FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[113]Mr. Wilson communicated these facts to me at the time of their occurrence, and the correctness of this narrative has been confirmed by Major-General Grenville M. Dodge, who was then in close communication with both parties.

[113]Mr. Wilson communicated these facts to me at the time of their occurrence, and the correctness of this narrative has been confirmed by Major-General Grenville M. Dodge, who was then in close communication with both parties.

CAUSES OF DISCONTENT

It looks at this distance as though the Republican party was "going to the dogs"—which, I think, is as it should be. Like all parties that have an undisturbed power for a long time, it has become corrupt, and I believe that it is to-day the [most] corrupt and debauched political party that has ever existed.... I have made up my mind that when I return home I will no longer vote the Republican ticket, whatever else I may do.

So wrote James W. Grimes to Trumbull under date of Heidelberg, July 1, 1870. Grimes had had a stroke of paralysis while the impeachment trial was going on, but had rallied sufficiently to be carried into the Senate to vote not guilty on every article on which a vote was taken, and to give his reasons for doing so. He shortly afterwards resigned his seat, announced his retirement from public life, and went to Europe with his family. He was a native of the Granite State, a man of granite mould, of unblemished character, undaunted courage, keen discernment, and untiring industry. In Newspaper Row he was styled "Grimes the Sturdy"—a title bestowed upon him by Adams Sherman Hill, then on the Washington staff of the New YorkTribune, and later Professor of Rhetoric in Harvard University.

Grimes's estimate of the Republican party in 1870 was widely shared. Reconstruction, measured by the results of five years, was a failure, being a confused medley of ignorant negro voters, disfranchised whites, disreputable carpet-baggers, and corrupt legislatures. The civil service was honeycombed with whiskey rings, custom-house frauds, assessments on office-holders, nepotism,and general uncleanness. President Grant had transferred his army headquarters to the White House. When he wanted to have anything done in which he felt a deep interest, he chose an aide-de-camp for the purpose instead of a civilian, and he never dreamed that anybody would be surprised or vexed when he sent Major Babcock to San Domingo to negotiate a treaty for the purchase of that country for the sum of $1,500,000, without the knowledge of the Secretary of State or any member of the Cabinet. He called at Sumner's house to secure his support for the ratification of the treaty, found him dining with John W. Forney and Ben Perley Poore, and had a hasty talk with him about a treaty concerning San Domingo, no details being mentioned. He addressed Sumner as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to which he supposed it would be referred, and hoped Sumner would approve of the treaty. Sumner replied that he was an Administration man and that he would give very careful and candid consideration to anything which the President desired.

This was the beginning of an Iliad of woes. Grant understood Sumner's answer as a promise to support the treaty, whereas Sumner meant no more than his words signified, that he would consider it on its merits, but in a friendly spirit. It was not his custom to promise to support treaties before seeing them. When he came to consider this one, he found that he could not support it. Not only was Sumner's judgment adverse, but that of the press and other organs of public opinion was decidedly so. The treaty was rejected by a tie vote (two thirds being required to ratify). Grant put all the blame of rejection on Sumner. He thought that the latter had broken a promise and intentionally deceived him. He marked Sumner for destruction, and determined to havethe treaty ratified in spite of him, if possible. A commission of investigation had been authorized by Congress, after the rejection of the treaty, to visit San Domingo, and report upon the advisability of the purchase. This was by way of letting the President down easy rather than with any serious purpose of carrying out his wishes. The commission consisted of Benjamin F. Wade, Andrew D. White, and Samuel G. Howe. While it was at work steps were taken to reorganize the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Who prompted that movement was never divulged, but the attempt and its failure were narrated somewhat later by Senator Tipton, of Nebraska, in open Senate, without contradiction. Tipton said that at the beginning of the Third Session of the Forty-first Congress, a motion was made in the Republican Senate Caucus to depose Sumner from the chairmanship of the committee and to remove Schurz, of Missouri, and Patterson, of New Hampshire, from membership altogether.[114]All three had voted against San Domingo. The motion had been negatived at that time, but the purpose had not been abandoned.

The second vote on deposing Sumner took place in the Senate March 10, 1871, on a report made by Senator Howe, of Wisconsin, from the Republican Caucus, for the assignment of committees for the First Session of the Forty-second Congress. The Committee on Foreign Relations, as reported, had the name of Cameron as Chairman, and Sumner was not even a member of it. Then a debate began on the unusual step taken by the caucus committee in deposing Sumner, without his own consent, from a place which he had held acceptably during all the time that the Republicans had controlled theSenate. Wilson, Schurz, Logan, Tipton, and Trumbull spoke against the action of the Caucus Committee. Trumbull said:

I am not the special friend of the Senator from Massachusetts. He and I, during our long course of service here, have had occasion to differ, and differ, I am sorry to say, unpleasantly. But, sir, that will not prevent me from trying to do justice to the Senator from Massachusetts. I stood by him when he was stricken down in his seat by a hostile party, by the powers of slavery. I stand by him to-day when the blow comes, not from those who would perpetuate slavery and make a slave of every man that was for freedom, but comes from those who have been brought into power as much through the instrumentality of the Senator from Massachusetts as of any other individual in the country.But, sir, this question has been brought before us, and what shall we do? I tried to avoid it. I have appealed to my associates and I have said to them: "We are very much divided;" I say to them now: "We are very much divided." A few votes one way or the other constitute the majority in the Republican party; now is it desirable, is it best, to force such a change with such an opposition as has manifested itself here? What is to be gained by it? I will not undertake to warn the Republican party of the consequences.... I would that this debate had not occurred, that we could have paused at the outset when we saw this difference of opinion, and that there could have been some concession even to those in the minority which would have avoided this state of things.

But, sir, this question has been brought before us, and what shall we do? I tried to avoid it. I have appealed to my associates and I have said to them: "We are very much divided;" I say to them now: "We are very much divided." A few votes one way or the other constitute the majority in the Republican party; now is it desirable, is it best, to force such a change with such an opposition as has manifested itself here? What is to be gained by it? I will not undertake to warn the Republican party of the consequences.... I would that this debate had not occurred, that we could have paused at the outset when we saw this difference of opinion, and that there could have been some concession even to those in the minority which would have avoided this state of things.

