CHAPTER V.

KELLY, AS ALDERMAN AND CONGRESSMAN—SKETCH OF MIKE WALSH—GREAT STRUGGLE FOR SPEAKERSHIP—STORMY DAYS IN CONGRESS—JOSHUA R. GIDDINGS PLAYS PART OF CASSANDRA—CULLEN OF DELAWARE TALKS OF EGGING THE CATHOLICS—KELLY REPLIES—READS IMPORTANT LETTER OF LAFAYETTE ON PRIESTS WHICH THE KNOW-NOTHINGS HAD GARBLED—KELLY THE ONLY CATHOLIC IN THE HOUSE.

Although a political rather than a chronological order has been observed in the preceding chapters, it is necessary now, for the preservation of important threads of the narrative, to speak of some events as they transpired.

John Kelly, then captain of that popular company the Emmet Guards, was elected Alderman for the Fourteenth Ward at the election in November, 1853, to serve for two years, beginning January 1st, 1854. Twenty-five or thirty years ago the people of the city of New York selected the strongest men in the community to represent them in the Board of Aldermen. To attain, at that period, the place of a City Father was an object of ambition with those who sought an attractive rank among their fellow-citizens, and many men were elected Aldermen who have since become famous in State and National politics. The Boardsof which Mr. Kelly was a member in 1854-5, were exceptionally able bodies. At his election, November 8th, 1853, the whole number of votes cast for Alderman of the Fourteenth Ward was 1938, of which John Kelly received 1097; Thomas Wheelan, 566; and Morris Miller, 275. Mr. Kelly’s majority over all was 256. He was a member of the Committee on the Almshouse Department in the Board of Aldermen, and of the Committee on Annual Taxes in the Board of Supervisors, the latter body being composed of the Mayor, Recorder and Board of Aldermen. The Aldermanic list for 1854 contains the well-known names of Nathan C. Ely, President of the Peter Cooper Insurance Company, and also President of the Board of Aldermen; William Boardman, jun.; Abram Wakeman, Amor J. Williamson, Thomas Christy, Anson Herrick, Daniel D. Lord, John Kelly, Richard Mott and Thomas Woodward. To these were added, in 1855, Isaac O. Barker, who succeeded Mr. Ely as President of the Board, Orison Blunt, William Chauncey, George W. Varian, and others, the new members taking the seats of those whose terms expired in 1854.

Mr. Kelly’s aptitude for affairs was soon recognized by his fellow members. President Barker placed him on no less than five committees in his second year in the Board, and appointed him chairman of the most important committee of the body—that on AnnualTaxes in the Board of Supervisors. The members of this Committee were John Kelly, Henry R. Hoffmire and Daniel D. Lord. The Know-Nothings were then powerful in New York, and John Kelly was their sleepless opponent in the Board of Aldermen. His constituents were warmly attached to the man, and duly appreciated his services in official life. Some even went so far as to predict that he would soon become a dangerous rival to the celebrated Mike Walsh, then in the meridian of his popularity. Kelly and Walsh both lived in the Fourth Congressional District, and the latter was at that time representing the District with great acceptability in the Thirty-third Congress. The prediction was verified, and Kelly became Walsh’s competitor at the ensuing election. The interest which this contest excited was not confined to the city, but extended to all parts of the State of New York. The plan adopted in these pages of giving outline sketches of the more conspicuous men with whose names that of Mr. Kelly has been associated in political controversies, certainly cannot be disregarded in the case of Mike Walsh, that wayward genius, gifted orator, and child of misfortune.

Michael Walsh was born in the town of Bandon, County Cork, Ireland, in 1815, and came to this country with his parents when he was a child. His father was an intelligent, industrious, hard working man, and the owner of a mahogany yard in WashingtonStreet, New York. He entertained peculiar views in regard to a republican form of government, and on that account never became a citizen of the United States. His son Michael possessed a great deal of talent, and was educated at St. Peter’s school in Barclay Street. When he was about sixteen years of age his father indentured him to a lithographer at Broadway and Fulton Street, with whom he learned that business. He was hardly twenty-one when he began to be exceedingly active in political affairs in New York, and the whole country. As an orator, for his age, he had probably no equal. He possessed literary ability, and was equally ready with pen or tongue. His forte, however, was sarcasm, and unfortunately for himself he had an unrivaled knack for coining slang expressions. Many of the slang sayings peculiar to New York at this day were invented by Mike Walsh. He was naturally humorous, and was endowed with powers of mimicry that would have made his fortune on the stage. He could describe the weaknesses of human nature, and lay bare the motives which influenced public men in their actions with a mastery which no other man of his time possessed.

