Chester A. Arthur immediately succeeded to the presidency. It
had been my good fortune to know so well all the presidents,
commencing with Mr. Lincoln, and now the occupant of the White House
was a lifelong friend.
President Arthur was a very handsome man, in the prime of life,
of superior character and intelligence, and with the perfect
manners and courtesies of a trained man of the world. A veteran
statesman who had known most of our presidents intimately and
been in Congress under many of them said, in reviewing the list
with me at the recent convention at Chicago: "Arthur was the
only gentleman I ever saw in the White House."
Of course, he did not mean exactly that. He meant that Arthur was
the only one of our presidents who came from the refined social
circles of the metropolis or from other capitals, and was past
master in all the arts and conventionalities of what is known as
"best society." He could have taken equal rank in that respect
with the Prince of Wales, who afterwards became King Edward VII.
The "hail-fellow-well-met" who had been on familiar terms with
him while he was the party leader in New York City, found when
they attempted the old familiarities that, while their leader was
still their friend, he was President of the United States.
Arthur, although one of the most rigid of organization and machine
men in his days of local leadership, elevated the party standards
by the men whom he drew around himself. He invited into party
service and personal intimacy a remarkable body of young,
exceedingly able and ambitious men. Many of those became
distinguished afterwards in public and professional life. The
ablest of them all was a gentleman who, I think, is now universally
recognized both at home and abroad as the most efficient and
accomplished American diplomat and lawyer--Elihu Root.
There is no career so full of dramatic surprises as the political.
President Hayes put civil-service reform upon its feet, and without
the assistance of necessary laws vigorously enforced its principles.
Among the victims of his enforcement was General Arthur, whom he
relieved as collector of the port of New York. To the surprise of
every one and the amazement of his old friends, one of the first
acts of President Arthur was to demand the enactment of a
civil-service law, which had originated with the Civil Service
Association, and whose most prominent members were George William
Curtis and Carl Schurz.
The president's urgency secured the passage of the measure. He
then appointed a thoroughgoing Civil Service Commission, and
during his term lived up to every requirement of the system. In
doing this he alienated all his old friends, and among them
General Grant, ex-Senator Conkling, Thomas C. Platt, and also
Mr. Blaine, whom he had asked to remain in the Cabinet as
secretary of state. Among them was also John Sherman, whom he
had equally wished to retain as secretary of the treasury.
Arthur's administration, both in domestic affairs and in its
foreign policies, meets the approval of history and the impartial
judgment of posterity. But he was not big enough, nor strong
enough, to contend with the powerful men who were antagonized,
especially by his civil-service-reform tendencies. When the
Republican convention met in 1884 and nominated a new ticket,
it was universally recognized by everybody, including the president,
that his political career had closed.
President Arthur was one of the most delightful of hosts, and he
made the White House the centre of refined hospitality and social
charm. He was a shrewd analyst of human nature and told stories
full of humor and dramatic effect of some of his contemporaries.
General Arthur, while Republican party leader in New York, invited
me to a dinner given him by a friend who had just returned from
a hunting trip with a large collection of fine game. With the
exception of myself, all the guests were active leaders in the
State machine.
During the dinner the general said to me: "While we draft you
every fall to help in our canvass, after we have nominated our
ticket we miss you in our councils and we need you."
"Well," I replied, "I do not know what the matter is, nor why
Senator Conkling should have a continuing hostility, which I only
feel when the time comes around to elect delegates to the State
convention."
The general continued: "We are unable to find out either. However,
it is absurd, and we are going to see that you are a delegate
to the national convention, and we want you to be at the State
convention at Utica."
I went to Albany, knowing that there would be a conference at the
Executive Mansion, with General Arthur, Governor Cornell, and
Senator Conkling, to lay out a programme for the convention. I met
the then secretary of the State committee, Mr. Johnson, and told
him about my conversation with General Arthur. He said he was
going to attend the conference and would report to me.
When Mr. Johnson returned he told me that General Arthur,
Governor Cornell, and others had strongly urged my being a delegate,
and that Senator Conkling became very indignant and said that he
did not want me back in the organization, and that it was a matter
of indifference on what side I was. It is needless to say that
I did not attend the convention at Utica.
Mr. Johnson also told me that among other things decided upon was
that if General Grant should be nominated for a third term, the
old machine under Senator Conkling would be made stronger than
ever; that the men who had come to the front during President Hayes's
administration as members of the State Senate and assembly and
of Congress would be retired, and that another State paper would
be established which would wipe out the Albany Evening Journal,
because it had sustained President Hayes and his policies.
While the convention was in session at Utica I had an interview with
Mr. George Dawson, who was editor of the Albany Evening Journal
and he became convinced that he had nothing to lose by entering
at once into an open antagonism, if there was any way by which it
could be made effective.