Senator Sherman deprecated the action of the majority. He regarded the change "unjustifiable, impolitic, and unnecessary," yet he offered Sumner advice, like that of a doctor to a child respecting a dose of castor oil—to throw his head back and take it off quick, because it would do him good, thus:

Therefore, while I feel bound to utter my opinion that this is an unwise proceeding, made without sufficient cause, yet in my judgment it ought not to be debated here. It is settled; and ifmy honorable friend from Massachusetts, the senior senator in this body, wishes to add another good work in his services to his country, in his services to the Republican party, he cannot do better than rise in his place and say that, if for any reason, whether sufficient or insufficient, a majority of his political associates think it better for him to retire from this position, he yields gracefully to their wish; and I tell him that a new chaplet will crown his brow, and when his memoirs are written this will be regarded as one of the proudest opportunities of his life.[115]

Tipton let the cat out of the bag again by reading from some notes he had made of the proceedings of the caucus of the previous day. He said that Senator Howe in the caucus had defended the action of the committee in displacing Sumner, on the ground that the Committee on Foreign Relations was not in harmony with the Senate on the subject of San Domingo, and that in order to correct this disagreement a change was necessary; whereas Mr. Howe, and all the others who were for displacing Sumner, now contended that San Domingo had nothing to do with it. Tipton begged leave to say also that Howe was wrong in his contention that the Committee on Foreign Relations was not in harmony with the Senate, the vote on the treaty having been 28 to 28 (a tie vote operated as a negative). In other words, the Senate had sustained the committee, and there was no disagreement to be rectified.

Thereupon Sherman called Tipton to order for divulging the secrets of the caucus, and Tipton replied that he had read all the proceedings of the caucus in the morning papers, including the names of the Senators in the call of the yeas and nays, 26 to 21, and that there was only one error in the whole report and that a trifling one. Sherman retorted that perhaps Tipton had furnished the report to the newspapers, but the latter denied it. Sherman then insisted that the newspaper report carried no weight unless confirmed by a Senator. He made the charge also that Tipton had been guilty of divulging the vote on the treaty, taken in executive session. To this charge Tipton could make no defense, but he contended that it had done no harm. The discussion was continued till a late hour, the report of the Caucus Committee being supported in debate chiefly by Edmunds and Morton. The latter affirmed that San Domingo did not enter into the question of displacing Sumner now—implying that it might have been the bone of contention earlier. Morton's statement was technically true. The original disagreement between Sumner and the President had been so overlaid with fresh material that it was now relatively unimportant. Moreover, the Senate had no intention of ratifying the annexation treaty even if the Benjamin Wade Commission should so recommend—as it did. Morton himself had no such intention.

I happened to be in Washington at this juncture and was dining with the late Senator Allison (then a member of the House), on the evening before the report was presented. He informed me of the posture of affairs, said that Sumner was to be deposed, and that Senator Howe had been designated to report a resolution to that effect. He regarded the situation as fraught with peril to the Republican party. I suggested that he and I should call upon Senator Howe and endeavor to prevent or perhaps delay the proposed step. Allison assented. So we went to Howe's apartments, found him at home and alone, and we labored with him till past midnight, seeking in a friendly way to change his purpose, but without avail. He could not be moved. While we were returning, Allison said that Grant must have played his last trump to break the custom of the majority in the Senate, never todisplace a member without his own consent. After the deed was done, I called upon Sumner and had a conversation with him on the subject. He said that the most puzzling thing to him was the part taken by Senator Anthony, of Rhode Island, in the affair. Anthony was chairman of the caucus. He appointed the Committee on Committees. Anthony was his friend, a very close friend. He ought to have known beforehand the purposes of the majority, especially since an attempt to displace him had been made at the previous session. Was Anthony himself deceived, or was he a party to the transaction? That was the puzzling question.

When the vote was taken on Howe's report, it was adopted by a large majority. The dissentients withheld their votes, as they did not choose to bolt the decision of the caucus when bolting could accomplish nothing. The result was a fresh grievance added to the growing stock of discontent.

The President's first blow at Sumner had been the removal of his friend Motley from the position of Minister to England. A request for Motley's resignation was sent on July 1, 1870, but he did not comply with it. In the mean time the position was offered to Trumbull in the following letter:[116]

Department of State, Washington,Confidential.Garrisons, August 5th, 1870.My dear Judge,The President desires me to ask if it will be agreeable to you to accept the Mission to London; if so, he is desirous of securing to the country the value of your important service and your experience and ability. I hope most sincerely that it will meet your views to accept this Mission, now more than before important. The events now happening and threatening in Europe require the presence in London of a representative of ability, of firmness, of learning, and of calm self-possession—and your exceptional possession of these requisites has led to the very strong desire of the President and myself that you would undertake the duties of the position. I do not know that we are on the eve of the settlement of our questions with Great Britain, but there are reasons to justify the hope thatvery importantquestions may be adjusted within the term of whoever may succeed Mr. Motley. The complications of European politics are favorable and add to the evident desire of the British Ministry to dispose of all questions between the two countries. Can you come here and pass a day with me? I can tell more than I can write. I sincerely hope that you can give a favorable answer; for reasons which you will understand the President desires that this communication be consideredconfidential, at least for the present. Please let me have your answer as soon as you conveniently can.Very faithfully yours,Hon. Lyman Trumbull,Hamilton Fish.U.S. Senator,Kingston, Ulster Co., N. Y.

Department of State, Washington,Confidential.Garrisons, August 5th, 1870.My dear Judge,

The President desires me to ask if it will be agreeable to you to accept the Mission to London; if so, he is desirous of securing to the country the value of your important service and your experience and ability. I hope most sincerely that it will meet your views to accept this Mission, now more than before important. The events now happening and threatening in Europe require the presence in London of a representative of ability, of firmness, of learning, and of calm self-possession—and your exceptional possession of these requisites has led to the very strong desire of the President and myself that you would undertake the duties of the position. I do not know that we are on the eve of the settlement of our questions with Great Britain, but there are reasons to justify the hope thatvery importantquestions may be adjusted within the term of whoever may succeed Mr. Motley. The complications of European politics are favorable and add to the evident desire of the British Ministry to dispose of all questions between the two countries. Can you come here and pass a day with me? I can tell more than I can write. I sincerely hope that you can give a favorable answer; for reasons which you will understand the President desires that this communication be consideredconfidential, at least for the present. Please let me have your answer as soon as you conveniently can.

