“Telegraphic conference to-day, after a long debate, by a unanimous vote, adopted Mr. Cyrus Field’s proposition to recommend the different governments represented at the conference to enter into a treaty to protect submarine wires in war as well as peace, and recommended that no government should grant any right to connect its country with another without the joint consent of the countries proposed to be connected.”
“Telegraphic conference to-day, after a long debate, by a unanimous vote, adopted Mr. Cyrus Field’s proposition to recommend the different governments represented at the conference to enter into a treaty to protect submarine wires in war as well as peace, and recommended that no government should grant any right to connect its country with another without the joint consent of the countries proposed to be connected.”
In speaking of this convention he said:
“It represented twenty-one countries, six hundred millions of people, and twenty six different languages.”
“It represented twenty-one countries, six hundred millions of people, and twenty six different languages.”
The proposal of Professor Morse was so obviously in the interest of peace and humanity that it may seem that its adoption was a matter of course. In fact, however, the opposition to it was at first so strong and general that it would have been defeated but for the personal exertions of Mr. Field in its behalf, and his own narrative of how the adoption was brought about is so interesting as to deservebeing given in full. In his report, dated Rome, January 14, 1872, to the directors of the New York, Newfoundland, and London Telegraph Company, he said:
“The International Telegraph Conference adjourned this afternoon after a session of six weeks and three days....“The conference opened on Friday morning, December 1st, but I did not arrive here till the 20th ultimo. On my arrival I was very sorry to learn that the representative from Norway had on the 4th of December proposed to the conference that they should recommend to their different governments to enter into a treaty to protect submarine cables in war as well as peace, and that his proposition had met with such opposition that he had withdrawn it, as he was sure it could not pass. As soon as I got all the facts, I determined my course. It was to get personally acquainted with every delegate and urge my views upon him before bringing them before the conference. Finally, on Thursday, the 28th ultimo, I presented my views in a carefully prepared argument to the conference. Every single member was in his seat, and finally, after a long discussion, in which there were forty-nine separate speeches, my propositions were carried without a dissenting voice. The representatives of nine governments, although personally in favor of it, were not willing to take the responsibility of voting without positive instructions from their governments, so they simply abstained from voting.“The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Italy, Visconte Venosta, will prepare a circular and send it to the different governments, inviting them to enter into an international treaty to protect submarine cables in time of war.“I shall leave here to-morrow morning for New YorkviaVienna, St. Petersburg, Berlin, Paris, and London. In each of these cities I hope to persuade the American minister to help on this treaty, which I believe will add much to the security of submarine telegraph property.”
“The International Telegraph Conference adjourned this afternoon after a session of six weeks and three days....
“The conference opened on Friday morning, December 1st, but I did not arrive here till the 20th ultimo. On my arrival I was very sorry to learn that the representative from Norway had on the 4th of December proposed to the conference that they should recommend to their different governments to enter into a treaty to protect submarine cables in war as well as peace, and that his proposition had met with such opposition that he had withdrawn it, as he was sure it could not pass. As soon as I got all the facts, I determined my course. It was to get personally acquainted with every delegate and urge my views upon him before bringing them before the conference. Finally, on Thursday, the 28th ultimo, I presented my views in a carefully prepared argument to the conference. Every single member was in his seat, and finally, after a long discussion, in which there were forty-nine separate speeches, my propositions were carried without a dissenting voice. The representatives of nine governments, although personally in favor of it, were not willing to take the responsibility of voting without positive instructions from their governments, so they simply abstained from voting.
“The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Italy, Visconte Venosta, will prepare a circular and send it to the different governments, inviting them to enter into an international treaty to protect submarine cables in time of war.
“I shall leave here to-morrow morning for New YorkviaVienna, St. Petersburg, Berlin, Paris, and London. In each of these cities I hope to persuade the American minister to help on this treaty, which I believe will add much to the security of submarine telegraph property.”
Soon after he reached London he received this note from Mr. Gladstone; he refers, doubtless, to the letter already given in this memoir, setting forth the view he entertained, during the early partof the civil war, of the hopelessness of endeavoring to restore the Union by arms. It had not, however, been published in 1872, nor has it appeared until the publication of this volume.
“11Carlton House Terrace,“February 10, 1872.“Dear Mr. Cyrus Field,—Will you kindly refer me, if you can, to a letter of mine, I think addressed to you respecting my declaration in 1862 that the leaders of the South had made a nation—as to its date, and, if possible, without inconvenience, as to any publication in which I might find it, though probably the date will suffice?“Believe me,“Very faithfully yours,“W. E. Gladstone.”
“11Carlton House Terrace,“February 10, 1872.
“Dear Mr. Cyrus Field,—Will you kindly refer me, if you can, to a letter of mine, I think addressed to you respecting my declaration in 1862 that the leaders of the South had made a nation—as to its date, and, if possible, without inconvenience, as to any publication in which I might find it, though probably the date will suffice?
“Believe me,“Very faithfully yours,“W. E. Gladstone.”
Mr. Field was in London during the excitement caused by the claims for indirect damages which were to be put forward by the American agents at Geneva. These letters refer to that controversy:
“House of Commons,“London,March 1, 1872.“Dear Mr. Field,—As I hear, with regret, that you are detained here by illness, I take the liberty, as an old acquaintance, of asking whether you cannot do something in your compulsory leisure to help our countries in this untoward business as to the case.“If you, who are so well known here, believe your government to be in the right, and that they never did waive, or meant to waive, the claim for indirect damages, and if you will make this statement publicly here, in any manner you please, it would certainly go far to induce me, and I think most of the other public men who were strong Unionists during your civil war, to advocate the submission of the whole case as it stands to the Geneva board. On the other hand, if you cannot do this, I really think we may ask for your testimony on the other side.“If you do not see your way to taking any action in thematter, pray excuse this note, for which my apology must be that this is no time for any of us who are likely to get a hearing to keep silence.“I am always yours very truly,“Thomas Hughes.”
“House of Commons,“London,March 1, 1872.
“Dear Mr. Field,—As I hear, with regret, that you are detained here by illness, I take the liberty, as an old acquaintance, of asking whether you cannot do something in your compulsory leisure to help our countries in this untoward business as to the case.
“If you, who are so well known here, believe your government to be in the right, and that they never did waive, or meant to waive, the claim for indirect damages, and if you will make this statement publicly here, in any manner you please, it would certainly go far to induce me, and I think most of the other public men who were strong Unionists during your civil war, to advocate the submission of the whole case as it stands to the Geneva board. On the other hand, if you cannot do this, I really think we may ask for your testimony on the other side.
“If you do not see your way to taking any action in thematter, pray excuse this note, for which my apology must be that this is no time for any of us who are likely to get a hearing to keep silence.
“I am always yours very truly,“Thomas Hughes.”