He was elected to the lower branch of the Legislature of New York before he was twenty-one years of age, and although he had little or no business ability, he distinguished himself in the House by his fineoratorical powers. His speeches were not only interesting and amusing, but often full of information. Without previous thought or reflection, he could make a capital off-hand speech, expressing his views very intelligently, and enlisting the attention of his audience throughout. The Democratic party in New York, at that period, was under the control and influence of men who had very little respect for Walsh, as his manners were not only objectionable, but sometimes his language was abusive. He was very strong, notwithstanding, with the people, and on that account was feared by the leaders. He was re-elected to the Assembly several times. He established and edited a paper which he called “The Subterranean,” and his squibs, sometimes clever but often coarse, were sent forth in its columns. There was a furniture dealer in the Fifth Ward named John Horsepool, between whom and Walsh a bitter feud existed. Several times Horsepool had him arrested for libel. At last “The Subterranean” belched forth an angrier flame than usual, and Horsepool got his revenge. Walsh was indicted, tried and convicted, and sent for a short term to the penitentiary. But this served to excite sympathy for him and increase his popularity. He was a very companionable man, was full of anecdote, and had a very retentive memory. He recollected, without particular effort, nearly everything he had ever read, and if called upon would recount a storyor any other matter with great precision. Among his companions, for several years, were Tom Hyer, the pugilist, and Jack Haggarty, son of the old New York auctioneer of that name. They generally made their headquarters at the Hone House, a hostelry kept by Morgan L. Mott. This was formerly the private residence of Philip Hone, and took its name from him. Walsh and his coterie would gather together here daily, and relate stories and anecdotes of their checkered experiences. Having no business occupations and some money to spend, they all shortened their days by the immoderate use of alcoholic stimulants. As long as Mike Walsh survived he was the life of the company. During the Presidential canvass of 1844 Walsh formed a political organization on the East Side of New York city, which he named the Spartan Band. This body was in opposition to the Empire Club of Captain Isaiah Rynders. Both of these clubs were exceedingly active during the Polk and Dallas campaign, and rendered efficient service to the Democratic ticket. Walsh was proud of the influence he wielded over his men, and of the power his position brought to him as a leader. The singular notion occurred to him of giving high-sounding titles to his several lieutenants, and he consequently called them after the distinguished French Marshals who fought in the wars of Napoleon the First. All the men who were prominent in those days in the Spartan Band andEmpire Club have long since passed away, with the exception of Captain Rynders, who still figures in New York politics at eighty-one, as erect of carriage and almost as brisk of step as he was fifty years ago.[22]

A curious anecdote is told of the way in which Mike Walsh and David C. Broderick, subsequently Senator from California, ceased to be friends. After Walsh was sentenced to Blackwell’s Island, an understanding is said to have been reached between them that Walsh should commit suicide on his way to the penitentiary by jumping from the ferry-boat into the East River. Walsh being regarded as the champion of the poor as against the rich, and many believing he had been sentenced to Blackwell’s Island because of his advocacy of the interests of the poor, his death in the manner indicated, it was thought, would be avenged by his followers as that of a martyr in their cause. In view of the disgrace visited upon him, Walsh is said to have promised Broderick that he would sacrifice his life by drowning, and thus stir up the vengeance of the populace in retaliation upon his and their oppressors. But Walsh showed better sense than to do so foolish a thing, and Broderick became his enemy, and branded him as a coward, because he did not kill himself according to promise.

During the summer months Mike Walsh was in the habit of frequently sleeping all night in one or another of the parks of the city, because, as he claimed, the night air hardened his constitution. For the same reason he seldom wore an overcoat in winter. He was an inveterate joker, and was in his element whenever he could play a trick on the unwary or uninitiated. He was the author of the Frank McLoughlin hoax, which all old New Yorkers will remember. McLoughlin was a noted sporting man in New York forty years ago, and a great toast among horse men, pugilists, and like people of that day. He was one of the California pioneers of 1849 when the gold excitement broke out. In a few years he returned to New York. Mike Walsh happened to be passing through the City Hall Park, and met McLoughlin as he was on his way from the ship to the house of his relatives.

“Well, Frank,” said Mike, “I see you have returned.”

“Yes,” was the reply.

“Do you expect to remain here?”

“Yes, sir,” said Frank, “I hope to spend the remainder of my days in New York. I have been in no place since I left here that I like as well.”

“I suppose,” said Mike, “all of your friends will be glad to see you?”

“Yes, I am sure they will, and I shall be glad to see them.”

Thus they separated. Walsh hastened over to the Pewter Mug on Frankfort Street, Thomas Dunlap proprietor, then known as Tammany Hall. Passing into the bar-room, Walsh exclaimed to those present that he had just seen Frank McLoughlin, and that he had gone to a public-house on the Bowery, and requested his friends to call on him there at once. McLoughlin being a favorite, a great many persons started out to find him, but as it was Sunday they encountered some difficulty in obtaining admittance to the hotel. The bar-keeper there perceived the joke in an instant, and said McLoughlin had been at the hotel, but had gone to John Teal’s, on the corner of Stanton and Forsyth Streets, having left word, if any of his friends should call, they were to go there and see him. Walsh took care to circulate the hoax all over the city, sending people to various points in quest of McLoughlin, who was the bearer, quoth Mike, of many letters and presents to the boys in New York from old acquaintances in California. Proprietors of drinking saloons reaped a large harvest by selling extra quantities of their beverages to the victims of the hoax. In sportive tricks of this sort Mike Walsh was continually engaged.

