. He was seconded by Mr. Frye
of Maine, and by Mr. Turner, a well known colored preacher from
Georgia. Senator Conkling was eloquently presented by Mr. Stewart L.
Woodford; and Governor Hayes by Ex-Governor Noyes, with a few words of
approval from Ex-Senator Wade. Marshall Jewell was nominated by Mr.
Kellogg of Connecticut; and General Hartranft by Lynn Bartholomew of
Pennsylvania. The speeches, as a whole, were pointed and inspiring.
Under their stimulating influence the Convention was eager to begin
the balloting, but the gathering shades of evening compelled an
adjournment to the next morning.
With the opening of the third day the Convention immediately proceeded
to the first ballot. The result was: Blaine 285, Morton 124, Bristow
113, Conkling 99, Hayes 61, Hartranft 58, Jewell 11, William A. Wheeler
3. Hartranft's 58 was the solid vote of Pennsylvania; Hayes had the
solid 44 of Ohio and a few scattering votes from other States;
Conkling had all but one of New York's 70, with 8 from Georgia, 7 from
North Carolina, and the remainder scattering; Morton's vote, apart from
the 30 of Indiana, came wholly from the South; Bristow's support was
divided among nineteen States and one Territory; and Blaine's vote came
from twenty-eight States and seven Territories.
The second ballot, taken after the Convention had decided against the
unit rule and allowed each delegate to vote as he chose, showed a gain
of 11 votes for Blaine, 1 for Bristow, 3 for Hayes, and 5 for
Hartranft, with a loss of 4 for Morton and of 6 for Conkling. Jewell
had dropped out. The third and fourth ballots proceeded without any
material change. On the fifth ballot the solid vote of Michigan was
cast for Governor Hayes, and other changes were made which carried his
aggregate to 104; while Morton fell to 95. On the sixth ballot the
vote for Blaine rose to 308, and that for Hayes to 113, while other
candidates lost. When the seventh ballot opened New York retired for
consultation on one side of the hall, and Pennsylvania on the other.
It was evident that the decisive moment had come. As the roll-call
advanced, other candidates were withdrawn and it became a contest
between Hayes and Blaine. A large majority of the supporters of
Morton, Conkling and Bristow went to Hayes. Pennsylvania gave 28 votes
for Hayes and 30 for Blaine. The ballot as concluded stood, Hayes
384, Blaine 351, and Bristow 21. The last named all favored Governor
Hayes and his nomination was thereupon made unanimous. For the
Vice-Presidency William A. Wheeler and Stewart L. Woodford of New York,
Marshall Jewell and Joseph R. Hawley of Connecticut, and Frederick T.
Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, were indicated; but before the close of
the first ballot Mr. Wheeler was nominated by acclamation.
The ticket thus presented was a surprise to the country. The
candidates like all who are nominated against public expectation,
failed to excite enthusiasm in the earlier part of the canvass. But
both were regarded as able, judicious, and prudent men, and they
steadily grew in public favor as the contest waxed warm. Governor
Hayes had not been prominent during his brief service in Congress, but
his repeated election over the strongest Democrats of Ohio, and his
three terms as Governor, had made an excellent impression on the
country. He was especially respected for the firmness and fidelity
with which he waged battle for honest money against the financial
heresies which had at that time taken deep root in his State. Mr.
Wheeler had achieved reputation in Congress as a discreet legislator
and a practical man of affairs, and was cordially received by the
different factions which at that time divided the Republican party of
New York.
The Democratic National convention assembled at St. Louis two weeks
after the nomination of Hayes and Wheeler. The party leaders and
managers came together with more hope of success than they had dared
to entertain at any period since the beginning of the civil war.
The Democratic victories of 1874 had encouraged them with a confidence
which the partial re-action of 1875 had not diminished. They were
recovering possession of the South; they were profiting from political
discontent in the North which they strove in every way to develop; they
were gaining in assurance just in proportion as the war feeling was
dying out; and they were reaping the usual advantage of the opposition
party in a period of financial depression. Learning wisdom from the
blundering course of 1868 and the disastrous experiment of 1872, they
were now to uplift the banner of pure Democracy under Democracy's most
skillful leadership.
Interest in the movement was deepened by the organized and irresistible
force with which Mr. Samuel J. Tilden had assumed leadership and was
advancing to the Presidential nomination. Mr. Tilden was in some
respects the most striking figure in the Democratic party since
Andrew Jackson. Though more than threescore, he had been a conspicuous
party chief only three or four years. He had moved forward to
unchallenged personal supremacy with a vigor and rapidity which in the
political life of the United States have seldom been equaled. His
sudden elevation was not the result of accidental circumstances of
which he was the fortunate beneficiary. He was the conscious and
masterful creator of his position. The sceptre of power in the
Democratic party did not drop into his hands; he seized it, and wielded
it at his own will. He moulded the conditions which suited his
designs, and when the hour was come he assumed the command as of divine
right.
But though he thus blazed forth with unexpected brilliancy, his whole
life had in fact been a school of preparation. His public career in
official position had it is true been limited. He served in the
Legislature of 1846 and in the Constitutional Conventions of 1846 and
1867. In both he bestowed especial attention upon the canal policy of
the States. He bore a prominent part with Mr. Van Buren in the
Barnburners' Revolt of 1848, in which he and some of his associates
departed for a brief period from a lifelong pro-slavery record, and
rode Free-soil as the stalking-horse of personal resentments and
factional designs. He professed devotion to the Wilmot Proviso as
earnestly as one of the old Abolitionists, and turned from it as if
its advocacy had been the amusement of a summer vacation. He
occasionally appeared in National Conventions, and he acted for some
years as chairman of the Democratic State Committee of New York. This
was the total of his public service until he set forth upon what was
the immediate preliminary movement to his Presidential campaign.
But from his earliest manhood he had been a close student of political
affairs. He was a devotee of Jackson in his youth, and became one of
the ardent disciples of Van Buren, whom he adopted as mentor and model.
His earlier political papers are dignified and elevated in tone beyond
his years, and show a strong intellect and careful reflection; but
they are in the stately and turgid style of the period and lack the
decisive and original force of his later productions.