He thanked Mr. Hughes for his “kind note,” and at the same time gave to him the letter he had written to Mr. Colfax on February 24th, and this letter Mr. Hughes sent to theTimes:
“London,24th February, 1872.“My dear Mr. Colfax,—Having read this morning a brief telegraphic summary of the speech which you delivered at Brooklyn on Washington’s Birthday, I feel constrained to address you on the subject upon which you have spoken with so much emphasis. I refer to the Treaty of Washington. I share your opinion that neither nation will dare, in the face of civilization, to destroy the treaty; but nevertheless the crisis is a grave one. It therefore behooves every one who can assist to bring about a better understanding on the points of difference between the two countries to make his contribution to that end. This is my apology for addressing you.“The grave misunderstanding which has arisen between Great Britain and the United States is due to the widely different manner in which the Treaty of Washington has been from the outset interpreted by the two nations. I have not met a single person on this side of the Atlantic who expresses any desire “to back out” of the treaty, or refuse the fulfilment of any one of the obligations which it is believed to impose; nay, more, my conviction is that if the British people were satisfied that the principle of referring vague and indefinite claims to arbitration had somehow or other crept into the treaty, they yet would, while passing emphatic votes of censure on their representatives at Washington, at the same time never dream of calling back the pledge which Lord Ripon and his colleagues had given on their behalf.“The excitement which followed the publication of the American case was occasioned by the belief—universal among all classes of the English people—that their own interpretation of the treaty was the right one, and that indeed no otherinterpretation had ever been or would be given to it. It is desirable that Americans should remember this fact—that until the publication of the American case nobody on this side of the water had the remotest idea that the Washington Treaty contemplated more than arbitration with reference to the direct losses inflicted by theAlabamaand other Confederate cruisers which escaped from British ports during our civil war. This is not a matter of surmise; it is demonstrable on the clearest evidence. I therefore contend that whether the public sentiment of England be well founded or not, its existence is so natural that even if we Americans are wholly in the right we ought to make every allowance for it—in fact, treat it with generous forbearance.“So early as June 12th last, when Lord Russell, in moving a resolution for the rejection of the treaty, charged the Americans with having made no concessions, Lord Granville retorted by pointing to the abandonment of the claim for consequential damages. ‘These were pretensions,’ he said, ‘which might have been carried out under the former arbitration, but they entirely disappear under the limited reference.’ There could be no mistake as to his meaning, because in describing the aforesaid ‘pretensions’ he quoted the strong and explicit language which Mr. Fish had employed. We are bound to believe that Lord Granville spoke in perfect good faith, especially as the American minister was present during the debate, and sent the newspaper verbatim report of it to his own government by the ensuing mail. When the debate took place the ratification of the treaty had not been exchanged. If Lord Granville was in error, why did not General Schenck correct him?“On the same occasion the Marquis of Ripon, also replying to Lord Russell’s taunt, remarked that ‘so far from our conduct being a constant course of concession, there were, as my noble friend behind me [Earl Granville] has said, numerous occasions on which it was our duty to say that the proposals made to us were such as it was impossible for us to think of entertaining.’ This, also, was understood to refer to the indirect claims.“Turning to the debate which took place in the House of Commons on the 4th of August, one searches in vain for any remark in the speeches of Mr. Gladstone, Sir Stafford Northcote, or Sir Roundell Palmer which indicated any suspicion that theAlabamaclaims had assumed the portentous characterwhich now attaches to them. The doubt which Lord Cairns at one time entertained had been set at rest by the ministerial explanations made at the time in the House of Lords, and not a single argument advanced in the Lower House, either in support of or in opposition to the treaty, touched upon the question of these claims. Even Mr. Baillie Cochrane, the well-known Conservative member, who denounced the treaty on all sorts of grounds, and whose avowed object was to pick as many holes in it as possible, was unable to allege that England had consented to an arbitration which might involve her in indefinite liabilities.“Sir Stafford Northcote, in the course of his humorous speech—a speech instinct with good feeling towards the United States—said that ‘a number of the claims under the convention which was not adopted [the Johnson-Clarendon Treaty] were so vague that it would have been possible for the Americans to have raised a number of questions which the commissioners were unwilling to submit to arbitration. They might have raised the question with regard to the recognition of belligerency, with regard to constructive damages arising out of the recognition of belligerency, and a number of other matters which this country could not admit. But if honorable gentlemen would look to the terms of the treaty actually contracted they would see that the commissioners followed the subjects very closely by making a reference only to a list growing out of the acts of particular vessels, and in so doing shut out a large number of claims which the Americans had previously insisted upon, but which the commissioners had prevented from being raised before the arbitrators.’ All this points unmistakably to the definite and limited character of the claims which, in the judgment of the English negotiators, were alone to be submitted to arbitration.“It seems to me that Judge Williams, in the speech he made at the banquet I had the honor to give to the British High Commissioners in New York, expressed sentiments which can only be similarly construed. ‘Many persons,’ he said, ‘no doubt, will be dissatisfied with their [the Joint High Commissioners’] labors; but to deal with questions so complicated, involving so many conflicting interests, so as to please everybody, is a plain impossibility; but in view of the irritation which the course of Great Britain produced in this country during our late rebellion, and in view of the one-sided and generally exaggerated statements of our case made to thepeople, the American commissioners consider themselves quite fortunate that what they have done has met with so much public favor in all parts of the country and among men of all political parties.’“That true friend of America, the Duke of Argyll, speaking in the Upper House, was equally emphatic. ‘The great boon we have secured by this treaty,’ he said, ‘is this: that for the future the law of nations, as between the two greatest maritime states in the world, is settled in regard to this matter, and that for this great boon we have literally sacrificed nothing except the admission that we are willing to apply to the case of theAlabamaand that of other vessels those rules, I do not say of international law, but of international comity, which we have ourselves over and over again admitted.’ It is impossible that the duke would have expressed himself in language so hopeful and so contented if behind ‘the case of theAlabamaand that of other vessels’ he had seen looming up the colossal demands which were originally embodied in Senator Sumner’s memorable oration.“The views thus put forward sank deep into the public mind, and the treaty was accepted and ratified by popular opinion on this basis. General Schenck, several months after the delivery of the above speeches, in addressing a Lord Mayor’s banquet at the Guildhall, bade the English ministry and Lord Ripon ‘congratulate themselves upon the success with which they have endeavored to bring about friendly relations between the United States and Great Britain.’“People here ask how he could congratulate the British government if he knew all the while that their construction of the treaty, which was to cement the friendship of the two countries, fatally differed from the construction put upon it by the government at Washington.“I have not given my own but the English view of the matter. When such momentous issues are at stake—when a false move on the diplomatic board may endanger the peace of two kindred nations—it is absolutely necessary that our people should know what is the English side in this controversy. The first duty of a loyal American citizen is to ascertain the whole truth, and not by ignorance or obstinacy to commit himself to a wrong course.“Many hard words have been lately spoken and written about Mr. Gladstone. I therefore feel it incumbent upon me to bear my testimony to the large and statesmanlike view ofAmerican affairs which he has taken for several years past, and to the cordial good feeling he has shown towards our country since he has been at the head of the present government. In spite of temporary misunderstanding, I will continue to hope that the Treaty of Washington will bear the fruit which he anticipated; that, to quote his own eloquent words in the House of Commons on the 4th of August, that treaty will do much ‘towards the accomplishment of the great work of uniting the two countries in the ties of affection where they are already bound by the ties of interest, of kindred, of race, and of language, thereby promoting that strong and lasting union between them which is in itself one of the main guarantees for the peace of the civilized world.’“With great respect I remain,“My dear Mr. Colfax,“Very truly your friend,“Cyrus W. Field.”
“London,24th February, 1872.
“My dear Mr. Colfax,—Having read this morning a brief telegraphic summary of the speech which you delivered at Brooklyn on Washington’s Birthday, I feel constrained to address you on the subject upon which you have spoken with so much emphasis. I refer to the Treaty of Washington. I share your opinion that neither nation will dare, in the face of civilization, to destroy the treaty; but nevertheless the crisis is a grave one. It therefore behooves every one who can assist to bring about a better understanding on the points of difference between the two countries to make his contribution to that end. This is my apology for addressing you.
“The grave misunderstanding which has arisen between Great Britain and the United States is due to the widely different manner in which the Treaty of Washington has been from the outset interpreted by the two nations. I have not met a single person on this side of the Atlantic who expresses any desire “to back out” of the treaty, or refuse the fulfilment of any one of the obligations which it is believed to impose; nay, more, my conviction is that if the British people were satisfied that the principle of referring vague and indefinite claims to arbitration had somehow or other crept into the treaty, they yet would, while passing emphatic votes of censure on their representatives at Washington, at the same time never dream of calling back the pledge which Lord Ripon and his colleagues had given on their behalf.