Very faithfully yours,Hon. Lyman Trumbull,Hamilton Fish.U.S. Senator,Kingston, Ulster Co., N. Y.

No written answer to this letter has been found. A verbal one was given at the interview which Mr. Fish invited. Trumbull declined the appointment because he preferred to remain a Senator rather than to be a diplomat. Probably he became acquainted at this time with Secretary Fish's intention to move for a settlement of our differences with Great Britain: for in a speech made at Chicago on the 2d of November following, on "Coming Issues," he discussed the subject of our claims against that country at considerable length. In this speech he maintained that we could justly ask for payment of the losses sustained by the depredations of the Alabama and other British-built cruisers, and that we had a still deeper grievance, although one not computable in dollars and cents, growing out of the demand made upon us for thesurrender of the rebel envoys, Mason and Slidell, who were captured on board the steamship Trent at the beginning of the Civil War. He showed by the established rules of international law, affirmed by British precedents and practice, that persons, papers, and materials in the enemy's service were alike contraband and subject to capture in neutral vessels on the high seas.[117]

Another "coming issue" referred to in this speech was the endeavor to break up and abolish the iniquitous system by which the appointment of thirty-five thousand officers and clerks of the National Government was made part of the patronage of politicians; and to carry out the principles of civil service reform in which these appointments should be made after competitive examinations so as to secure officers of "the highest fitness, honesty, and capacity." In his argument in favor of this reform he instanced the experience of General J. D. Cox, Secretary of the Interior, who had found it necessary to resign his office because he could not purge his own department of spoilsmen and incompetents foisted upon him by Senators and Representatives. Cox's resignation had caused intense indignation when the reasons for it leaked out. President Grant had pledged himself to the reform of the civil service and had appointed a competent commission to carry on the work, and was really desirous that itshould succeed, but he was not willing to fight for it. So when Congressmen fought against it he yielded and put the blame upon them. And the last state of it was worse than the first. "No point in Trumbull's speech," says the newspaper account of it, "was more significant than his endorsement of Secretary Cox's civil service reform, and the enthusiastic cheering with which the large audience unanimously greeted this endorsement."

Attorney-General Hoar had retired from public life some months earlier and for much the same reason. He had made several selections to fill vacancies on the bench of the Circuit Court with an eye single to the character and legal attainments of the judges, and had thereby incurred the enmity of most of the Republican Senators, who wanted to dictate the appointments. It happened at this time that the President was trying to win support for the San Domingo Treaty, and he found, or supposed, that the votes of certain carpet-bag Senators could be obtained if he would give them a member of the Cabinet. In order to create a vacancy he nominated Attorney-General Hoar as a justice of the Supreme Court. The nomination was referred to the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, consisting of Trumbull, Edmunds, Conkling, Carpenter, Stewart, Rice (of Arkansas), and Thurman. Six of these voted against Hoar. The only affirmative vote was that of Trumbull.[118]

After Hoar was rejected, the President asked for his resignation as Attorney-General without assigning any reason therefor, and when it was handed to him he appointed an obscure but respectable lawyer from Georgia of the name of Akerman as Attorney-General, to please the carpet-baggers; but this move did not secure a sufficient number of votes to ratify the treaty, nor was it ever ratified.

FOOTNOTES:[114]Cong. Globe, March 10, 1871, p. 48.[115]Cong. Globe, 1871, p. 51.[116]E. L. Pierce, in hisLife of Sumner, says that the position was first offered to Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, and that he was confirmed by the Senate on the last day of the session. Evidently he did not accept it.[117]Mr. Charles F. Adams has shown in a recent essay that the British Ministry were perfectly aware that the capture of Mason and Slidell was justifiable by British custom and precedent, but that public opinion was so inflamed on the subject that they were swept off their feet, and could not have faced Parliament an hour if they had not demanded the surrender of the prisoners. On the other hand, our practice and precedents were directly opposite. The American doctrine was "free ships make free goods" anda fortiorifree persons, but so inflamed was public opinion on this side of the water that the British demand for the surrender of the prisoners would have been refused even at the risk of war, if we had not had one war on hand already. Both nations "flopped" simultaneously.The Trent Affair—an Historical Retrospect.By Charles Francis Adams. Boston, 1912.[118]Washington letter in theNation, January 6, 1870.

[114]Cong. Globe, March 10, 1871, p. 48.

[115]Cong. Globe, 1871, p. 51.

[116]E. L. Pierce, in hisLife of Sumner, says that the position was first offered to Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, and that he was confirmed by the Senate on the last day of the session. Evidently he did not accept it.

[117]Mr. Charles F. Adams has shown in a recent essay that the British Ministry were perfectly aware that the capture of Mason and Slidell was justifiable by British custom and precedent, but that public opinion was so inflamed on the subject that they were swept off their feet, and could not have faced Parliament an hour if they had not demanded the surrender of the prisoners. On the other hand, our practice and precedents were directly opposite. The American doctrine was "free ships make free goods" anda fortiorifree persons, but so inflamed was public opinion on this side of the water that the British demand for the surrender of the prisoners would have been refused even at the risk of war, if we had not had one war on hand already. Both nations "flopped" simultaneously.The Trent Affair—an Historical Retrospect.By Charles Francis Adams. Boston, 1912.

[118]Washington letter in theNation, January 6, 1870.

THE LIBERAL REPUBLICANS

The Liberal Republican movement of 1872 took its start in Missouri. During the war between the states, Missouri had been a prey to a real civil war, in which much blood had been spilled, and where churches, communities, and particular families had been torn asunder. In the agricultural districts and small towns, which were nine tenths of the whole, nobody, whether Secessionist, or Unionist, or neutral, could feel certain, when he went to bed, whether he should sleep till morning, or be awakened after midnight by a guerilla raid or a burning roof. The contending forces were not unequally divided. The Confederates were the stronger half in wealth and influence, although not in numbers, but the proximity of the Federal armies and their actual occupation of the soil gave a preponderance to the Unionists and strangled secession in its infancy. When the war came to an end, all the heart-burning that it had engendered was still raging. Not only were the Republicans in power, but the most radical of them had control within the party. Lincoln was not sufficiently advanced for them. They had refused to vote for his renomination in the Convention of 1864.