Even when he followed the vigorous Dean Richmond as chairman of the
Democratic State Committee, he did not suggest the creative political
power which he afterwards revealed. He was regarded rather as a
respectable figure-head. It was on this assumption that he escaped
completely in the notorious election frauds of New York in 1868. His
name was appended to the private call for the earliest possible
approximate returns from the interior, a call which meant that the
authors only wanted a clue to determine how large a majority must be
counted in the metropolis to secure the State. Mr. Tilden denied all
knowledge of the letter. Without even consulting him, his authority
had been appropriated by the "Tweed Ring," just then rising to its
colossal power. During the entire period of its profligate ascendency,
Mr. Tilden continued as chairman of the State Committee, but he did
not share its corrupt counsels or sanction its audacious schemes. The
worst reproach which lies against him is that of remaining too long
a passive witness. There was no bond of affiliation between him and
the vulgar adventurers who had taken the Democratic party and the city
of New York by the throat. He had no sympathy with their coarse and
reckless measures. Aside from his abhorrence of their riotous
corruption every instinct of self-preservation impelled him to desire
their overthrow, for while they ruled he had little hope of influence
or preferment. When the exposure of their monstrous robberies had
opened the way to their downfall, Mr. Tilden grappled with the menaced
Ring and helped to complete its destruction. He labored to capture its
intrenchments in the Legislature, fought the conspiracy with a
non-partisan combination, went to the Assembly himself, co-operated in
the legal prosecution, promoted the impeachment of the corrupt judges,
and proved a powerful and capable ally in rescuing the State from this
shameful domination.
The extermination of the "Tweed Ring" was Mr. Tilden's opportunity.
His hour had come; he promptly grasped the party leadership thus left
open. Starting out deliberately for the Presidential nomination, his
plan embraced three leading features: his stepping stone was the
governorship, his shibboleth was administrative reform, his method was
organization to a degree which has never been surpassed. He was swept
into the Governor's chair on the crest of the Democratic tidal wave in
1874, and once there every effort was directed to the Presidential
succession. He had the sagacity to perceive that in order to gain any
solid foothold in the country the Democratic party needed to cut loose
from its discredited past and secure a new rallying-cry. It was loaded
down with its odious war record; it was divided on fiscal questions; it
had fought a losing battle for twelve years on the defensive; and if it
was to struggle with any hope it must discover a line on which it could
boldly take the aggressive.
Mr. Tilden fancied that he found this pathway to a new career in the
resounding demand for a radical reform of administrative methods, and
from the hour of his accession to the governorship he sought to give
it effect in reality or in semblance. He had received applause and
secured promotion from his aid in the overthrow of the "Tweed Ring,"
and he now declared war against the affiliated "Canal Ring," whose
destruction had already been made sure. The circumstances were
peculiarly propitious for his whole movement. The extinguishment of
the war debt of the State, already nearly accomplished, would bring
an immediate and large reduction of taxes. The amendment to the
State Constitution (already passed and just producing its effect)
prohibiting any taxation or any appropriation for expenditures on the
canals, beyond their revenues, would starve the Canal Ring by cutting
off its supply. Mr. Tilden became Governor at the right hour to reap
the harvest which others had sown. It is seldom that any administration
is signalized by two events so impressive and far-reaching as the
crumbling of a formidable and long-intrenched foe to honest
administration like the Tweed Ring, and a decrease of the tax
budge by nearly one-half. It was Mr. Tilden's rare fortune that his
Governorship was coincident with these predetermined and assured
results. It would be unjust to deny to him the merit of resisting the
canal extortionists and hastening their extinction, but it would be
equally untrue not to say that in the work of the reformer he did not
forget the shrewd calculations of the partisan. He understood better
than any other man the art of appropriating to himself the credit of
events which would have come to pass without his agency, and of reforms
already planned by his political opponents.
By a fortunate concurrence of conditions which he partly made, and
which with signal ability he wholly turned to account, Mr. Tilden thus
gained the one commanding position in the Democratic party. He held
the most vital State of the North in his grasp. He embodied the one
thought which expressed the discontent with Republicanism and the hope
of the Democracy. He evinced a power of leadership which no man in his
party could rival. The Democracy before his day could count but four
chiefs of the first rank--Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, and Van Buren.
Mr. Tilden was not indeed a leader of the same class with these masters
who so long a period shaped the whole thought and policy of their
party, but he displayed political capacity of a very high order. He
was trained in the school of the famous Albany Regency, and had
exhibited much of its ingenuity and power. He placed his reliance both
upon ideas and organization. He sought to captivate the popular
imagination with a striking thought, and he supported it with the most
minute and systematic work. In his own State he discarded all leaders
of equal rank with himself, and selected active young men or mere
personal followers as his lieutenants. He bore no brother near the
throne. In other States he secured strong alliances to promote his
interests, and called into existence a National force which was as
potent as it was compact.
His political observations covered nearly half a century, and spanned
the successive epoches which stretched from the struggle over
Nullification to the war of secession and the work of Reconstruction.
But through most of this long and stirring era he was engaged in the
practice of his profession and the acquisition of wealth. In this work
he was peculiarly successful. To the subtlety of an acute legal mind
he added the sagacity of a keen business man. He attained especial,
indeed almost unrivaled eminence as a corporation lawyer, and thus
gained a practice which leads to larger rewards than can be found in
other legal fields. While acquiring great reputation he amassed a
great fortune, and when at last he entered upon his political career he
combined the resources of a full treasury with the arts of an
unrivalled manager.
Mr. Tilden has been the subject of vehement and contradictory
judgments. His friends have well-nigh canonized him as representing
the highest type of public virtue; his foes have painted him as an
adept in craft and intrigue. His partisans have held him up as the
evangel of a new and purer dispensation; his opponents declare that his
ability is marred by selfishness and characterized by cunning. His
followers have exalted him as the ablest and most high-minded statesman
of the times; his critics have described him as a most artful, astute,
and unscrupulous politician. The truth doubtless lies between the
two extremes. Adroit, ingenious and wary, skillful to plan and strong
to execute, cautious in judgment and vigorous in action, taciturn and
mysterious as a rule and yet singularly open and frank on occasions,
resting on the old traditions yet leading in new pathways, surprising
in the force of his blows and yet leaving a sense of reserved power,
Mr. Tilden unquestionably ranks among the greatest masters of political
management that our day has seen. Certain it is that his extraordinary
success and his exceptional position had inspired the Democratic party
with the conviction that he was the one man to command victory, and he
moved forward to the Presidential nomination with a confidence which
discouraged his opponents and inspired his supporters with a sense of
irresistible strength.