“The excitement which followed the publication of the American case was occasioned by the belief—universal among all classes of the English people—that their own interpretation of the treaty was the right one, and that indeed no otherinterpretation had ever been or would be given to it. It is desirable that Americans should remember this fact—that until the publication of the American case nobody on this side of the water had the remotest idea that the Washington Treaty contemplated more than arbitration with reference to the direct losses inflicted by theAlabamaand other Confederate cruisers which escaped from British ports during our civil war. This is not a matter of surmise; it is demonstrable on the clearest evidence. I therefore contend that whether the public sentiment of England be well founded or not, its existence is so natural that even if we Americans are wholly in the right we ought to make every allowance for it—in fact, treat it with generous forbearance.
“So early as June 12th last, when Lord Russell, in moving a resolution for the rejection of the treaty, charged the Americans with having made no concessions, Lord Granville retorted by pointing to the abandonment of the claim for consequential damages. ‘These were pretensions,’ he said, ‘which might have been carried out under the former arbitration, but they entirely disappear under the limited reference.’ There could be no mistake as to his meaning, because in describing the aforesaid ‘pretensions’ he quoted the strong and explicit language which Mr. Fish had employed. We are bound to believe that Lord Granville spoke in perfect good faith, especially as the American minister was present during the debate, and sent the newspaper verbatim report of it to his own government by the ensuing mail. When the debate took place the ratification of the treaty had not been exchanged. If Lord Granville was in error, why did not General Schenck correct him?
“On the same occasion the Marquis of Ripon, also replying to Lord Russell’s taunt, remarked that ‘so far from our conduct being a constant course of concession, there were, as my noble friend behind me [Earl Granville] has said, numerous occasions on which it was our duty to say that the proposals made to us were such as it was impossible for us to think of entertaining.’ This, also, was understood to refer to the indirect claims.
“Turning to the debate which took place in the House of Commons on the 4th of August, one searches in vain for any remark in the speeches of Mr. Gladstone, Sir Stafford Northcote, or Sir Roundell Palmer which indicated any suspicion that theAlabamaclaims had assumed the portentous characterwhich now attaches to them. The doubt which Lord Cairns at one time entertained had been set at rest by the ministerial explanations made at the time in the House of Lords, and not a single argument advanced in the Lower House, either in support of or in opposition to the treaty, touched upon the question of these claims. Even Mr. Baillie Cochrane, the well-known Conservative member, who denounced the treaty on all sorts of grounds, and whose avowed object was to pick as many holes in it as possible, was unable to allege that England had consented to an arbitration which might involve her in indefinite liabilities.
“Sir Stafford Northcote, in the course of his humorous speech—a speech instinct with good feeling towards the United States—said that ‘a number of the claims under the convention which was not adopted [the Johnson-Clarendon Treaty] were so vague that it would have been possible for the Americans to have raised a number of questions which the commissioners were unwilling to submit to arbitration. They might have raised the question with regard to the recognition of belligerency, with regard to constructive damages arising out of the recognition of belligerency, and a number of other matters which this country could not admit. But if honorable gentlemen would look to the terms of the treaty actually contracted they would see that the commissioners followed the subjects very closely by making a reference only to a list growing out of the acts of particular vessels, and in so doing shut out a large number of claims which the Americans had previously insisted upon, but which the commissioners had prevented from being raised before the arbitrators.’ All this points unmistakably to the definite and limited character of the claims which, in the judgment of the English negotiators, were alone to be submitted to arbitration.
“It seems to me that Judge Williams, in the speech he made at the banquet I had the honor to give to the British High Commissioners in New York, expressed sentiments which can only be similarly construed. ‘Many persons,’ he said, ‘no doubt, will be dissatisfied with their [the Joint High Commissioners’] labors; but to deal with questions so complicated, involving so many conflicting interests, so as to please everybody, is a plain impossibility; but in view of the irritation which the course of Great Britain produced in this country during our late rebellion, and in view of the one-sided and generally exaggerated statements of our case made to thepeople, the American commissioners consider themselves quite fortunate that what they have done has met with so much public favor in all parts of the country and among men of all political parties.’
“That true friend of America, the Duke of Argyll, speaking in the Upper House, was equally emphatic. ‘The great boon we have secured by this treaty,’ he said, ‘is this: that for the future the law of nations, as between the two greatest maritime states in the world, is settled in regard to this matter, and that for this great boon we have literally sacrificed nothing except the admission that we are willing to apply to the case of theAlabamaand that of other vessels those rules, I do not say of international law, but of international comity, which we have ourselves over and over again admitted.’ It is impossible that the duke would have expressed himself in language so hopeful and so contented if behind ‘the case of theAlabamaand that of other vessels’ he had seen looming up the colossal demands which were originally embodied in Senator Sumner’s memorable oration.
“The views thus put forward sank deep into the public mind, and the treaty was accepted and ratified by popular opinion on this basis. General Schenck, several months after the delivery of the above speeches, in addressing a Lord Mayor’s banquet at the Guildhall, bade the English ministry and Lord Ripon ‘congratulate themselves upon the success with which they have endeavored to bring about friendly relations between the United States and Great Britain.’
“People here ask how he could congratulate the British government if he knew all the while that their construction of the treaty, which was to cement the friendship of the two countries, fatally differed from the construction put upon it by the government at Washington.
“I have not given my own but the English view of the matter. When such momentous issues are at stake—when a false move on the diplomatic board may endanger the peace of two kindred nations—it is absolutely necessary that our people should know what is the English side in this controversy. The first duty of a loyal American citizen is to ascertain the whole truth, and not by ignorance or obstinacy to commit himself to a wrong course.
“Many hard words have been lately spoken and written about Mr. Gladstone. I therefore feel it incumbent upon me to bear my testimony to the large and statesmanlike view ofAmerican affairs which he has taken for several years past, and to the cordial good feeling he has shown towards our country since he has been at the head of the present government. In spite of temporary misunderstanding, I will continue to hope that the Treaty of Washington will bear the fruit which he anticipated; that, to quote his own eloquent words in the House of Commons on the 4th of August, that treaty will do much ‘towards the accomplishment of the great work of uniting the two countries in the ties of affection where they are already bound by the ties of interest, of kindred, of race, and of language, thereby promoting that strong and lasting union between them which is in itself one of the main guarantees for the peace of the civilized world.’
“With great respect I remain,“My dear Mr. Colfax,“Very truly your friend,“Cyrus W. Field.”
Mr. Bright wrote to him at this time:
“This trouble about the treaty is very unfortunate. I think your letter admirable, and I hope it will do good in the States, where, I presume, it will be published. I confess I am greatly surprised at the ‘case’ to be submitted to the Geneva tribunal. There is too much of what we call ‘attorneyship’ in it, and too little of ‘statesmanship.’ It is rather like a passionate speech than a thoughtful state document. And what a folly to offer to a tribunal claims which cannot be proved. No facts and no figures can show that the war was prolonged by the mischief of the pirate ships; and surely what cannot be proved by distinct evidence cannot be made the subject of an award. This country will not go into a court to ask for an award which, if against it, it will never accept. An award against it in the matter of the indirect claims will never be paid, and therefore the only honest course is to object now before going into court. Has the coming Presidential election or nomination anything to do with this matter? Or is Mr. Sumner’s view of the dispute dominant in Washington? I should have thought your government might have said: ‘We will not press the claims objected to before the tribunal, but we shall retain them in our “case” as historic evidence of our sense of magnitude of the grievance of which we complain.’“This, I dare say, would have satisfied our governmentand people, and practically it would have satisfied every reasonable man in the States. To such as would not be content with it, friendship and peace would, in the nature of things, seem to be denied.”