In the state constitution, adopted in 1865, disfranchisement and test oaths abounded. In the succeeding four years there had been a gradual slackening of recrimination and intestine strife; and a line of cleavage broke in the Republican ranks in 1869 which resulted in the election of General Carl Schurz as United States Senator, on the issue of reënfranchisement of the ex-rebels. The leaderof the "party of eternal hate," as it was styled by its opponents, was Charles D. Drake, his colleague in the Senate. The seat taken by Schurz was that formerly held by John B. Henderson, who had lost it by his vote against impeachment.

Schurz was a torch-bearer wherever he went, and his entry into the Senate gave a new impetus to the party of peace and amnesty not only in his own state, but throughout the country. In the autumn of 1870 a battle royal was fought in Missouri, beginning in the Republican state convention, which was split on the issue of reënfranchisement. The Liberals, under the lead of Schurz, nominated a full state ticket with B. Gratz Brown for governor. The radicals nominated Joseph McClurg for governor and a full ticket. The Democrats made no nominations, but supported the Liberal nominees. The election resulted in a sweeping victory for the Liberals. The platform on which Brown was chosen declared that the time had come "for removing all disqualifications from the disfranchised people of Missouri and conferring equal political rights and privileges on all classes." The other platform favored reënfranchisement "as soon as it could be done with safety to the state."

Both sections adopted a resolution saying: "We are opposed to any system of taxation which will tend to the creation of monopolies and benefit one industry at the expense of another." This was interpreted by theMissouri Democrat, the leading Republican newspaper of the state, as an anti-tariff deliverance. Its editor, Colonel William M. Grosvenor, was a party organizer of keen intelligence and tireless activity, as effective in his own field as Schurz was in his. He was a free-trader, and he gave the first impulse which brought the revenue reformers of that period as a distinctive element into theLiberal movement. The only organization then existing which offered any resistance to the demands of the protected classes was the New York Free-Trade League, of which Mahlon Sands was secretary. On the 10th of November, Sands sent out an invitation to persons whom he took to be like-minded with himself, including Carl Schurz, David A. Wells, Jacob D. Cox, William Cullen Bryant, E. L. Godkin, Charles F. Adams, Jr., General Brinkerhoff, Edward Atkinson, and others to a conference to be held in New York on the 22d of that month. The declared object of this meeting was "to determine whether an effort may not, with advantage, be made to control the new House of Representatives by a union of Western Revenue Reform Republicans with Democrats." The meeting took place at the date mentioned and received the following notice in theNationof December 1:

There has been a good deal of activity among the Revenue reformers during the week. On the 23d ult. they held a private meeting in this city, which was attended by Mr. D. A. Wells, Mr. George Walker, Mr. Horace White, of the ChicagoTribune, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Bowles, of the SpringfieldRepublican, and others, and at which, after a good deal of talk, the conclusion was reached that things were looking very well; that the legislative debates of the coming winter would, under the influence of the late elections, probably do a great deal to educate the public and prepare the monopolists and jobbers for what is certainly coming; and that the question of civil service reform was closely connected with that of the reform of the revenue, and ought to be discussed and pushed with it; and it was resolved finally to charge a committee with the work of looking after the interest of both in a general way during the winter, with power to make arrangements for the calling of a national convention in the spring, in case the course of Congress proved unsatisfactory. The usual distribution of "British gold" did not take place, it must be confessed to the regret of all present. Indeed, the desire for it, and as much of it as possible, was avowed with the greatest effrontery. The open display of suchfeelings at a reform meeting was a curious sign of the times. Why the British should have cut off the supply was not explained, but we presume they were unable to withstand the repeated exposures in theTribune, which have doubtless made Minister Thornton wince a little.

The Speaker of the House, James G. Blaine, got wind of the Sands circular and sought an interview with myself, coming to Chicago for that purpose. He said that he recognized the drift of public sentiment on the tariff question, that he desired to avert anything like a split in the Republican ranks, and that he intended to give the tariff reformers a majority of the Committee on Ways and Means in the new Congress. He submitted that they could not gain more than that by a fight, and that it was the part of wisdom to be satisfied with that. He said that he would allow us to name two Republican members who, in conjunction with the Democrats, would constitute a majority. I reported this fact to the members of the New York Conference and it was agreed that no other steps should be taken in reference to the organization of the House. G. A. Finkelnburg, of Missouri, and H. C. Burchard, of Illinois, were selected as our preference for membership of the committee. The names were communicated to Blaine and they were appointed by him. He even went beyond his promise by prompting his friends on the floor to favor tariff reform. Eugene Hale, of Maine, was especially zealous in this behalf. He introduced a bill to make salt free of duty, and accepted an amendment putting coal in the same category and advocated it with earnestness and ability and carried it through the House, but it was strangled in the Senate. Dawes, of Massachusetts, a protectionist, was made chairman, but the majority of the committee was against him. Protection, at that time, meant the highest rate ofduty on imports that anybody desired, and free trade meant any opposition to protection as thus interpreted. These definitions are not wholly obsolete at the present day.

In the eyes of President Grant the Liberal movement in Missouri was something in the nature of a new rebellion, and most of the Republican politicians shared his views. The necessity of keeping the party in power by fair means or foul had become a kind of religious tenet. The spectre of a solid South and a divided North had been terrifying from the start. What would happen if the example of Missouri should overspread all of the reconstructed states? Seymour had carried New York and New Jersey in the last election. The solid South added to these would have made him President of the United States. No wonder that such Senators as Morton, Chandler, Conkling, and the Southern carpet-baggers, at the opening of Congress in December, 1870, gave a chilling reception to all who had taken part in the Liberal campaign of Missouri, or who sympathized with it. Anything in the nature of investigation of frauds, or of reform in the civil service, was frowned upon by them. All who favored such steps were accused of seeking to split the party and build a new one upon its ruins. This was a false accusation. The Administration could have averted the coming revolt by removing its causes. TheNationof December 8, 1870, said with truth:

What has been taken for a desire or design to found a new party has been simply a design to make the old party attend to the proper business of the party in power, by legislating for the necessities of the time. There is a strong disposition on the part of the old hacks not to do this, but to go on infusing "economy and efficiency in the collection of the revenue," and nothing would please them better than that those who are not satisfied with this should take themselves off and try to establish a little concern of their own, and give no further trouble. We believe the intention of the malcontents, however, is, and always has been, to stay where they are and give all the trouble they can. Whenever the time comes to establish a new party, it will make its appearance, whether anybody charges himself with the special work of getting it up or not.