When the Convention assembled a futile attempt was made to organize a
movement against Mr. Tilden. His undisguised autocracy in New York
had provoked jealousies and enmities which were more imposing in name
than in numbers. John Kelly, now the master-spirit of reconstructed
Tammany, and esteemed as a man of personal integrity, led an implacable
warfare, openly proclaiming that Mr. Tilden's nomination would prove
fatal to Democratic success in New York. In this pronounced hostility
Mr. Kelly had the avowed approval or the secret sanction of conspicuous
Democrats whom Mr. Tilden's absorption of power had thrust into the
background. Augustus Schell, chairman of the National committee,
encouraged the opposition; Erastus Corning was on the ground sustaining
it; Chief Justice Church and his friends were known to be in sympathy
with it. Attempts were made to secure support for Governor Allen of
Ohio, for Governor Hendricks of Indiana, and for General Hancock; but
no one of these demonstrations, nor all of them combined, could resist
the steady set of the current towards Mr. Tilden, and the organization
and all the action of the Convention were clearly in the hands of his
friends.
The interests of Mr. Tilden were committed to the care of Mr.
Dorsheimer, who had left the Republican ranks but four years before.
His chief associate was Senator Kernan. The most prominent delegates
from other States were William A. Wallace and Samuel J. Randall of
Pennsylvania, James R. Doolittle and William F. Vilas of Wisconsin,
Judge Abbott of Massachusetts, Daniel W. Voorhees and Governor
Williams of Indiana, Leon Abbott of New Jersey, General Thomas Ewing
of Ohio, Robert M. McLane of Maryland, John A. McClernand of Illinois,
and Henry Watterson of Kentucky. The opening speech of Mr. Augustus
Schell, as chairman of the National Committee, was notable only in
demanding the repeal of the Resumption Act, a demand which expressed
the prevailing Democratic sentiment, and which was the more significant
as coming from one of the most conservative of the Democratic
leaders--one who had large financial interest in New York. Mr. Henry
Watterson was made temporary chairman, and General John A. McClernand
of Illinois permanent president of the Convention.
The platform, reported from the Committee on Resolutions, was believed
to have been prepared under the eye of Mr. Tilden, and was clothed,
as general rumor had it, in the rhetoric of Mr. Manton Marble. It
was the most elaborate paper of the kind ever put forth by a National
Convention. It was marked by the language of an indictment, and
contained the extended argument of a stump speech. Its one pervading
thought, emphasized in resonant phrase, iterating and reiterating,
"that reform is necessary," was an additional proof of its origin. But
with all its effusiveness of expression, it lacked definiteness in the
enunciation of principles. Only two or three propositions upon pending
issues were explicitly set forth. It accepted the Constitutional
Amendments; denounced "the present tariff levied upon nearly four
thousand articles as a masterpiece of injustice, inequality, and false
pretense;" demanded that "all custom-house taxation should be only for
revenue;" and then addressed itself to a somewhat vituperative
arraignment of the Republican party. On the vital question of the
currency it charged that party with "enacting hindrances to the
resumption of specie payments," adding: "As such a hindrance we
denounce the resumption clause of the Act of 1875, and we here demand
its repeal." A controversy arose as to whether simply the resumption
clause should be repealed or the entire policy condemned; and a
discussion upon that question, led by General Ewing on the one side
and by Mr. Dorsheimer on the other, was one of the interesting features
of the Convention. General Ewing had made a minority report embodying
his views, but at the close of the discussion it was defeated by a vote
of 550 to 210, and the platform as it had been arranged under Mr.
Tilden's eye was adopted.
The presentation of candidates followed. No one entertained a doubt of
the result, but Governor Hendricks, Senator Bayard, General Hancock,
Joel Parker, and Governor Allen, were formally named by their
respective States. Mr. Tilden was effectively presented by Senator
Kernan. The first ballot practically decided the contest. Mr. Tilden
received 404½, Mr. Hendricks 140½, General Hancock 75, Governor
Allen 34, Senator Bayard 33, with 37 scattering. Mr. Tilden lacked
but a few votes of the requisite two-thirds, and before the second
ballot was concluded his nomination was declared to be unanimous. The
work was complete by the choice of Mr. Hendricks of Indiana for
Vice-President. The ticket thus presented was the result of political
skill, as it embodied the largest measure of Democratic strength. It
united the two States of the North which with a solid vote from the
South would control the country. One candidate suited the hard-money
element; the other the soft-money element. One aimed to draw recruits;
the other to hold the old-time Democrats.
Mr. Tilden's letter of acceptance was directed chiefly to the state
of the currency and to the conditions and methods of resuming specie
payments. He had no sympathy with the soft-money ideas which dominated
so large a section of his party, but he was constrained to support the
demand of his own platform for the repeal of the Resumption clause, and
he undertook to do it by urging that a system of preparation was
all-important, and that the promise of a specific day was of no
importance,--forgetting that the Act and the date contemplated and
provided preparation. Though the letter was of unusual length it was
almost exclusively devoted to these financial questions, and only
briefly referred to civil service reform at the conclusion. On that
subject his utterances had the same defect of indefiniteness. He
described recognized evils, without indicating any practical remedy.
Mr. Hayes had been more specific. He had positively declared against
the use of official patronage in elections and removed himself from all
temptation by giving the voluntary pledge that if elected he would not
be a candidate for a second term. Mr. Tilden did not bind himself by
any personal pledge, but expressed the "conviction that no reform of
the civil service in this country will be complete and permanent until
the Chief Magistrate is Constitutionally disqualified for re-election."
The canvass was not marked by striking incidents. Mr. Hayes, who had
no inclination for political management, left the conduct of the
campaign in the hands of party leaders. It was throughout practically
directed by one of the most resolute and competent of men--Zachariah
Chandler of Michigan. Mr. Tilden was not an orator, and did not
follow the example of Mr. Seymour or Mr. Greeley in going before the
people, but skillfully and quietly directed all the movements of the
canvass. In spite of his personal fidelity to hard money, the
equivocal position of his party was used against him with great effect.
The fact that the Republicans had passed the Resumption measure, and
that the Democrats had demanded the repeal of its most important
feature, made a clear and sharp issue, and the pronounced record of Mr.
Hayes as the leader of the fight against the inflationists in Ohio,
emphasized the Republican attitude.