“This trouble about the treaty is very unfortunate. I think your letter admirable, and I hope it will do good in the States, where, I presume, it will be published. I confess I am greatly surprised at the ‘case’ to be submitted to the Geneva tribunal. There is too much of what we call ‘attorneyship’ in it, and too little of ‘statesmanship.’ It is rather like a passionate speech than a thoughtful state document. And what a folly to offer to a tribunal claims which cannot be proved. No facts and no figures can show that the war was prolonged by the mischief of the pirate ships; and surely what cannot be proved by distinct evidence cannot be made the subject of an award. This country will not go into a court to ask for an award which, if against it, it will never accept. An award against it in the matter of the indirect claims will never be paid, and therefore the only honest course is to object now before going into court. Has the coming Presidential election or nomination anything to do with this matter? Or is Mr. Sumner’s view of the dispute dominant in Washington? I should have thought your government might have said: ‘We will not press the claims objected to before the tribunal, but we shall retain them in our “case” as historic evidence of our sense of magnitude of the grievance of which we complain.’
“This, I dare say, would have satisfied our governmentand people, and practically it would have satisfied every reasonable man in the States. To such as would not be content with it, friendship and peace would, in the nature of things, seem to be denied.”
Soon after his return home he received the following letter, and returned the answer to that of Mr. Bright:
“Washington, 1512 H Street,29th March.“My dear Mr. Field,—I cannot tell you how grieved I have been at the difficulty which has arisen respecting the Washington Treaty.“I do not think that anything would have induced me to accept the appointment which brought me here but the pride I felt in taking a part, however humble, in the execution of a treaty which I thought the glory of the age and which seemed to me so full of promise to all civilized nations.“I cannot think with patience of all our hopes being dashed to the ground by what Bright truly describes as a ‘passionate speech,’ followed by a claim utterly extravagant, from which the party making it never expected to get a farthing.“I confess that I should not have been afraid to go to arbitration upon it, but I see the difficulty which any government would have in justifying themselves to their people in leaving it to any five persons to say whether a fine of two hundred millions should be inflicted on them.“You have done your part excellently, but why do not others raise their voices against this tremendous folly which is not unlikely, sooner or later, to lead us into war?“I fully believe that both governments are very anxious to accommodate matters, but I confess that I do not see how that accommodation is to be brought about without a concession, which it is very difficult for a government to make on the eve of a Presidential election.“Believe me“Very sincerely yours,“Russell Gurney.”
“Washington, 1512 H Street,29th March.
“My dear Mr. Field,—I cannot tell you how grieved I have been at the difficulty which has arisen respecting the Washington Treaty.
“I do not think that anything would have induced me to accept the appointment which brought me here but the pride I felt in taking a part, however humble, in the execution of a treaty which I thought the glory of the age and which seemed to me so full of promise to all civilized nations.
“I cannot think with patience of all our hopes being dashed to the ground by what Bright truly describes as a ‘passionate speech,’ followed by a claim utterly extravagant, from which the party making it never expected to get a farthing.
“I confess that I should not have been afraid to go to arbitration upon it, but I see the difficulty which any government would have in justifying themselves to their people in leaving it to any five persons to say whether a fine of two hundred millions should be inflicted on them.
“You have done your part excellently, but why do not others raise their voices against this tremendous folly which is not unlikely, sooner or later, to lead us into war?
“I fully believe that both governments are very anxious to accommodate matters, but I confess that I do not see how that accommodation is to be brought about without a concession, which it is very difficult for a government to make on the eve of a Presidential election.
“Believe me“Very sincerely yours,“Russell Gurney.”
“Gramercy Park,“New York,2d April, 1872.“My dear Mr. Bright,—I arrived on 25th March, after a very rough passage of sixteen days....“Since my return I have devoted much of my time to ascertain the real sentiment of the people of this country in regard to the Washington Treaty, and as far as I can judge, after seeing many persons of different political parties, it appears to be almost unanimous that our government has made a great mistake in including these indirect claims in the ‘case.’ I am convinced that the best people in England and America desire to have this question settled in a fair and honorable manner. In fact, many say to me that they have got tired of hearing about the indirect claims....“With great respect and kind regards to your family,“I remain, my dear Mr. Bright,“Very truly your friend,“Cyrus W. Field.”
“Gramercy Park,“New York,2d April, 1872.
“My dear Mr. Bright,—I arrived on 25th March, after a very rough passage of sixteen days....
“Since my return I have devoted much of my time to ascertain the real sentiment of the people of this country in regard to the Washington Treaty, and as far as I can judge, after seeing many persons of different political parties, it appears to be almost unanimous that our government has made a great mistake in including these indirect claims in the ‘case.’ I am convinced that the best people in England and America desire to have this question settled in a fair and honorable manner. In fact, many say to me that they have got tired of hearing about the indirect claims....
“With great respect and kind regards to your family,“I remain, my dear Mr. Bright,“Very truly your friend,“Cyrus W. Field.”
It was while he was in London, in December, 1872, that Mr. Junius Morgan said to him that he had just received a letter from Mr. John Taylor Johnston about the Cesnola collection, then in London, and he asked him, if he had the time to do so, to examine it and give him his opinion. Mr. Field went at once to see it, and he was much impressed with its value. Of this time General Cesnola writes:
“The officers of the British Museum had already examined the collection, and it was perhaps on their report that Mr. Gladstone came to see the collection; but whether he came with a view to securing it for the British Museum or not I cannot say. Your father asked me to drive back with him to Mr. Morgan’s office, and suggested to Mr. Morgan (as agent for Mr. Johnston) to close the purchase of the collection with meverbally at once, and a payment was made on account without delay, and without waiting for the papers to be drawn up.“It was through your father that my collection became the property of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It was he who introduced me to Mr. Gladstone, Earl Granville, Mr. Adams, then United States minister in London; also to the Dean of Westminster and Lady Augusta Stanley, and to many other of his English friends. He invited a large party to meet me at dinner, and also brought many to see my Cypriotecollection. I doubt if, without the great personal interest shown by your father, it would ever have become the property of the Metropolitan Museum; because it was only after this that the London press went wild over securing it for England.“I have said, and shall always say, that it is chiefly, if not wholly, due to Cyrus W. Field that my discoveries are in this city to-day.”
“The officers of the British Museum had already examined the collection, and it was perhaps on their report that Mr. Gladstone came to see the collection; but whether he came with a view to securing it for the British Museum or not I cannot say. Your father asked me to drive back with him to Mr. Morgan’s office, and suggested to Mr. Morgan (as agent for Mr. Johnston) to close the purchase of the collection with meverbally at once, and a payment was made on account without delay, and without waiting for the papers to be drawn up.
“It was through your father that my collection became the property of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It was he who introduced me to Mr. Gladstone, Earl Granville, Mr. Adams, then United States minister in London; also to the Dean of Westminster and Lady Augusta Stanley, and to many other of his English friends. He invited a large party to meet me at dinner, and also brought many to see my Cypriotecollection. I doubt if, without the great personal interest shown by your father, it would ever have become the property of the Metropolitan Museum; because it was only after this that the London press went wild over securing it for England.
“I have said, and shall always say, that it is chiefly, if not wholly, due to Cyrus W. Field that my discoveries are in this city to-day.”
The sale of the New York, Newfoundland, and London Telegraph Company was made early in this year, and on July 2, 1873, he writes to Mr. Orton, the president of the Western Union Telegraph Company:
“The New York, Newfoundland, and London Telegraph Company, having been consolidated with the Anglo-American Telegraph Company, Limited, drafts will hereafter be made upon your company, and communications made in the name of the said Anglo-American Telegraph Company, Limited.”
“The New York, Newfoundland, and London Telegraph Company, having been consolidated with the Anglo-American Telegraph Company, Limited, drafts will hereafter be made upon your company, and communications made in the name of the said Anglo-American Telegraph Company, Limited.”