Among the sources of discontent disfranchisement was the most pressing, since it was believed to be the chief cause of the shocking conditions in the South. Other things could wait. This was the "house-on-fire"; it must be put out at once. The Liberals said that universal amnesty with impartial suffrage was the true cure. The ruling powers at Washington maintained that the Southern whites were still rebellious and that a new law, backed by adequate military power, was needed to deal with the Ku-Klux Klans, which were terrorizing the blacks in order to prevent them from voting. The President sent a special message of twenty lines to Congress on March 23, calling attention to this condition of affairs and recommending some action, he did not say what. The brevity and indecision of it betokened reluctance on his part to send any message at all. Congress, however, took the subject in earnest and passed the Ku-Klux Bill of 1871, which authorized suspension of the writ ofhabeas corpusand the employment of military force in dealing with the Ku-Klux outrages. Trumbull and Schurz opposed the bill by speech and by vote, the former on the ground of unconstitutionality, the latter chiefly on the ground of impolicy, although he also considered it unconstitutional. Trumbull contended that the Constitution never contemplated that the ordinary administration of criminal law in the states should be in the hands of the Federal Government and that the Fourteenth Amendment did not change the lodgment of that power from the state tothe federal authorities. He did not make a set speech on the bill, but in an impromptu debate he said:

Show me that it is necessary to exercise any power belonging to the Government of the United States in order to maintain its authority and I am ready to put it forth. But, sir, I am not willing to undertake to enter the states for the purpose of punishing individual offences against their authority committed by one citizen against another. We, in my judgment, have no constitutional authority to do that. When this Government was formed, the general rights of person and property were left to be protected by the states and there they are left to-day. Whenever the rights that are conferred by the Constitution of the United States on the Federal Government are infringed upon by the states, we should afford a remedy.... If the Federal Government takes to itself the entire protection of the individual in his rights of person and property what is the need of the State Governments? It would be a change in our form of Government and an unwise one, in my judgment, because I believe that the rights of the people, the liberties of the people, the rights of the individual, are safest among the people themselves, and not in a central government extending over a vast region of country. I think that the nearer you can bring the administration of justice between man and man to the people themselves, the safer the people will be in their rights of person and property.[119]

He objected also to the clause of the bill authorizing the President to suspend the writ ofhabeas corpus, as in conflict with the clause of the Constitution which limits suspension to cases of invasion or rebellion where the public safety requires it. There was no present invasion to justify it and no rebellion in the proper definition of that term. He quoted authorities showing that rebellion meant an armed uprising against the Government, such as existed in 1861 and continued till the end of the war. No such condition existed now.

Schurz's speech, delivered on the 14th of April, was a masterpiece of political philosophy, not inferior to anything in the orations of Edmund Burke. It was a plea for the abrogation of all political disabilities. It occupies three pages of theCongressional Globe. Among other things he said:

On the whole, sir, let us not indulge in the delusion that we can eradicate all the disorders that exist in the South by means of laws and by the application of penal statutes. Laws are apt to be especially inefficacious when their constitutionality is, with a show of reason, doubted, and when they have the smell of partisanship about them; and however pure your intentions may be (and I know they are), in that light a law like this, unless greatly modified, will appear suspicious. If we want to produce enduring effects there, our remedies must go to the root of the evil; and in order to do that, they must operate upon public sentiment in the South. I admit that in that respect the principal thing cannot be done by us: it must be done by the Southern people themselves. But at any rate, we can in a great measure facilitate it.[120]

Edmunds and Carpenter, of the Judiciary Committee, held that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution gave power to the federal authorities to enforce the ordinary criminal law as between persons in the states. Some years later a case, arising under this Ku-Klux Law in Tennessee, reached the Supreme Court, where it was pronounced unconstitutional and void. The court held that the three latest amendments of the Constitution prohibited the states from discriminating against citizens on account of race or color, but did not change the administration of the criminal law in the states. That jurisdiction remained with the states exclusively. Here Trumbull's position was sustained almost in his own words.[121]

While the Ku-Klux Act was doing its work in South Carolina under suspension of thehabeas corpus, the Senate on December 20, 1871, took up a bill which had passed the House by more than two-thirds majority to remove the legal and political disabilities imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment, except in a few cases. Sumner moved as an amendment a bill which he had previously offered as a separate measure, that all citizens, without distinction of race or color, should have equal rights in steamboats, railway cars, hotels, theatres, churches, jury service, common schools, colleges, and cemeteries, whether under federal or State authority. Trumbull, and the two Senators from South Carolina, besought him not to encumber the Amnesty Bill, which required a two-thirds vote, with the Equal Rights Bill which required only a majority, since they believed that both could be passed separately, but that if his bill were tacked upon the Amnesty Bill, both would fail. Sumner insisted upon his amendment, and a vote was taken on it, February 9, resulting in a tie (Trumbull and Schurz voting in the negative), whereupon the Vice-President (Colfax) voted in the affirmative. The Sumner amendment having been adopted, all the Democrats turned against the bill and it was lost by 33 to 19, not two thirds.

A second attempt, beginning in the House, had the same result. When the bill was taken up in the Senate Sumner again moved his Equal Rights Bill as an amendment, and it was again adopted by the casting vote of the Vice-President, and then the whole was lost by 32 to 22.

In the mean time the Liberal Republican Convention had met at Cincinnati and adopted a platform very emphatic on the subject of amnesty. A sudden change came over the spirit of the regulars. The Amnesty Bill was reintroduced in the House by General Butler, May13, and passed the same day without debate. It was taken up in the Senate, May 21. Sumner's Equal Rights Bill, when offered in a modified form as an amendment, was rejected by 11 to 81, and the bill was passed the same day by 38 to 2, the negatives being Sumner and Nye.

FOOTNOTES:[119]Cong. Globe, 1871, pp. 578-79.[120]Cong. Globe, 1871, p. 688.[121]United Statesv.Harris, 106 U.S. 629.

[119]Cong. Globe, 1871, pp. 578-79.

[120]Cong. Globe, 1871, p. 688.

[121]United Statesv.Harris, 106 U.S. 629.

GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION

The demerits of the first Grant Administration were the principal cause of the Liberal uprising of 1872. They were enumerated in detail by Charles Sumner in open Senate, on May 31 of that year. They need not be reiterated here. I have no inclination to rake over the ashes of a dead controversy or to detract from the fame of one who rendered inestimable service to the nation in its greatest crisis, without which all other service might have been unavailing. At the same time, the thread of this narrative requires some notice of the stings planted in the minds of sensitive persons, who were not seeking office, by the man who was then the nation's head.

Grant's shortcomings in civil station were such as might have been expected from one who was suddenly charged with vast responsibilities without his own solicitation or desire and without any previous experience or training for them. His most striking characteristic was tenacity. Whether on the right track or on the wrong, he was deaf and blind to obstacles and opposition, because there was resistance to be overcome. This quality was reflected in his determination "never to desert a friend under fire"—a maxim more generous than wise, fitter for the field than for the forum, and which in his last days brought misfortunes to his own door which were lamented by everybody.

The Republican politicians nominated him for President, not because they deemed him qualified for the position, but because of his military renown. He was electedat a time when military habits and modes of thought were the worst possible equipment for the solution of political problems. Nevertheless, he rendered great service on two occasions—in the settlement of the Alabama Claims and by vetoing the Currency Inflation Bill. In both these cases he was much indebted to Hamilton Fish, his Secretary of State, but the credit is justly his own and the fame thereof will outlast all the scandals that arose from his confidence in, and association with, such characters as Orville Babcock, John McDonald, Ben Butler, W. W. Belknap, and Tom Murphy.

The rottenness of the New York Custom-House was a crying evil before Grant became President, and its flavor was not improved by the appointment of Murphy as its chief officer. It was crammed with men who "had to be taken care of," whose work was not needed by the Government, and who were incompetent even if it had been needed—small politicians, district leaders and "heelers," who were useful in carrying primaries and getting delegates elected to conventions. A Joint Committee on Retrenchment, organized as early as 1866 and kept alive by every subsequent Congress, had been investigating frauds and abuses in various quarters. Its chairman, Senator Patterson, of New Hampshire, made a report early in 1871 containing many interesting disclosures.

On December 11, Senator Conkling offered a resolution directing the Committee on Military Affairs to inquire into the defalcation of an army paymaster named Hodge. Trumbull moved as an amendment that the Joint Committee on Retrenchment be reconstituted and instructed to make a general investigation of the waste and loss of money in the public service. A debate sprang up on the proposed amendment, which continued for a week and aroused keen interest throughout the country.Wilson, the chairman of the Military Committee, sustained the amendment, saying that the Hodge case did not appertain to military matters, but to finance, to the handling of public money. Sumner took the same view. Chandler objected to a joint committee with power to investigate all the executive departments. He preferred to have each department investigated by a separate committee, if it needed investigation. In the course of the debate extracts were read from the Patterson Report, together with the testimony of witnesses. Weighers in the custom-house testified that men were sent to them by the collector as assistants for whom there was no work to do. They were simply put on the pay-roll and did nothing but draw their salaries. In the weighers' department alone $50,000 per year was thus squandered. Collector Murphy was quoted as saying, in answer to a remonstrance about unnecessary help in the custom-house, "There were certain people who had to be taken care of: it was well known that they had to be taken care of, and nobody in the party would say anything about his taking care of them, and he would do it."[122]

Trumbull said that he did not denounce officers of the Government indiscriminately. He merely wished to have some system introduced by which appointments should be made with regard to the fitness of the appointees and the need of their services. As the debate enlarged, a line of cleavage was disclosed among Senators similar to that which occurred on the deposition of Sumner; Morton, Conkling, Chandler, Edmunds, and Sherman opposing, and Schurz, Sumner, Logan, Tipton, and Wilson supporting, the Trumbull amendment. Finally the Republican Senatorial Caucus took the matter in hand and adopted a substitute to the Trumbull Resolution, whichwas offered in the Senate by Anthony and adopted by 29 to 18. It provided for a select committee to investigate only such subjects as the Senate should designate.

One of the things stumbled on by the Patterson Committee was the "general order" system in the New York Custom-House, which led up to the Leet and Stocking scandal, one of the most exasperating incidents of the Grant régime. Leet had been a member of General Grant's staff. The Patterson Committee found that he was enjoying the rank and pay of a colonel in the army, and also of a clerk in the War Department, and was receiving an additional income, estimated at $50,000 per year, for the warehousing of imported goods in New York, without the expenditure of any labor or capital of his own and without even his personal presence in New York, he being a resident of Washington City. All goods arriving by the Cunard and Bremen lines were sent by the collector's order to the Leet and Stocking warehouse, and were required to pay one month's storage whether they remained there a month or only a day, the cost being not less than $1.50 per package. This "general order" system had been devised before the Republican party came into power. It was flourishing in 1862.[123]Collector Grinnell, Grant's first appointee to that position, found it in force when he came into office. Before it was devised the arriving goods had been stored temporarily in warehouses belonging to the steamship companies, adjacent to the docks, without cost to the owners.

When the Patterson Committee made this discovery they reported the facts personally to the Secretary of the Treasury (Boutwell), who appointed a board of three officers of the department to make an independent investigation. This board made a report sustaining the findings of the Patterson Committee. Boutwell thereupon wrote to Collector Murphy, who had succeeded Grinnell as collector, advising him to discontinue the "general order" system altogether and go back to the old system, no good reasons for the former change, but many objections to it, having been found. Months passed after Boutwell's letter was sent, but the "general order" system was still flourishing and the coffers of Leet and Stocking were still receiving an income, at least double that of the President of the United States, as a reward for putting an obstruction in the pathway of lawful commerce. A. T. Stewart, Grant's first choice for Secretary of the Treasury, testified that the "general order" system was a damage to honest traffic and a general nuisance. William E. Dodge testified that he had been compelled by it to curtail his imports at New York and to use other ports of entry to avoid the delays and exactions of the "general order" system.