The Southern question, though treated as secondary, came into marked
prominence. It was brought forward by the course of events. If the
solid South was to constitute the chief pillar of Democratic strength,
it would exercise a dominant influence in Democratic councils, and
the North might naturally regard the possible consequences of its
ascendency with misgiving and alarm. So strong did this feeling grow,
that Mr. Tilden was compelled, before the close of the campaign, to
put forth a letter pledging himself, in the event of his election, to
enforce the Constitutional Amendments and resist Southern claims. But
every one understood at the same time that the vote of the recent slave
States entered into Mr. Tilden's calculations as necessary to his
election. The solid South, New York, Indiana, Connecticut, and New
Jersey, and possibly Oregon, was the political power embraced in his
calculations.
The October States, Ohio and Indiana (Pennsylvania having ceased to
vote in that month), did not indicate a decisive result. Ohio went
Republican by 9,000; Indiana went Democratic by 5,000 majority.
Benjamin Harrison led the Republican forces in the latter State, and
but for some troubles which preceded his nomination, and with which he
was in no way connected, would probably have carried the State. Both
parties therefore came to the Presidential election in November without
confidence as to the result. The reports during the night after the
polls had closed led to the general belief that Mr. Tilden had been
chosen. He had carried New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Indiana,
exactly according to his calculations. Had he secured a solid vote in
the South? It was widely feared that he had; but very late in the
night, or rather very early the next morning, Mr. Chandler, Chairman of
the Republican National Committee, received information which
convinced him that the Republicans had triumphed in South Carolina,
Louisiana, and Florida, and with great confidence he sent over the
wires of the Associated Press, too late for many of the morning papers,
a telegram which became historic: "Rutherford B. Hayes has received
one hundred and eighty-five electoral votes, and is elected."
The Democratic party, and especially its chief, Mr. Tilden, had
calculated so confidently upon a solid South that the possible loss
of three States was not to be calmly tolerated; yet the States in
doubt were those in which Republican victory was from the first
possible if not probable. In South Carolina and Louisiana, not only
was there a considerable number of white Republicans, but in each
State the colored men (who were unanimously Republican) outnumbered
all the white men. The disparity in South Carolina was so great
that the white population was but 289,000, while the colored population
was 415,000. In Florida the two races were nearly equal in number,
and owing to a large influx of white settlers from the North the
Republicans were in a decided majority. Upon an honest vote a
Republican majority in each of the three States was indisputably
assured.
Both Republicans and Democrats persisted in claiming a victory in the
three States, and as the leaders were positive in their conclusions
the masses of each party became greatly excited. Partisan papers were
full of threats, and from the South constant rumors indicated a danger
of mob violence. The first step toward checking the excitement was
the proposition that each party should send a certain number of
prominent men to the disputed States to see "a fair count." This
was accepted and representative men of both parties were soon
present in New Orleans, in Columbia, and in Tallahassee, the capitals
of the three disputed States. The Committee of Republicans sent to
Louisiana was appointed by the President. Their investigation was
very thorough, and their report, made in due form, was transmitted
with the accompanying testimony by the President to Congress.
President Grant took precautions against disturbance by strengthening
the military forces at the points in the South where violence was most
feared; and on the 10th of November, three days after the Presidential
election, he sent to General Sherman, commanding the Army, the
following memorable dispatch: "Instruct General Auger in Louisiana and
General Ruger in Florida to be vigilant with the force at their
command to preserve peace and good order, and to see that the proper
and legal boards of canvassers are unmolested in the performance of
their duties. Should there be any grounds of suspicion of a fraudulent
count on either side it should be reported and denounced at once. No
man worthy of the office of President should be willing to hold it if
counted in or placed there by fraud. Either party can afford to be
disappointed in the result. The country cannot afford to have the
result tainted by the suspicion of illegal or false returns."
The result of the contests in the three States, as determined by the
legal canvassing boards, gave the electoral votes in each of them to
Hayes and Wheeler; and on the 6th day of December, when the electors
met in the several states, the result of the count from all the States
of the Union showed 185 electors for Hayes and Wheeler, 184 for Tilden
and Hendricks. The Democrats had hoped to the last that at least one
of the States, or at least one of the electors in the three States,
would be returned for Tilden and Hendricks, and when they found that
every vote of the three States was counted for Hayes and Wheeler their
anger knew no bounds. Threats were openly made that Hayes should never
be inaugurated. One fiery editor promised that a hundred thousand
Democrats would march to Washington and take possession of the
Government in the name of the President whom they claimed to have been
duly elected.
President Grant, noticing the condition of the public mind and giving
full heed to the possibility of danger, quietly strengthened the
military forces in and about Washington, with the intention simply of
suppressing disorder, but as excited Democrats declared, with the
design of installing Hayes by the aid of the Army of the United States.
At no time in General Grant's career did his good judgment, his cool
temperament, and his known courage prove more valuable to his
countrymen. Every honest man knew that the President's intention was
to preserve order and to see that the conflict in regard to the
Presidency was settled according to law. To avert the reign of a mob
he rightfully took care that the requisite military force should be
at the Capital. No greater proof of General Grant's power to command
was given, even on the battle-field, than the quieting effect of his
measures upon the refractory and dangerous elements that would have
been glad to disturb the public peace.
The portentous question which engaged the thoughts of all patriotic
men was the count of the electoral votes when the certificates from
the several States should be submitted to Congress. By a joint rule,
adopted in February, 1865, by the two Houses, preliminary to counting
the electoral votes cast at the Presidential election of 1864, it was
directed that "no electoral vote objected to shall be counted _except
by the concurrent votes of the two Houses_." This rule necessarily
expired with the Congress which adopted it, but it was observed as a
regulation (no one raising a question against it) in counting the
electoral votes of 1868 and 1872. Certain Democrats now put forth the
untenable claim that a joint rule adopted twelve years before and
never renewed should be considered in full force. On the other hand,
certain Republicans held that the Vice-President was clothed with the
power to open and count the electoral votes and declare the result,
the two Houses of Congress being present merely as spectators.
According to the first construction it would be necessary only for the
House of Representatives, which had a Democratic majority, to reject
even one of the three disputed States from the count, and Mr. Tilden
would be left with a majority of the electors. According to the
second construction, the acting Vice-President, Mr. Ferry, who was a
Republican, could count the three States in favor of Mr. Hayes, against
the protest of either or both branches, and he would be President-elect.
It was soon found necessary to abandon both pretensions. On the 14th
of December the House adopted a resolution (reported from the Judiciary
Committee by Mr. Knott of Kentucky, and originally introduced by Mr.