Among the cable messages sent during the autumn of this year these are of interest:
“September 19th.—Great panic here in money market.”“September 20th.—Confidently believed, reliable quarter, government will take measures relieve market before Monday, but thus far panic has exceeded anything ever known.”“Saturday, October 30th.—Most of the firms that have suspended are those that have been doing too much business for their capital, but confidence is so shaken that many stocks are being sold at whatever they will bring. Think perhaps have seen worst, but don’t yet see signs permanent improvement.”“Monday, November 1st.—Western Union sold before panic at 90. Has sold in last few days less than 44.”
“September 19th.—Great panic here in money market.”
“September 20th.—Confidently believed, reliable quarter, government will take measures relieve market before Monday, but thus far panic has exceeded anything ever known.”
“Saturday, October 30th.—Most of the firms that have suspended are those that have been doing too much business for their capital, but confidence is so shaken that many stocks are being sold at whatever they will bring. Think perhaps have seen worst, but don’t yet see signs permanent improvement.”
“Monday, November 1st.—Western Union sold before panic at 90. Has sold in last few days less than 44.”
We find these entries in his diary:
“January 13th, 1874.—Arrived in London.”“February 14th.—Sailed from Liverpool for New York in theCuba; fifty-sixth voyage.”
“January 13th, 1874.—Arrived in London.”
“February 14th.—Sailed from Liverpool for New York in theCuba; fifty-sixth voyage.”
This letter followed him to New York:
“11Carlton House Terrace,“March 31, 1874.“My dear Mr. Cyrus Field,—When I was about to thank you for your kind letter of the 10th, I received that of the 17th announcing to me the funeral of Mr. C. Sumner, and the great manifestation of feeling which it called forth.“His loss must be heavily felt, and his name will long be remembered in connection with the abolition of slavery, which was wrought out in the United States by methods so wonderful and so remote from the general expectation.“As respects events in this country, they have brought about for me a great and personally not an unacceptable change. I have always desired earnestly that the closing period of my life might be spent in freedom from political commotion, and I have plenty of work cut out for me in other regions of a more free and open atmosphere.“As respects the political position, it has been one perfectly honorable for us, inasmuch as we are dismissed for or upon having done what we undertook or were charged to do; and as respects the new ministry, they show at present a disposition to be quiet.“Believe me, my dear Mr. Field,“Yours very faithfully,“W. E. Gladstone.”
“11Carlton House Terrace,“March 31, 1874.
“My dear Mr. Cyrus Field,—When I was about to thank you for your kind letter of the 10th, I received that of the 17th announcing to me the funeral of Mr. C. Sumner, and the great manifestation of feeling which it called forth.
“His loss must be heavily felt, and his name will long be remembered in connection with the abolition of slavery, which was wrought out in the United States by methods so wonderful and so remote from the general expectation.
“As respects events in this country, they have brought about for me a great and personally not an unacceptable change. I have always desired earnestly that the closing period of my life might be spent in freedom from political commotion, and I have plenty of work cut out for me in other regions of a more free and open atmosphere.
“As respects the political position, it has been one perfectly honorable for us, inasmuch as we are dismissed for or upon having done what we undertook or were charged to do; and as respects the new ministry, they show at present a disposition to be quiet.
“Believe me, my dear Mr. Field,“Yours very faithfully,“W. E. Gladstone.”
The following extract is taken from Mr. Field’s private papers:
“The bill for the expansion of the currency, which at this period passed both houses of Congress, after exhaustive debates, created much alarm among the leading financial men of New York and the Eastern States. Meetings were held at various places to protest against it, and to request the President to exercise his veto.”
A number of the leading bankers, capitalists, and merchants of New York assembled on April 15th at Mr. Field’s house on Gramercy Park to consider what action should be taken in the matter. Apetition very extensively signed was read, and the following resolutions were adopted:
“Resolved, That the following gentlemen be appointed a committee to take charge of and present the foregoing petition to the President, bearing the signatures of all the 2500 leading bankers and business firms of the City of New York, asking him to interpose his veto to prevent the enactment of the Senate currency bill, which has recently passed both houses of Congress; or any other bill having in view the increase of inconvertible currency.“Resolved, That the Senators from the State of New York, and such members of the House of Representatives from this State as entertain the views indicated in the foregoing resolution, be added to the committee, and their co-operation invited. The members of this committee are:“J. J. Astor, Rev. Dr. Adams, Ethan Allen, W. H. Aspinwall, W. A. Booth, James M. Brown, August Belmont, S. D. Babcock, S. B. Chittenden, E. C. Cowdin, George S. Cole, John J. Cisco, W. B. Duncan, W. M. Evarts, Cyrus W. Field, Wilson G. Hunt, B. W. Jaynes, J. T. Johnston, A. A. Low, W. J. Lane, C. Lanier, C. P. Leverich, W. H. Macy, C. H. Marshall, R. B. Minturn, Royal Phelps, Howard Potter, M. O. Roberts, A. T. Stewart, J. H. Schultz, Isaac Sherman, Jonathan Sturges, Moses Taylor, J. A. Agnew, J. D. Vermilye, G. C. Ward, etc.”
“Resolved, That the following gentlemen be appointed a committee to take charge of and present the foregoing petition to the President, bearing the signatures of all the 2500 leading bankers and business firms of the City of New York, asking him to interpose his veto to prevent the enactment of the Senate currency bill, which has recently passed both houses of Congress; or any other bill having in view the increase of inconvertible currency.
“Resolved, That the Senators from the State of New York, and such members of the House of Representatives from this State as entertain the views indicated in the foregoing resolution, be added to the committee, and their co-operation invited. The members of this committee are:
“J. J. Astor, Rev. Dr. Adams, Ethan Allen, W. H. Aspinwall, W. A. Booth, James M. Brown, August Belmont, S. D. Babcock, S. B. Chittenden, E. C. Cowdin, George S. Cole, John J. Cisco, W. B. Duncan, W. M. Evarts, Cyrus W. Field, Wilson G. Hunt, B. W. Jaynes, J. T. Johnston, A. A. Low, W. J. Lane, C. Lanier, C. P. Leverich, W. H. Macy, C. H. Marshall, R. B. Minturn, Royal Phelps, Howard Potter, M. O. Roberts, A. T. Stewart, J. H. Schultz, Isaac Sherman, Jonathan Sturges, Moses Taylor, J. A. Agnew, J. D. Vermilye, G. C. Ward, etc.”
Mr. Field, with many influential members of this committee, proceeded to Washington with the petition, and had an interview with the President, who promised to give the subject his mature consideration. It is thought that the arguments adduced by the committee on this occasion had great weight with the President, and, combined with other influences, finally determined him to veto the bill, which he did shortly afterwards in a message in which he committed himself strongly against any further inflation of the currency. Had this bill passed into a law it would have been the first steptowards national repudiation, for the wedge once inserted, it is impossible to predict how far it would eventually have been driven, and what effect even a moderate addition to the inconvertible currency would have had, not only on commerce, but on the moral conscience of the nation. A return of government bonds held in foreign countries would have been the inevitable result, and all values would have been unsettled. Reasoning and thoughtful men foresaw the crisis that was impending, and the country owes a debt of gratitude to the Chamber of Commerce for its prompt action, and to President Grant for listening attentively to the arguments of the committee for saving the country from threatened disaster.
On May 6th, Mr. and Mrs. Field were members of a large party which left New York for California, and on the 12th, at Omaha, Canon Kingsley and Miss Kingsley joined them. The journey was a pleasant one, but uneventful. Friday, May 22d, he writes:
“After breakfast I sent a telegraphic message to Dean Stanley, informing him that Canon Kingsley was well and would preach for us in the Yosemite Valley on Sunday.”
“After breakfast I sent a telegraphic message to Dean Stanley, informing him that Canon Kingsley was well and would preach for us in the Yosemite Valley on Sunday.”
In his sermon on the afternoon of Whit Sunday, Dean Stanley alluded to this message.