The indifference of the only man higher up than Secretary Boutwell—the only man who had power to remove Collector Murphy or to choke off Leet—was incomprehensible. Schurz made comments on the case which the Administration Senators could not answer and dared not leave unanswered. On the 18th of December, Conkling introduced a resolution directing the Committee on Investigation and Retrenchment to make an inquiry into the Leet and Stocking scandal. This resolution was preceded by a preamble quoting the words of Schurz as a reason for making the inquiry, in the following form:

Whereas it has been declared in the Senate that at the port of New York there exists and is maintained by officers of the United States under the name of the "General Order business" a monstrous abuse fraudulent in character, and whereas the following statement has been made by a Senator: "It was intimated by some of the witnesses that Mr. Leet, who pockets the enormous profits arising from that business, had some connection with the White House; but General Porter was examined, Mr. Leet himself was examined, and they both testified that it was not so, and, counting the number of witnesses, we have no right to form a different conclusion. But the fact remains that this scandalous system of robbery is sustained—is sustained against the voice of the merchants of New York—is sustained against the judgment and the voice of the Secretary of the Treasury himself. I ask you how is it sustained? Where and what is the mysterious power that sustains it? The conclusion is inevitable that it is stronger than decent respect for public opinion, nay, a power stronger than the Secretary of the Treasury himself":Therefore resolved, that the Committee of Investigation and Retrenchment be instructed to inquire into the matter fully and at large, and particularly whether any collusion or improper connection with said business exists on the part of any officer of the United States, and that said committee further inquire whether any person holding office in the custom-house at New York has been detected or is known or believed by his superior officer to have been guilty of bribery or of taking bribes or of other crime or misdemeanor, and said committee is hereby empowered to send for persons and papers.

Therefore resolved, that the Committee of Investigation and Retrenchment be instructed to inquire into the matter fully and at large, and particularly whether any collusion or improper connection with said business exists on the part of any officer of the United States, and that said committee further inquire whether any person holding office in the custom-house at New York has been detected or is known or believed by his superior officer to have been guilty of bribery or of taking bribes or of other crime or misdemeanor, and said committee is hereby empowered to send for persons and papers.

The Committee of Investigation and Retrenchment had not been appointed when Conkling offered this resolution. It had been agreed upon in the Republican Caucus, but had not been reported to the Senate. Senator Anthony immediately reported the names: Buckingham (Connecticut), Pratt (Indiana), Howe (Wisconsin), Harlan (Iowa), Stewart (Nevada), Pool (North Carolina), Bayard (Delaware). Sumner expressed mild surprise that no Senator who had favored an investigation of the New York Custom-House, or of frauds in general, was a member of the committee, unless Bayard (Democrat) might be counted as such. He quoted from Jefferson's "Manual of Parliamentary Law" to show that the proper course was to give the leading place in such a committeeto the prime mover of it, who was, in this case, undoubtedly Trumbull, but that nobody who had shown any interest in the matter to be investigated, not even the Senator from New Hampshire (Patterson), whose investigation of the previous session had uncovered the alleged frauds, and whose familiarity with the case would be most useful now, had any place on it. Anthony contended that inasmuch as all the Senators had voted to raise the Committee, the vote having been unanimous, all the requirements of parliamentary law were satisfied by the appointment of the seven Senators named, or any other seven. Thurman, of Ohio, thought that Anthony was "sticking in the bark" and not reaching the sound wood of the tree. Considerable time was spent in the debate on the composition of the committee, but in the end the list reported by Anthony was adopted, as was Conkling's resolution, with its bulky preamble. The preamble was doubtless intended to convince Grant that Schurz (not Conkling) made the investigation necessary. The committee went to work early in 1872 and eventually furnished a solution of the Leet and Stocking mystery.

Leet learned in 1868, soon after Grant's election, that he intended to appoint Moses H. Grinnell collector of the port of New York. He procured from Grant a letter of introduction to Grinnell, but Grant cautioned him, when he gave it, not to use it for the purpose of getting an office. When Leet handed the letter to Grinnell he remarked to him that he (Grinnell) was to be appointed collector of the port. Grinnell had not received any intimation of the fact before, and he inferred that Leet had been designated by the President to inform him of it. He asked Leet what he could do for him, and Leet replied that he wanted the "general order" business of the custom-house. Grinnell thought that this also was a message from the President,and he arranged as soon as possible to give Leet a portion of it. Leet farmed out this portion to a man named Bixby for $5000 per year, plus one half of all the profits in excess of $10,000. Then he went back to Washington and resumed his place as a clerk in the War Department; but he complained bitterly to Grinnell that his share in the "general order" business was not large enough, and he told Grinnell that he would be removed from office if he did not give him the whole of it. After much threatening, Grinnell did give him the whole of it, but he was removed, nevertheless, after holding the office about one year, and Murphy was appointed collector in his place. Murphy kept the "general order" business in the hands of Leet and Stocking until March, 1872, when the committee made its report. On the 14th of March, the newspapers announced that Murphy had been removed as collector and General Arthur appointed in his place, that the "general order" business had been radically reformed, and that Leet and Stocking had disappeared from history. In making this announcement theNationcalled the attention of the editor ofHarper's Weekly(George William Curtis), who was still a little deaf to the shortcomings of the Administration, to some things hard to understand.

When the President [it said] became aware that Leet had abused his confidence, disregarded his wishes, made false representations as to his influence over him, and concealed his doings from him,—facts which were revealed by the repeated complaints of prominent merchants and by Leet's appearance in public as owner of the "plum," and finally by a congressional investigation,—he took no notice of them whatever. So far as we know he gave no sign of displeasure, paid no attention to the complaints against him, and let him go on for nearly two years preying on the commerce of the port, till a second congressional investigation, obtained with great difficulty, and the savage assaults of the press on the eve of an election, madethe change we have just witnessed imperatively necessary. It has been the custom of the friends of the Administration hitherto, whenever charges of this kind are brought up, instead of answering them, to tell you that they endear the President more than ever to the American people; that his renomination is a sure thing, etc.; and that Horace Greeley is a friend of Hank Smith. Now is this satisfactory? Let us have a candid answer, without allusions to cigars, or fast horses, or investments, or summer vacations, Hank Smith, or Horace Greeley.

No dollar of the Leet and Stocking "plum" ever reached President Grant or any member of his family. We are left to conjecture what were his reasons for allowing the scandal to continue so long after the facts became known. Judging his course here by his second term, we are forced to conclude that his combativeness was aroused by the criticisms of Schurz, Trumbull, and others, which he interpreted as marks of personal hostility to himself. In fact, his senatorial supporters so interpreted them in public discussions. He probably upheld Leet for the same reasons that he shielded Babcock in the greater scandal of the St. Louis Whiskey Ring in 1876.[124]It was a mistake, however, to suppose (if he did suppose) that Trumbull was moved by any personal hostility. An interview with the latter, dated December 3, 1871, published in the LouisvilleCourier-Journal,[125]shows that he was still on friendly terms with the President. His interlocutor began by asking him if he would consent to the use of his name as a conservative candidate for the Presidency against General Grant, to which the "Illinois statesman replied with more than usual emphasis, 'No sir, I would not.'"