McCrary of Iowa) which, recognizing in a preamble that "there are
differences of opinion as to the proper mode of counting the electoral
votes for President and Vice-President," provided for the appointment
of a "committee of seven members, to act in conjunction with any
similar committee to be appointed by the Senate, to prepare and report
without delay such a measure, either legislative or Constitutional,
as may in their judgment be best calculated to accomplish the desired
end; and that said committee have leave to report at any time." The
Senate on the 18th of December appointed a similar committee empowered
to confer and act with the committee of the House of Representatives.
(1)
From the two committees acting as one, Mr. Edmunds on the 19th of
January (1877) reported a bill "to provide for and regulate the
counting of votes for President and Vice-President, and the decision of
questions arising thereon, for the term commencing March 4, 1877."
Under the regulations of the proposed bill it was agreed that "no
electoral vote or votes from any State from which but one return has
been received shall be rejected, except by the affirmative vote of the
two Houses," in this respect reversing the joint rule of 1865. Where
more than one return had been received a reference to an Electoral
Commission was provided--the Commission to be composed of five members
of the Senate, five members of the House and five justices of the
Supreme Court of the United States. When the Electoral Commission
should decide any question submitted to it, touching the return from
any State, the bill declared that the decision should stand, unless
rejected by the concurrent votes of the two Houses. Every member of
the Senate and House committees, with the exception of Senator Morton
of Indiana, joined in the report. After an elaborate and very able
debate the bill was passed in the Senate on the 24th of January by
_ayes_ 47, _noes_ 17. Two days later it passed the House by a large
majority, _ayes_ 194, _noes_ 86.
The mode prescribed in this act for selecting the members of the
Electoral Commission was by _viva voce_ vote in the Senate and in the
House,--it being tacitly agreed that the Senate should appoint three
Republicans and two Democrats,--each political party in caucus
selecting its own men. In regard to the Commissioners to be taken
from the Supreme Bench, it was ordered that the "Justices assigned to
the First, Third, Eighth, and Ninth circuits shall select, in such
manner as a majority of them may deem fit, another Associate Justice
of the said Court; which five persons shall be members of such
Commission." The four Justices thus absolutely appointed were Nathan
Clifford, Samuel F. Miller, Stephen J. Field, and William Strong. From
the hour when the Electoral Bill was reported to the Senate the
assumption was general that the fifth Justice selected for the
Commission would be David Davis. It was currently believed that Mr.
Abram S. Hewitt had given the assurance or at least strong intimation
that Judge Davis would be selected, as one of the arguments to induce
Mr. Tilden to support the Electoral Bill.
Originally a Republican, Judge Davis had for some years affiliated with
the Democratic party, and had in the late election preferred Mr. Tilden
to Mr. Hayes. Without any imputation of improper motives there can
hardly be a doubt that the Democrats, in their almost unanimous support
of the Electoral Bill, believed that Judge Davis would be selected, and
by parity of reasoning the large Republican opposition to the bill
might be attributed to the same cause. But an unlooked-for event
disturbed all calculations and expectations. On the 26th of January
the House was to vote on the Electoral Bill, and a large majority of
the members were committed to its support. To the complete surprise
of both parties it happened that Judge Davis was elected senator from
Illinois on the preceding afternoon, January 25th. Chosen by the
Democratic members of the Legislature, reckoned as a Democratic
senator elect, there was an obvious impropriety, which Judge Davis
saw as quickly as others, in his being selected; and the four judges
unanimously agreed upon Joseph P. Bradley as the fifth judicial member
of the Commission.(2)
The Electoral Commission was organized on the thirty-first day of
January, 1877. Eminent counsel were in attendance on both sides,(3)
and the hearing proceeded with regularity.
The case of Florida was the first adjudicated before the Commission,
and the electors supporting Hayes and Wheeler were declared to have
been regularly chosen. Only eight of the Commission certified the
result--Justices Miller, Strong, and Bradley, Senators Edmunds, Morton,
and Frelinghuysen, Representatives Garfield and Hoar--the eight
Republicans. It was confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 44 to 24.
The House voted against confirming it; but, according to the Electoral
law, the decision of the Commission could not be set aside unless both
Houses united in an adverse vote. The cases of the two other States,
Louisiana and South Carolina, were in like manner decided in favor of
the Republican electors.
The complication in Oregon was next decided. As soon as Mr. Tilden's
campaign managers began to fear that the electoral votes of the three
Southern States might be given to Hayes and Wheeler, they turned their
attention to securing an electoral vote elsewhere for Tilden and
Hendricks. The plan devised was to find in some Northern State (with
a Democratic Governor) an elector who might be disqualified under some
technical disability. Oregon seemed to furnish the desired conditions.
One of the Republican electors, John W. Watts, was postmaster in a
small office, and was therefore declared to be ineligible; and Governor
Grover gave the certificate to E. A. Cronin, who had received 1,049
fewer votes than Watts, but who had the largest number of the three
Democratic candidates for electors. On the 6th of December, the day
appointed for the meeting of the Electors, the two Republican Electors
to whom Governor Grover had given certificates (W. H. Odell and J. C.
Cartwright) refused to meet with Cronin or recognize him in any way;
whereupon the officially certified list of votes and certificates of
election were, by Governor Grover's order, delivered to Cronin and
withheld from the Electors legally chosen by the voters of the State.
The two Electors who had received certificates of their election then
obtained a certified copy of the returns, met and elected Watts to
fill the vacancy, and then proceeded to cast three votes for Hayes.
Cronin thereupon immediately elected to fill the vacancies, two men who
had not been voted for at all by the people, organized a fraudulent
Electoral College, and went through the farce of casting his own vote
for Tilden, while his two confederates (J. N. T. Miller and John
Parker) voted for Hayes. The extraordinary and illegal action of
Governor Grover had been urged through telegrams by Mr. Abram S.
Hewitt, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee and by Mr. Manton
Marble, a close personal friend of Mr. Tilden. The Electoral
Commission summarily condemned the fraudulent proceedings and gave the
three Electoral votes of Oregon to Hayes and Wheeler. The Democratic
members of the Commission united with the Republicans in rejecting the
factitious votes cast by the men associated with Cronin, but at the
same time they voted to deprive Hayes of Watts' vote and to give the
vote of Cronin to Tilden.