I said to Mr. Dawson: "The only salvation for those who have been
benefited during the era of liberty occasioned by President Hayes's
civil-service policies is to prevent the national convention
adopting the unit rule."
The unit rule is that if the majority of the delegates from any
State make a decision, the chairman of the delegation shall cast
the entire vote of the delegation from the State for the result
arrived at by the majority, whether it be a candidate or a policy.
Under the unit rule I have seen a bare majority of one vote for
a candidate, and then the chairman of the delegation cast the entire
vote for the candidate, though the minority were very hostile to him.
The delegates of the State convention at Utica returned to Albany
that night. Many of them were State senators whose decapitation
was assured if the old machine supported by federal patronage was
revived. State Senator Webster Wagner was one of them. He and I
chartered a train and invited the whole State delegation to go with
us to Chicago. In the preliminary discussions, before the national
convention met, twenty-six out of seventy-eight delegates decided
to act independently.
Wayne MacVeagh, a lifelong friend of mine, had a strong following
in the Pennsylvania delegation, and after he learned our position
brought over also his people. Emory Storrs, who led the Illinois
delegation, came to me and said that if we would not boom
Elihu B. Washburne, who was a candidate for the nomination, we
would have the Illinois vote. The result of the canvass was that
the convention decided against the unit rule. This released so
many individual delegates to independent action that the field
was cleared and nobody had majority. The leading candidates were
General Grant, James G. Blaine, and John Sherman.
In the history of convention oratory the nominating speeches of
Senator Conkling for General Grant, and James A. Garfield for
John Sherman take the highest rank. Conkling took a lofty position
on the platform. His speech was perfectly prepared, delivered
with great dramatic effect, and received universal applause on
the floor and in the gallery.
General Garfield, on the other hand, also a fine-looking man and
a practised orator, avoided the dramatic element, in which he
could not compete with Conkling, but delivered a speech along
the line of the average thought and general comprehension of his
audience that made a great impression. It was a common remark:
"He has nominated himself."
There were among the audience thousands of Blaine enthusiasts.
No public man since Lincoln ever had such enthusiastic, devoted,
and almost crazy followers as Mr. Blaine. These enthusiasts were
waiting to raise the roof and secure the nomination of their
candidate when the chosen orator should present their favorite.
The gentleman selected to present Mr. Blaine was eminent in business
and great enterprises, but I doubt if he had ever spoken before
except to a board of directors. Of course, in that vast hall such
a man was fearfully handicapped and could not be very well heard.
He closed by naming his candidate somewhat like this: "I now have
the pleasure and honor of proposing as the candidate of this
convention that eminent statesman, James S. Blaine." Nearly
every one in the convention knew that Mr. Blaine's middle name
was Gillespie.
The Blaine followers, whose indignation had been growing throughout
the speech, because they expected the very highest type of oratory
for their favorite, shouted in chorus, "G., you fool, G!"
When General Garfield was voted for, he indignantly repudiated
the votes as an imputation upon his honor, as he was there to
nominate his friend, John Sherman. Senator George F. Hoar, of
Massachusetts, presided at the convention. He interrupted Garfield
by calling him to order, as it was not in order to interrupt the
calling of the roll, and he did so for fear that Garfield would go
so far as to say he would not accept the nomination if it were
made. On the last ballot State after State, each striving to get
ahead of the other, changed its vote from Sherman or Blaine to
Garfield, and he was nominated.
I sat close to him as a visitor to the Ohio delegation. It was
a curious exhibit of the ambition of a lifetime suddenly and
unexpectedly realized by a highly sensitive and highly wrought-up
man. He was so overcome that he practically had to be carried
out of the convention by his friends.
Senator Conkling was very indignant at the result and expressed
his anger with his usual emphasis and picturesqueness. The Ohio
leaders were then anxious to placate New York, but Conkling would
have nothing to do with them. They then came to us, who had been
opposed to the unit rule, and wanted suggestions as to which
New Yorker they should select for vice-president. Levi P. Morton
was suggested. Mr. Morton said he would accept if Senator Conkling
was willing to agree to it, and that he would not act without the
senator's acquiescence, as he was an organization man. The senator
refused his consent, and told Mr. Morton that no friend of his
would go on the ticket.
It was then suggested that they try General Arthur, who was
Conkling's first lieutenant and chairman of the Republican State
Committee of New York. Senator Conkling made the same answer
to General Arthur, but he frankly said to Conkling: "Such an honor
and opportunity comes to very few of the millions of Americans,
and to that man but once. No man can refuse it, and I will not."
And so General Arthur was nominated for vice-president.