Early in June he sailed for England, and of his journey to Iceland, undertaken during this summer, Mr. Murat Halstead writes:
“My judgment is that your father had no business reasons for going to Iceland. Really the trip was a sentimental adventure. Mr. Field had been a profound student of the North Atlantic, and was familiar with the fact that Iceland is but nine hundred miles from Scotland and Norway andthree hundred from Greenland. ‘It seemed so near, and yet so far.’ ... In the spring of 1874 Mr. and Mrs. Cyrus W. Field visited Cincinnati, and at a reception given by Mr. Probasco Mr. Field said to me: ‘Come and go with me to Iceland; it is the millennial year of the settlement of the island. It would be very interesting. The King of Denmark is to be there, and the whole affair will be extraordinary.’ I asked how one could get to Iceland, and Mr. Field had evidently made the subject a close study. He said there were monthly boats from Copenhagen touching at Leith, the port of Edinburgh, and we should sail from Scotland, and Iceland was about a thousand miles from Scotland.“Mr. Field must have gotten his impulse to go to Iceland from his familiarity with the North Atlantic during the anxious years he spent in studying it with reference to the cable. He was struck by the narrowness of the ocean between Greenland and Norway, with Iceland between just below the arctic circle. He had, of course, contemplated a cable by way of Greenland and Iceland to Scotland if it should be found impracticable to cross the Atlantic between Newfoundland and Ireland. When it became known that Mr. Field was going to Iceland there were conjectures that he thought of a cable to the island; but that was a mere fancy. There was not a chance for business over the line. There would be no news except of volcanoes and the price of codfish. If there should ever be a cable connection with Iceland it would be for the weather reports.“I was thinking of a trip to Europe in the summer of 1874, when Mr. Field spoke to me, and a few weeks later decided to go. Mr. Field was going earlier than I could, and just before he sailed I telegraphed, asking on what date it would be necessary for me to meet him in London in order to go with him to Iceland. His reply was, ‘July 9th.’ On my arrival at Southampton by the Bremen boat I remembered the day was the 9th of July, and that night about ten o’clock I found Mr. Field at the Buckingham Palace Hotel, and he said he had been expecting me, and was waiting to see me before going to bed. That, I suppose, was a joke, but it was not all a joke. I found in London Bayard Taylor, going to the Icelandic millennium for the New YorkTribune, and Dr. I. I. Hayes, the arctic explorer, going for the New YorkHerald; Dr. Kneeland, of the Boston Institute of Technology, and Professor Magnussen, of Cambridge University,an Icelander by birth. I resolved to go, and we chartered the steam yachtAlbion, Captain Howland, sailing from Leith. Mr. Field and I made a tour through the Highlands, and, passing Balmoral and the Earl of Fyfe’s hunting and fishing lodge, found the rest of the party at Aberdeen, where it was necessary for us to enlist as British seamen, and we were paid a shilling each for our services during the voyage, which was one of great interest and considerable hardship. We halted at the Orkney, Shetland, and Faroe islands, at the latter place falling in with the king’s fleet. Our Icelandic experiences are familiar, as Mr. Taylor and Dr. Kneeland published books on the subject. Mr. Field’s Iceland party, for he was our leader, attracted much attention—almost as much sometimes as the king’s procession. We rode across the lava beds to the geysers, saw Mount Hecla—and the Great Geyser would not spout for the king.”
“My judgment is that your father had no business reasons for going to Iceland. Really the trip was a sentimental adventure. Mr. Field had been a profound student of the North Atlantic, and was familiar with the fact that Iceland is but nine hundred miles from Scotland and Norway andthree hundred from Greenland. ‘It seemed so near, and yet so far.’ ... In the spring of 1874 Mr. and Mrs. Cyrus W. Field visited Cincinnati, and at a reception given by Mr. Probasco Mr. Field said to me: ‘Come and go with me to Iceland; it is the millennial year of the settlement of the island. It would be very interesting. The King of Denmark is to be there, and the whole affair will be extraordinary.’ I asked how one could get to Iceland, and Mr. Field had evidently made the subject a close study. He said there were monthly boats from Copenhagen touching at Leith, the port of Edinburgh, and we should sail from Scotland, and Iceland was about a thousand miles from Scotland.
“Mr. Field must have gotten his impulse to go to Iceland from his familiarity with the North Atlantic during the anxious years he spent in studying it with reference to the cable. He was struck by the narrowness of the ocean between Greenland and Norway, with Iceland between just below the arctic circle. He had, of course, contemplated a cable by way of Greenland and Iceland to Scotland if it should be found impracticable to cross the Atlantic between Newfoundland and Ireland. When it became known that Mr. Field was going to Iceland there were conjectures that he thought of a cable to the island; but that was a mere fancy. There was not a chance for business over the line. There would be no news except of volcanoes and the price of codfish. If there should ever be a cable connection with Iceland it would be for the weather reports.
“I was thinking of a trip to Europe in the summer of 1874, when Mr. Field spoke to me, and a few weeks later decided to go. Mr. Field was going earlier than I could, and just before he sailed I telegraphed, asking on what date it would be necessary for me to meet him in London in order to go with him to Iceland. His reply was, ‘July 9th.’ On my arrival at Southampton by the Bremen boat I remembered the day was the 9th of July, and that night about ten o’clock I found Mr. Field at the Buckingham Palace Hotel, and he said he had been expecting me, and was waiting to see me before going to bed. That, I suppose, was a joke, but it was not all a joke. I found in London Bayard Taylor, going to the Icelandic millennium for the New YorkTribune, and Dr. I. I. Hayes, the arctic explorer, going for the New YorkHerald; Dr. Kneeland, of the Boston Institute of Technology, and Professor Magnussen, of Cambridge University,an Icelander by birth. I resolved to go, and we chartered the steam yachtAlbion, Captain Howland, sailing from Leith. Mr. Field and I made a tour through the Highlands, and, passing Balmoral and the Earl of Fyfe’s hunting and fishing lodge, found the rest of the party at Aberdeen, where it was necessary for us to enlist as British seamen, and we were paid a shilling each for our services during the voyage, which was one of great interest and considerable hardship. We halted at the Orkney, Shetland, and Faroe islands, at the latter place falling in with the king’s fleet. Our Icelandic experiences are familiar, as Mr. Taylor and Dr. Kneeland published books on the subject. Mr. Field’s Iceland party, for he was our leader, attracted much attention—almost as much sometimes as the king’s procession. We rode across the lava beds to the geysers, saw Mount Hecla—and the Great Geyser would not spout for the king.”
It will have been observed, in the course of this narrative, that with Mr. Field, so inexhaustible was his energy, rest was only a “change of motion.”
When he sought relaxation from exhausting business cares he found it in fatiguing journeys, and he preferred that these should be as difficult and adventurous as possible. This was the case in his journey to the Andes with Mr. Church in his earlier manhood. It was the case with the excursion in ripe middle age beyond the “furthest Thule” of the ancients. He was now again, thanks to his own exertions, and after years of struggle and of doubt that to others meant despair, independent in circumstances, and, as it seemed, beyond the power of fortune, and he was nearing his sixtieth birthday. Most men would have regarded this condition as an occasion to “rest and be thankful.” But it was in this condition that Mr. Field undertook a new and arduous enterprise, for which he hadhad little specific training. It is evident that its very difficulty, as in the case of the Atlantic cable, was to him an element of attractiveness. But there was this difference between the Atlantic cable and the elevated railway system of New York. He was the pioneer, the projector, of the former. The latter had already been undertaken, and practically, it may be said, to have failed. Indeed, there was no “system” of elevated railways. The fragmentary roads that were in operation or projected were unrelated to each other in ownership, management, and traffic. Financially and practically they were languishing. It will be seen from the letter which will presently be given that the company with which he proposed to ally himself, the New York, which possessed the franchise for Third Avenue, had been so far from successful that sixty cents on the dollar was held to be a fair price for its securities. It may fairly be said that the elevated “system” is due to Mr. Field. Whoever remembers the conditions of transit in New York before 1877, and indeed for some years after, must own that the creation of this system has constituted a public benefaction. Many millions have been transported, with a loss of life that has been infinitesimal in comparison with the volume of the traffic, at a cost no greater than that of the conveyances which the system has superseded, and at a rate of speed that has built up the new and large cities, one on the east and one on the west side of Manhattan Island, which before it went into operation were outlying districts, practically inaccessible to busy men for purposes of residence. It was on May 16, 1877, that Mr. Field made this entry in his diary:
“Bought this day a controlling interest in the New York Elevated Railroad Company and was elected president of the company.”