The proceedings in the Commission and in Congress were not closed until
the second day of March (1877). Meanwhile the capital and indeed the
country, were filled with sensational and distracting rumors: First,
that the Democratic majority in the House would "filibuster" and
destroy the count; second, that they had agreed not to "filibuster" by
reason of some arrangement made with Mr. Hayes in regard to future
policies in the South. Every mischievous report was spread; and for
five weeks the country was kept in a state of uneasiness and alarm,
not knowing what a day might bring forth. But in the end the work of
the Commission was confirmed; and Mr. Hayes was declared to have been
elected by the precise vote which Mr. Chandler, on behalf of the
Republican National Committee, claimed the day after the polls closed
in November--185 Republican electors, 184 Democratic electors. It was
the first instance in the history of the country where a succession to
the Presidency had been disputed. Differences of opinion in regard to
the legality and regularity of the election in single States had arisen
in more than one Presidential election; but it happened in these
cases that the counting of the vote of the disputed States either way
would not affect the decision, and therefore no test was made.
The result was undoubtedly a great disappointment to Mr. Tilden, and
even greater to his immediate friends and supporters. They at once
raised the cry that they had been defrauded, that Mr. Hayes had
received title to his office against the law and against the evidence,
that he was to occupy a place which the people had voted to confer upon
Mr. Tilden. In every form of insinuation and accusation, by almost
every Democratic paper in the country, it was affirmed that Mr. Hayes
was a fraudulent President. This cry was repeated until the mass of
the party believed that they had been made the victims of a conspiracy,
and had been entrapped by an Electoral Commission. Yet the first
authoritative movement for the committee that reported the Electoral
Bill was from a Southern Democrat in the House, and the Electoral Bill
itself was supported by an overwhelming number of Democrats in both
branches; whereas the joint vote of the Republicans was, by a large
majority, against the bill.
The vote of the Democrats in favor of the Electoral bill, as compared
with the Democrats who voted against it in both branches, was in the
proportion of more than ten to one; whereas but two-fifths of the
Republicans in the two Houses voted for the bill, and three-fifths
against it. Only a single Democrat in the Senate, Mr. Eaton of
Connecticut, cast a negative vote; and he acknowledged in doing it
that the State Senate of Connecticut, controlled by the Democrats,
had requested him to support the bill. All the leading Democrats of
the Senate--Mr. Thurman, Mr. Bayard, Mr. Pinkney Whyte--made earnest
speeches in favor of it. Mr. McDonald of Indiana declared that the
popular sentiment of his State was overwhelmingly in favor of it, and
he reproached Mr. Morton for opposing it. Other prominent Republicans
in the Senate--Mr. Sherman, Mr. Cameron of Pennsylvania, Mr. Hamlin,
Mr. Blaine--earnestly united with Mr. Morton in his opposition to the
measure.
The division was the same in the House. Mr. Henry B. Payne of Ohio,
Mr. Abram S. Hewitt, Mr. Clarkson N. Potter, Mr. Samuel S. Cox, and
nearly all the influential men on the Democratic side, united in
supporting the bill; while General Garfield, Mr. Frye, Mr. Kasson,
Mr. Hale, Mr. Martin I. Townsend, and the leading Republicans of the
House, opposed it. The House was stimulated to action by a memorial
presented by Mr. Randall L. Gibson from New Orleans, demanding the
passage of the bill; while Governor Vance of North Carolina, afterwards
elected senator, telegraphed that the North-Carolina Legislature had
almost unanimously passed resolutions in favor of it. The Democrats,
therefore, had in a remarkable degree concentrated their influence and
their votes in support of the measure.(4) It was fashioned precisely as
they desired it. They agreed to every line and every letter. They
agreed that a majority of the Commission, constituted as they ordained
it should be, might decide these questions, and when the final decision
was made they cried out in anger because it was not in Mr. Tilden's
favor. One of the ablest judges of the Supreme Court, Joseph P.
Bradley, has been made subject of unmerited censure because he decided
the points of law according to his own convictions (sustained by the
convictions of Justices Miller and Strong), and not according to the
convictions of Justices Clifford and Field.
The Democratic dissatisfaction was instinctive and inevitable. In the
very nature of things it is impossible _after an election_ to
constitute a Commission whose decisions will be accepted by both
political organizations as impartial. It is, or it certainly should
be, practicable to establish by law, before the election to which it
may first apply, a permanent mode of adjudicating disputed points in
the return of Presidential votes. Yet with the serious admonition of
1876, Congress has neglected the duty which may well be regarded as
the most important and most imperative that can devolve upon it. The
government of a Republic is left to all the chances of anarchy so long
as there is no mode established by law for determining the election
of its Chief Executive officer.
The disappointment of the Democratic masses continued after the
inauguration of President Hayes, and it took the form of a demand for
an investigation. It was not expected, of course, that any thing could
be done to affect the decision of the Electoral Commission, but the
friends of Mr. Tilden clamored for an exposure of Republican practices
in the Presidential campaign. The Democrats in Congress were less
eager for this course than the Democrats outside of Congress. It was
understood that personal and urgent requests--one coming from Mr.
Tilden himself--were necessary to induce Mr. Clarkson N. Potter to take
the lead by offering on the 13th of May, 1878, a resolution for the
appointment of a select committee of eleven "to inquire into the
alleged false and fraudulent canvass and return of votes by State,
county, parish, and precinct officers in the States of Louisiana and
Florida, and into all the facts which in the judgment of said committee
are connected with or are pertinent thereto." The resolution was
adopted, and a committee was appointed, with power to sit during the
recess of Congress.(5)
Congress adjourned on the 20th of June, and after a short vacation
Mr. Potter's committee entered upon its extensive inquiries. Perhaps
with the view of stimulating the Democratic members of the committee
to zeal in the performance of their duty, Mr. Manton Marble early in
August published a carefully prepared letter on the electoral counting
of 1876. Mr. Marble was unsparing in his denunciation of the
Republicans for having, as he alleged, obtained the election of Hayes
and Wheeler by corruption in the Southern States. He dealt with
unction upon the fact that the _absolute trust of Mr. Tilden and his
adherents in the Presidential contest had been in moral forces_. As
the accusations put forth were attributed to Mr. Tilden, and only the
remarkable rhetoric of the letter to Mr. Marble, the public interest
was fully aroused, and the threatened exposures impatiently awaited.
The majority of the committee reported, though perhaps with greater
elaboration, substantially the same facts and assumptions that had
been brought against the Republicans in the Southern States directly
after the election, nearly two years before. If any thing new was
produced, it was in detail rather than in substance, and undoubtedly
showed some of the loose practices to which the character of Southern
elections has given rise. Between the violence of the rebel
organizers, and the shifts and evasions to which their opponents, both
white and colored, have been subjected, the elections in many of those
States have undoubtedly been irregular; but the Committee did not
establish any fraudulent voting on the part of Republicans. Freely
analyzed, indeed, the accusations against the colored voters were in
another sense still graver accusations against the white voters.