Then the following conversation ensued:

Why not?For many reasons. In the first place, I am satisfied where I am. I consider a seat in the Senate of the United States a position in which I can be more useful than in any other, and I believe it to be as honorable as any under the Government if its duties be efficiently and properly discharged. In the next place, I do not agree with the programme which has been marked out by those who refuse to support the candidacy of the President for reëlection. I am conscious of the need for many reforms, and I am daily striving to accomplish them. But I do not believe that a revolution of parties would be salutary. I do not believe that either the people of the North or of the South are ready to profit by such a change.And why not?Because the people of the South have really accepted nothing, and are not willing to coöperate with the Liberals of the North in settling the practical relations of society on a sure and generous basis. I know that the South has much to complain of. But so have the Liberal Republicans. It is not the rebel element, perhaps, but the nature of things, that the South should not realize the complete overthrow of the old order and the necessity for a complete change of the domestic policy. I believe that the defeat of General Grant would involve a reaction at the South whose consequences would be even worse than the present state of affairs.Don't you think General Grant meditates the permanent usurpation of the Executive office?No, I do not. My opinion is that General Grant is, in the main, a conservative man. He has made mistakes. But I cannot say they justify his removal.What are your personal relations?Very friendly. I have opposed some of his measures, but I have no personal feeling, and, indeed, this is one of the reasons why it is disagreeable to have my name mentioned in the connection you name.

Why not?

For many reasons. In the first place, I am satisfied where I am. I consider a seat in the Senate of the United States a position in which I can be more useful than in any other, and I believe it to be as honorable as any under the Government if its duties be efficiently and properly discharged. In the next place, I do not agree with the programme which has been marked out by those who refuse to support the candidacy of the President for reëlection. I am conscious of the need for many reforms, and I am daily striving to accomplish them. But I do not believe that a revolution of parties would be salutary. I do not believe that either the people of the North or of the South are ready to profit by such a change.

And why not?

Because the people of the South have really accepted nothing, and are not willing to coöperate with the Liberals of the North in settling the practical relations of society on a sure and generous basis. I know that the South has much to complain of. But so have the Liberal Republicans. It is not the rebel element, perhaps, but the nature of things, that the South should not realize the complete overthrow of the old order and the necessity for a complete change of the domestic policy. I believe that the defeat of General Grant would involve a reaction at the South whose consequences would be even worse than the present state of affairs.

Don't you think General Grant meditates the permanent usurpation of the Executive office?

No, I do not. My opinion is that General Grant is, in the main, a conservative man. He has made mistakes. But I cannot say they justify his removal.

What are your personal relations?

Very friendly. I have opposed some of his measures, but I have no personal feeling, and, indeed, this is one of the reasons why it is disagreeable to have my name mentioned in the connection you name.

The interview closed with the writer's assurance that the views of Senator Sumner coincided with those of Trumbull. A Washington letter in theNationof December 28 said:

From what I see and hear, the conviction is forced upon me that there will be no lead given by men like Trumbull voluntarily. They may be forced by the Administration party into opposition, but they will go reluctantly and timidly.

Among the letters received by Trumbull at this time was the following from a man of high repute and influence in Ohio:

Columbus, December 15, 1871.You may remember me sufficiently to know who I am and my position in Ohio. My special object in this writing is to congratulate you for your proper and patriotic position on the Retrenchment Resolution. Messrs. Morton, Shermanet al, are grievously mistaken as to the state of public sentiment in regard to the Administration and the President. I am bold to say that outside of the Grand Army of the Republic and the office-holders (animperium in imperio), more than one half of the Republicans are intensely dissatisfied with General Grant. His indecent interference in Missouri and Louisiana, his disgusting nepotism, his indefensible course in regard to San Domingo, and his recent complimentary letter to Collector Murphy have produced the conviction that he is intellectually and morally unqualified for his present position. He will hear deep and alarming thunder before the Kalends of November, 1872.Go forward with your associates, Schurz, Sumner, Patterson, and Tipton, in your exposure of the faults and frauds of the Administration, and the best class of Republicans will honor your magnanimity and patriotism. I know General Grant personally. I have not asked him for any favor. As Senatorial Elector I traversed the state, and advocated the Republican principles and policy, but I have the pleasant consciousness and delightful remembrance that I never eulogized General Grant nor recommended him as suitable for the place. As long as he is under the special superintendence of Morton, Chandler, and Cameron, he must necessarily deteriorate, as none of them has ever been suspected of having any profound sense of right or wrong.Confidentially yours,Sam'l Galloway.Hon. Lyman Trumbull, U.S.S.

Columbus, December 15, 1871.

You may remember me sufficiently to know who I am and my position in Ohio. My special object in this writing is to congratulate you for your proper and patriotic position on the Retrenchment Resolution. Messrs. Morton, Shermanet al, are grievously mistaken as to the state of public sentiment in regard to the Administration and the President. I am bold to say that outside of the Grand Army of the Republic and the office-holders (animperium in imperio), more than one half of the Republicans are intensely dissatisfied with General Grant. His indecent interference in Missouri and Louisiana, his disgusting nepotism, his indefensible course in regard to San Domingo, and his recent complimentary letter to Collector Murphy have produced the conviction that he is intellectually and morally unqualified for his present position. He will hear deep and alarming thunder before the Kalends of November, 1872.

Go forward with your associates, Schurz, Sumner, Patterson, and Tipton, in your exposure of the faults and frauds of the Administration, and the best class of Republicans will honor your magnanimity and patriotism. I know General Grant personally. I have not asked him for any favor. As Senatorial Elector I traversed the state, and advocated the Republican principles and policy, but I have the pleasant consciousness and delightful remembrance that I never eulogized General Grant nor recommended him as suitable for the place. As long as he is under the special superintendence of Morton, Chandler, and Cameron, he must necessarily deteriorate, as none of them has ever been suspected of having any profound sense of right or wrong.

Confidentially yours,Sam'l Galloway.Hon. Lyman Trumbull, U.S.S.

Back to Index Next