“Bought this day a controlling interest in the New York Elevated Railroad Company and was elected president of the company.”
CERTIFICATE OF DISCHARGECERTIFICATE OF DISCHARGE
Some of the conditions on which he had made this investment and venture are set forth in the following letter to his friend, Mr. John H. Hall:
“New York,14th May, 1877.“My dear Mr. Hall,—It is possible that I may purchase a majority of the stock of the Elevated Railroad, butbefore decidingI wish to ascertain whether, if I do, you will remain in the board with Mr. David Dows, myself, and some other gentlemen of character and financial strength, and also whether you will take bonds at sixty cents for the debt now due you. If I have anything to do with the company I want it free fromall floating debt, and everything purchased at the lowest price for cash.“Mr. Dows has told me this morning that he will remain in the board and will take bonds for the $25,000 due him, provided I make the purchase and accept the presidency of the company.“Will you have the kindness to see our mutual friend, Mr. A. S. Barnes, and ascertain whether he will take bonds for the debt due him and remain as a director. If I go into the concern I shall be willing to be president, butwithout salary, for the enterprise, to be a success, must be managed in every way with the greatest economy.“An early answer will oblige.“Very truly your friend,“Cyrus W. Field.”
“New York,14th May, 1877.
“My dear Mr. Hall,—It is possible that I may purchase a majority of the stock of the Elevated Railroad, butbefore decidingI wish to ascertain whether, if I do, you will remain in the board with Mr. David Dows, myself, and some other gentlemen of character and financial strength, and also whether you will take bonds at sixty cents for the debt now due you. If I have anything to do with the company I want it free fromall floating debt, and everything purchased at the lowest price for cash.
“Mr. Dows has told me this morning that he will remain in the board and will take bonds for the $25,000 due him, provided I make the purchase and accept the presidency of the company.
“Will you have the kindness to see our mutual friend, Mr. A. S. Barnes, and ascertain whether he will take bonds for the debt due him and remain as a director. If I go into the concern I shall be willing to be president, butwithout salary, for the enterprise, to be a success, must be managed in every way with the greatest economy.
“An early answer will oblige.“Very truly your friend,“Cyrus W. Field.”
His promptitude and energy are shown in the fact that on June 4th, less than three weeks after he took charge, a public meeting in favor of rapid transit was held.
“The Evening Post,“New York,June 4, 1877.“To Cyrus W. Field, Esq.:“I cannot be present at the meeting to be held this evening at Chickering Hall, but I am heartily with you and yourfriends in the object of the meeting. I hope that a decided expression will be given to the conviction that an absolute necessity has arisen of instituting some method of conveying passengers between the upper and lower parts of the city which shall unite the greatest convenience with the utmost possible speed.“Yours faithfully,“Wm. C. Bryant.”
“The Evening Post,“New York,June 4, 1877.
“To Cyrus W. Field, Esq.:
“I cannot be present at the meeting to be held this evening at Chickering Hall, but I am heartily with you and yourfriends in the object of the meeting. I hope that a decided expression will be given to the conviction that an absolute necessity has arisen of instituting some method of conveying passengers between the upper and lower parts of the city which shall unite the greatest convenience with the utmost possible speed.
“Yours faithfully,“Wm. C. Bryant.”
Mr. Charles O’Conor wrote on the same day to the chairman of the meeting:
“I much regret my inability to attend the meeting in favor of rapid transit, the state of my health not admitting of my doing so. I fully sympathize, however, with the objects sought to be obtained, and here repeat the remarks which I made in closing my address before the New York Historical Society at the Academy of Music on the 8th of last month:“ ‘It is said, and doubtless with truth, that the great cities have hitherto been destroyers of the human race. A single American contrivance promises to correct the mischief. The cheap and rapid transportation of passengers on the elevated rail, when its capacity shall have been fully developed, will give healthful and pleasant homes in rural territory to the toiling millions of our commercial and manufacturing centres. It will snatch their wives and children from tenement-house horrors, and, by promoting domesticity, greatly diminish the habits of intemperance and vice so liable to be forced upon the humbler classes or nurtured in them by the present concomitants of their city life.’ ”
“I much regret my inability to attend the meeting in favor of rapid transit, the state of my health not admitting of my doing so. I fully sympathize, however, with the objects sought to be obtained, and here repeat the remarks which I made in closing my address before the New York Historical Society at the Academy of Music on the 8th of last month:
“ ‘It is said, and doubtless with truth, that the great cities have hitherto been destroyers of the human race. A single American contrivance promises to correct the mischief. The cheap and rapid transportation of passengers on the elevated rail, when its capacity shall have been fully developed, will give healthful and pleasant homes in rural territory to the toiling millions of our commercial and manufacturing centres. It will snatch their wives and children from tenement-house horrors, and, by promoting domesticity, greatly diminish the habits of intemperance and vice so liable to be forced upon the humbler classes or nurtured in them by the present concomitants of their city life.’ ”
On the 26th of September of this year the new president wrote:
“I believe that the early completion of the New York Elevated Railroad from the South Ferry, passing Wall, Fulton and Catharine Street ferries up the Bowery and Third Avenue to the Grand Central Depot, will be a benefit to the three great railroads the trains of which start from the depot.”
“I believe that the early completion of the New York Elevated Railroad from the South Ferry, passing Wall, Fulton and Catharine Street ferries up the Bowery and Third Avenue to the Grand Central Depot, will be a benefit to the three great railroads the trains of which start from the depot.”
And on the 1st of November, 1878, he was able to report to the directors:
“It is not eighteen months since I purchased from some of your then directors a majority of the stock of your company at such a price that to-day it sells for more than five times as much as it cost me; and at the same time I bought from the same parties a very large amount of bonds, and to-day they sell for more than double what they cost me, including seven per cent. interest to date. The above stock and bonds I purchased on the express condition that the contracts of the company with certain parties to build this road for one million two hundred thousand dollars per mile ($1,200,000), payable one-half in stock and the balance in first mortgage bonds of this company at par, should be cancelled. The amount that has been saved to this company by the cancelling of this contract you all well know.”
“It is not eighteen months since I purchased from some of your then directors a majority of the stock of your company at such a price that to-day it sells for more than five times as much as it cost me; and at the same time I bought from the same parties a very large amount of bonds, and to-day they sell for more than double what they cost me, including seven per cent. interest to date. The above stock and bonds I purchased on the express condition that the contracts of the company with certain parties to build this road for one million two hundred thousand dollars per mile ($1,200,000), payable one-half in stock and the balance in first mortgage bonds of this company at par, should be cancelled. The amount that has been saved to this company by the cancelling of this contract you all well know.”