Duplicity is a weapon often employed against tyranny by its victims,
and there is always danger that a popular election where law is
unfairly administered and violence constantly impending, will bring
into play on both sides the worst elements of society.
But all interest in the investigation as it was originally designed,
was suddenly diverted by incidents which were wholly unlooked for when
Mr. Potter moved his resolution and when Mr. Marble wrote his
letter--giving an unexpected conclusion to the grand inquest so
impressively heralded.
It happened that during an inquiry into the Oregon case by a Senate
Committee, some thirty thousand political telegrams (mainly in cipher)
had been brought into the custody of the committee by _subpoenas_ to
the Western Union Telegraph Company. The great mass of these telegrams
were returned to the Company without translation. About seven hundred,
however, had been retained by an _employé_ of the committee. The
re-opening of the Presidential controversy by the Democrats, and
especially the offensive letter of Mr. Marble, led to a renewed effort
to decipher the reserved telegrams. The translation was accomplished
by an able and ingenious gentleman on the editorial staff of the
_New-York Tribune_ (Mr. William M. Grosvenor), and the result disclosed
astonishing attempts at bribery on the part of Democratic agents in
South Carolina, Florida, and Oregon. What may have been done of the
same character in Louisiana can only be inferred, for no dispatches
from that State were found.
The gentlemen who went to Florida in Mr. Tilden's interests were Mr.
Manton Marble, Mr. C. W. Woolley, and Mr. John F. Coyle. Mr. Marble's
_sobriquet_ in the cipher dispatches was _Moses_. Mr. Woolley took
the suggestive pseudonym of _Fox_, while Mr. Coyle was known as _Max_.
Their joint mission was to secure the Electoral vote of the State, by
purchase if need be, not quite as openly, but as directly as if they
were negotiating for a cargo of cotton or offering money for an
orange-grove. Mr. Marble was alarmed soon after his arrival by finding
that the Democratic electors had "only about one hundred majority on
certified copies, while the Republicans claimed the same on returns."
Growing anxious, he telegraphed on November 22 to Mr. William T. Pelton
(a nephew of Mr. Tilden): "Woolley asked me to say let forces be got
together immediately for _contingencies_ either here or in Louisiana."
A few days later Mr. Marble telegraphed: "Have just received a
proposition to hand over at any time required, Tilden decision of Board
and certificate of Governor, for $200,000." Mr. Pelton thought the
"proposition too high," and thereupon Mr. Marble and Mr. Woolley each
found that an Elector could be secured for $50,000, and so telegraphed
Mr. Pelton. Mr. Pelton, with commendable economy, warned them that he
did not wish to pay twice for the same article, and with true
commercial caution advised the Florida agents that "they could not
draw until the vote of the Elector was received." According to Mr.
Woolley the power was received too late, and on the 5th of December Mr.
Marble closed the interesting correspondence with these words to Mr.
Pelton: "Proposition failed. Finished responsibility as Moses. Last
night Woolley found me and said he had nothing, which I knew already.
Tell Tilden to saddle Blackstone."
Mr. Smith W. Weed went on a similar errand to South Carolina. He did
not attempt to hide behind any disguised name, and simply telegraphed
over his own initial. On the 16th of November he informed Mr. Henry
Havermeyer, who seemed to be co-operating with Mr. Pelton in New York,
that "the Board demand $75,000 for giving us two or three electors,"
and that "something beyond will be needful for the interceder, perhaps
$10,000." At a later hour of the same day he thought that he had
made a better bargain, and telegraphed Mr. Havermeyer that "it looks
now as though the thing would work at $75,000 for all seven votes."
The next day Mr. Weed began to fear the interposition of the court,
and advised Mr. Havermeyer to "press otherwheres; for no certainty
here, simply a hope." Twenty-four hours later Mr. Weed's confidence
revived, and on the 18th he telegraphed,--"Majority of board have
been secured. Cost is $80,000,--one parcel to be sent of $65,000;
one of $10,000; one of $5,000; all to be in $500 or $1,000 bills, notes
to be accepted as parties accept and given up upon votes of South
Carolina being given to Tilden's friends. Do this at once and have
cash ready to reach Baltimore Sunday night." Mr. Weed then started to
Baltimore with the intention of meeting a messenger from New York
with the money. Mr. Pelton was there but had not brought the money,
and both went to New York to secure it.
Meanwhile the Canvassing Board of South Carolina reported the returns
to the court, showing on their face the election of the Hayes Electors,
and of a Democratic Legislature which would count the vote for
Governor. The Board also reported that the votes of Lawrence and
Edgefield Counties ought to be thrown out, which would make a
Republican Legislature. On the 22d the court issued an order to the
Board to certify the members of the Legislature according to the face
of the returns, but to revise and correct the Electoral vote
according to the precinct returns. Without receiving this order the
Canvassing Board, whose powers expired by statutory limitation on that
day, perceiving the purpose of the Court to prevent any count of the
Electoral vote, declared and certified the election of the Republican
electors, rejected the votes of Lawrence and Edgefield Counties,
certified the election of a Republican Legislature, and then
adjourned without day.
This result put an end to the plans of Mr. Weed and Mr. Pelton for
bribing the Canvassing Board. But their resources were not yet
exhausted. On the 4th of December Mr. Pelton offered to furnish
$20,000 if it "would secure several electors." This plan also failing,
he telegraphed, advising "that the Court under the pending _quo
warranto_ proceedings should arrest the Electors for contempt, and
imprison them separately during Wednesday," the day for casting their
votes for President and Vice-President; "for," as he plaintively
added, "_all depends on your State_." Imprisoning "separately" was
essential, for if they were imprisoned together they could have cast
the Electoral vote.
In Oregon the attempt to bribe was quite as bold as in the two Southern
States. Mr. George L. Miller of Omaha, member of the National
Democratic Committee for Nebraska, had been requested by Mr. Pelton to
go to Oregon, but had sent in his stead one J. N. H. Patrick, who
upon his arrival at Portland began an active telegraphic
correspondence with Mr. Pelton. On the 28th of November he telegraphed
Mr. Pelton that Governor Grover would issue a certificate of election
to one Democratic Elector (Cronin), and added, "Must purchase
Republican Elector to recognize and act with the Democrat, and secure
vote to prevent trouble. Deposit $10,000 to my credit." This telegram
was endorsed by Senator Kelly, to whom Mr. Abram S. Hewitt had on the
17th of November telegraphed at San Francisco when on his way to
Washington, that circumstances required his immediate return to Oregon
to consult Governor Grover. Mr. Pelton replied to Mr. Patrick, "If you
will make obligation, contingent on result in March, it will be done,
and _incremable_ slightly if necessary," to which Mr. Patrick responded
that the fee could not be made contingent; whereupon the sum of $8,000
was deposited to his credit on the 1st of December, in New York, but
intelligence of it reached Oregon too late to carry out any attempt to
corrupt a Republican Elector.
As nothing had been known of these extraordinary facts when Mr. Potter
moved for the appointment of his investigating committee, the House of
Representatives, on the 20th of January, 1879, directed that committee
to investigate the cipher telegrams. Before this committee the
genuineness of the telegrams and the correctness of the translation
by the _Tribune_ were abundantly established. Some of the principal
persons connected with them appeared before the committee to explain
and to excuse. Senator Kelly had previously stated that he endorsed
Mr. Patrick's dispatch without knowing its contents, a statement
probable in itself and sustained by Mr. Kelly's good reputation. Mr.
Marble swore that he transmitted to headquarters information of the
opportunities for corruption merely "as danger signals." Mr. Weed
admitted and tried to justify his efforts to bribe the South Carolina
Canvassing Board. Mr. Pelton admitted all his attempts and took upon
himself the full responsibility, saying that if money became actually
necessary, he intended to call for it upon Mr. Edward Cooper and the
members of the National Democratic Committee. Mr. Cooper swore that he
first knew that Mr. Pelton was conducting such negotiations when he
went to Baltimore; and that when on the next day he received from Mr.
Pelton a cipher telegram requesting that the $80,000 should be sent to
him at Baltimore, he informed Mr. Tilden what Pelton was doing,
whereupon he was recalled and "the thing was stopped." Under
cross-examination by Mr. Reed of Maine, Mr. Tilden swore that he knew
nothing of any of the telegrams; that the first he knew of the Florida
transactions was when they were mentioned to him by Mr. Marble after
his return from Florida; that he was informed by Mr. Cooper of the
South Carolina negotiations and stopped them; that he scorned to
defend his title by such means as were employed to acquire a felonious
possession. Neither Mr. Patrick nor Mr. Woolley appeared before the
committee.
Two general conclusions may safely be drawn from the voluminous
evidence: _first_, that the Democratic agents in the contested States
of Florida, South Carolina, and Oregon earnestly and persistently
endeavored to change the result from Hayes to Tilden by the use of
large sums of money as bribes to official persons to violate their
duty; _second_, that the negotiations for that purpose do not show
that any member of any Canvassing Board or any Presidential Elector
ever contemplated betraying his trust for such inducement. The
interest throughout the investigation centred upon Mr. Tilden, and
concerning him and his course there followed general discussion--angry
accusation and warm defense. There is nothing in the testimony to
contradict the oath taken by Mr. Tilden and there has been no desire
to fasten a guilty responsibility upon him. But the simple fact
remains that a Presidential canvass which began with a ponderous
manifesto in favor of "reform" in every department of the Government,
and which accused those who had been entrusted with power for sixteen
years of every form of dishonesty and corruption, ended with a
persistent and shameless effort to bribe the electors of three States!
[(1) The joint committee respecting the mode of counting the electoral
votes consisted of the following members:--
SENATORS: George F. Edmunds of Vermont, F. T. Frelinghuysen of New
Jersey, John A. Logan of Illinois, Oliver P. Morton of Indiana, _Allen
G. Thurman_ of Ohio, _Thomas F. Bayard_ of Delaware, and _Matt W.
Ransom_ of North Carolina.
General Logan was detained in Illinois, and Mr. Conkling was
substituted on the committee.
REPRESENTATIVES: _Henry B. Payne_ of Ohio, _Eppa Hunton_ of Virginia,
_Abram S. Hewitt_ of New York, _William M. Springer_ of Illinois,
George W. McCrary of Iowa, George F. Hoar of Massachusetts, and George
Willard of Michigan.]
[(2) The Commission as organized was as follows:--
JUSTICES of the Supreme Court: Nathan Clifford, Samuel F. Miller,
Stephen J. Field, William Strong, Joseph P. Bradley.
SENATORS: George F. Edmunds, Oliver P. Morton, Frederick T.
Frelinghuysen, Thomas F. Bayard, Allen G. Thurman.
REPRESENTATIVES: Henry B. Payne, Eppa Hunton, Josiah G. Abbott, James
A. Garfield, George F. Hoar.]
[(3) The following counsel attended:--
On the Democratic side: Judge Jeremiah S. Black, Charles O'Connor,
John A. Campbell, formerly of the Supreme Court, Lyman Trumbull,
Montgomery Blair, Matthew H. Carpenter, Ashbel Green, George Hoadly,
Richard T. Merrick, William C. Whitney, Alexander Porter Morse.
On the Republican side: William M. Evarts, Stanley Matthews, E. W.
Stoughton, Samuel Shellabarger. In addition to regular counsel the
objectors to any certificate or vote were allowed to be heard by two
of their number. Senators Howe, Christiancy, Sherman, McDonald,
Sargent, Mitchell, C. W. Jones, Conover and Cooper, together with
Representatives Kasson, William Lawrence, David Dudley Field, Tucker,
Hunt, McCrary, Hurlbut, Dunnell, Cochrane, Thompson and Woodburn were
appointed to this duty.]
[(4) The following is an exact statement of the vote on the Electoral
Bill in both branches:--
In the Senate 26 Democrats voted for the Bill and 1 against it.
" " " 21 Republicans " " " " " 16 " "
In the House 160 Democrats " " " " " 17 " "
" " " 31 Republicans " " " " " 69 " "
In the two Houses jointly, 186 Democrats voted for the Electoral Bill
and 18 against it, while 52 Republicans voted for the Bill and 75
against it.]
[(5) The following were the members composing the committee:--
_Clarkson N. Potter_ of New York, _William R. Morrison_ of Illinois,
_Eppa Hunton_ of Virginia, _William S. Stenger_ of Pennsylvania,
_John A. McMahon_ of Ohio, _J. C. S. Blackburn_ of Kentucky, _William
M. Springer_ of Illinois, Benjamin F. Butler of Massachusetts, Jacob
D. Cox of Ohio, Thomas B. Reed of Maine, Frank Hiscock of New York.]