William O. McDowell, inHarper’s Magazinefor June, 1893, writes:
“At the time of the strike of the engineers on the elevated road in New York I had a part in bringing the representatives of the engineers and the late Cyrus W. Field, a director in the elevated company, to a meeting that resulted in a quick understanding between the conflicting interests and an ending of the strike. Mr. Field was so pleased with the fairness of the committee representing the engineers with whom he had to deal that he invited them at once to dine with him at Delmonico’s, an invitation which their representatives declined for them, fearing that its acceptance might be misunderstood. Mr. Field, however, continued to feel that he wished to extend some social courtesy to the employés of the elevated road, and at a later date, when he was all-powerful in that corporation, he issued a formal invitation to the employés to a reception at his house. To a large number the initials ‘R. S. V. P.’ on the lower corner of the invitation were a great mystery, and, as the story goes, the invited compared notes and sought an explanation of them. At last one bright young man announced that he had discovered what they meant, and he explained to the others that ‘R. S. V. P.’ stood for ‘Reduced salaries very probable.’ ”
“At the time of the strike of the engineers on the elevated road in New York I had a part in bringing the representatives of the engineers and the late Cyrus W. Field, a director in the elevated company, to a meeting that resulted in a quick understanding between the conflicting interests and an ending of the strike. Mr. Field was so pleased with the fairness of the committee representing the engineers with whom he had to deal that he invited them at once to dine with him at Delmonico’s, an invitation which their representatives declined for them, fearing that its acceptance might be misunderstood. Mr. Field, however, continued to feel that he wished to extend some social courtesy to the employés of the elevated road, and at a later date, when he was all-powerful in that corporation, he issued a formal invitation to the employés to a reception at his house. To a large number the initials ‘R. S. V. P.’ on the lower corner of the invitation were a great mystery, and, as the story goes, the invited compared notes and sought an explanation of them. At last one bright young man announced that he had discovered what they meant, and he explained to the others that ‘R. S. V. P.’ stood for ‘Reduced salaries very probable.’ ”
This story is true, but the end is not given. The men accepted the invitation, enjoyed their supper, and listened with great interest to a speech made byMr. Peter Cooper, which lasted over an hour. Mr. Cooper told the men of New York as it was in 1800, and the story of his life.
Dean Stanley preached in Calvary Church on Sunday evening, October 7, 1878. He came to Mr. Field’s home at Irvington the following morning. Soon after breakfast on Tuesday the family realized that their guest was more familiar with the history of this part of the country than they were. It was just above Tarrytown that Major André had been captured; he was executed across the river. That was enough to excite the curiosity of the visitors, and at dinner on Tuesday evening it was proposed to the dean that the next morning he should cross the river to Tappan and find the spot. This was not easily done; no one knew the exact place. There was Washington’s headquarters, and he had closed his shutters so as not to see André hanged, so that the scene of the execution must have been near that house. At last an old man of over ninety came and said that in 1821, when André’s body was removed to England, he had stood by and had seen the grave opened; and that the roots of an apple-tree, which he pointed out, were twisted about the head of the coffin. The drive had been so long that it was past three o’clock before the party returned; and not until dinner did they tell that their search had been successful. It was then that Mr. Field said: “Mr. Dean, if you will write an inscription I will buy the land and put up a stone, and then the place will be known.” His idea was simply to mark an event in the history of the country; but a part of the press insisted that an American had erected a monument to a British spy, andthis was reiterated far and wide, and flew from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Dean Stanley felt this keenly, and wrote:
“If you find that there is really a feeling against it, pray do not think of it. The game is not worth the candle. Poor Major André, engaging as he was, is not worth the rekindling forgotten animosities.”
“If you find that there is really a feeling against it, pray do not think of it. The game is not worth the candle. Poor Major André, engaging as he was, is not worth the rekindling forgotten animosities.”
The monument was twice injured by explosion of dynamite. After the second of these, on November 3, 1885, Mr. Field refused to replace the stone. He said that the spot was now sufficiently marked. On the stone were these words:
Here died, October 2, 1780,Major John André, of the British Army,Who, entering the American LinesOn a Secret Mission to Benedict Arnold,For the Surrender of West Point,Was taken Prisoner, tried, and condemned as a Spy.His Death,Though according to the stern code of war,Moved even his enemies to pity,And both armies mourned the fateOf one so young and so brave.In 1821 his remains were removed to Westminster Abbey.A hundred years after the executionThis stone was placed above the spot where he layBy a citizen of the United States, against which he fought,Not to perpetuate the record of strife,But in token of those better feelingsWhich have since united two nationsOne in race, in language, and one in religion,With the hope that this friendly unionWill never be broken.———Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, Dean of Westminster.
Here died, October 2, 1780,Major John André, of the British Army,Who, entering the American LinesOn a Secret Mission to Benedict Arnold,For the Surrender of West Point,Was taken Prisoner, tried, and condemned as a Spy.His Death,Though according to the stern code of war,Moved even his enemies to pity,And both armies mourned the fateOf one so young and so brave.In 1821 his remains were removed to Westminster Abbey.A hundred years after the executionThis stone was placed above the spot where he layBy a citizen of the United States, against which he fought,Not to perpetuate the record of strife,But in token of those better feelingsWhich have since united two nationsOne in race, in language, and one in religion,With the hope that this friendly unionWill never be broken.
———
Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, Dean of Westminster.
The twenty-fifth anniversary of the signing ofthe first cable contract was remembered on the evening of March 10, 1879. To use the words of the New YorkEvening Post:
“It was a notable anniversary which Mr. Cyrus W. Field celebrated last night, with the assistance of a multitude of his fellow-citizens, many of them eminent in various departments of public life. The obvious sentiment of the occasion, and the words with which everybody would describe it, are contained in the telegraphic message sent from Westminster Abbey by Dean Stanley, who calls it the ‘silver wedding of England and America,’ and says: ‘What God hath joined together let no man put asunder.’ The event which was commemorated is scarcely more remarkable than the rapid advance of all nineteenth century events which the recollection of this one suggests. It is only twenty-five years since a determined effort was made to realize what had been wildly dreamed of; it is considerably less than twenty-five years since the dream became a reality; yet already instantaneous communication between the Old World and the New has been consigned to the commonplace book of history. It has become one of those familiar things which we forget all about because they are familiar, but which are also indispensable, as we would be sharply reminded if we should lose them for a day, or an hour—things which are of the highest value, but of which it is hard to speak without talking platitudes. With this great event the names of Mr. Field and other men of business whose intelligence, liberality, and energy make the work of Morse and other men of science a practical triumph will be always and honorably associated.”
“It was a notable anniversary which Mr. Cyrus W. Field celebrated last night, with the assistance of a multitude of his fellow-citizens, many of them eminent in various departments of public life. The obvious sentiment of the occasion, and the words with which everybody would describe it, are contained in the telegraphic message sent from Westminster Abbey by Dean Stanley, who calls it the ‘silver wedding of England and America,’ and says: ‘What God hath joined together let no man put asunder.’ The event which was commemorated is scarcely more remarkable than the rapid advance of all nineteenth century events which the recollection of this one suggests. It is only twenty-five years since a determined effort was made to realize what had been wildly dreamed of; it is considerably less than twenty-five years since the dream became a reality; yet already instantaneous communication between the Old World and the New has been consigned to the commonplace book of history. It has become one of those familiar things which we forget all about because they are familiar, but which are also indispensable, as we would be sharply reminded if we should lose them for a day, or an hour—things which are of the highest value, but of which it is hard to speak without talking platitudes. With this great event the names of Mr. Field and other men of business whose intelligence, liberality, and energy make the work of Morse and other men of science a practical triumph will be always and honorably associated.”
A short extract is given from the speech of Rev. Dr. William Adams:
“I have no intention of saying a word in laudation of the Atlantic cable. The time for that has passed. ‘He is of age: ask him: he shall speak for himself.’ Though the ear catches no articulate words passing along its quivering strands, yet this polyglot interpreter is speaking now, with tongue of fire, beneath the astonished sea, in all the languages of the civilized world.”
“I have no intention of saying a word in laudation of the Atlantic cable. The time for that has passed. ‘He is of age: ask him: he shall speak for himself.’ Though the ear catches no articulate words passing along its quivering strands, yet this polyglot interpreter is speaking now, with tongue of fire, beneath the astonished sea, in all the languages of the civilized world.”