In 1852 he was nominated for Congress in the Fourth Congressional District, and elected. He served in the House of Representatives for two years, and attracted by his peculiar powers much attention inthat body. He was nominated the second time in 1854 by the Hard Shells. The Soft Shells nominated John Kelly. A very bitter and exciting contest followed. Many thought Walsh was invincible in the Fourth District, but his opponent was very popular, and the struggle between them was carried on with great enthusiasm and energy. Mr. Kelly came out the victor, but only with eighteen plurality. The whole number of votes was 7,593, of which John Kelly received 3,068; Mike Walsh, 3,050; Sandford E. Macomber, 824; John W. Brice, 626; James Kelly, 1; and scattering, 24.

After the election Walsh served notice on Kelly that he would contest his seat, on the ground that illegal votes had been cast in the Fourteenth Ward, where the majority against Walsh was quite large. Mr. Kelly at once acted on information that had been given to him by a friend of Walsh’s father, the late John Griffin, that Walsh was not a citizen of the United States, his father not having been naturalized, and he himself having neglected to take out citizen’s papers when he reached the proper age. He was not, therefore, a citizen of the United States. A certificate of his baptism was procured from the parish priest at Bandon, Ireland, where he was born, and Walsh, fearing the result of an exposure, withdrew, and the contest ended.

The subsequent career of Mr. Walsh was a checkered one. He was employed by George Steers, the well-known ship-builder, as his agent to go to Russia to negotiate a contract in his favor to build ships for that Government. Walsh obtained letters of introduction from the Secretary of the Navy of the United States to officials of the Russian Government, and set out on his mission with fair prospects of a successful issue to the business. Instead, however, of conducting the affair well, the unfortunate man fell into riotous living in Europe, and spent the remittances his employer sent to him. He returned to the United States in the steerage of one of the steamships plying between Liverpool and New York.

He was never a candidate for office again, after his memorable contest with Mr. Kelly in 1854. In the winter of 1859 poor Mike, while on his way home one night, slipped and fell down a cellar-way on the 8th Avenue, near 16th Street, and was supposed to have been instantly killed, as he was found dead the next morning by the police. Although at the time it was thought that he had been murdered, the evidence taken at the inquest showed that this was not the case, and the jury returned their verdict that his death was caused by an accidental fall in an open cellar-way. His death called forth expressions of profound sorrow in New York, for, in spite of the infirmities of his nature, Mike Walsh hada powerful hold on the popular mind, and over his new-made grave many an eye was dimmed with unhidden grief, and all that was gentle and noble in his nature was feelingly recalled.

Although John Kelly had been an ardent Hunker, or Cass and Butler man, in 1848, he was now acting with the Soft Shells, having, when the reconciliation took place between the Hunker and Barnburner factions in 1849, followed the leadership of William L. Marcy and Horatio Seymour, the two eminent Hunkers, who became Soft Shells. It was by the Soft Shells he was nominated against Walsh in 1854. The country was roused to a high pitch of excitement by the Kansas imbroglio when he took his seat as a Representative of the city of New York in the Thirty-fourth Congress. For the first time in the history of the government a purely sectional candidate, sustained exclusively by sectional votes, was elected Speaker of the House of Representatives in 1856. This was Nathaniel P. Banks, of Waltham, Massachusetts. The struggle was the most bitter and protracted one that ever took place in the House, beginning when Congress assembled on the first Monday of December, 1855, and continuing from day to day for nine weeks. The contending forces were so evenly balanced, and party spirit ran so high, that it seemed impossible to break the dead-lock. There were three candidates in the field, and the followersof each supported their respective favorites with unflinching resolution. William A. Richardson of Illinois, who had brought in the Kansas-Nebraska bill at the last session, and carried it through successfully, was the caucus nominee of the Democrats; Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts, of the Republicans; and Henry M. Fuller, of Pennsylvania, of the Know-Nothings. It was the beginning of the great sectional conflict, and the ominous mutterings of the storm were now heard in the House of Representatives whose thunder in a few years was to break forth on a hundred battle-fields. There was Joshua R. Giddings, the ancient Abolitionist, who for years like Cassandra in the gates had been uttering prophecies of woe, and now in anticipation of victory was goading the Hotspurs of the South to fury, such as Keitt, and Brooks, and Caskie, and Bowie, and Extra Billy Smith, and Fayette McMullin. There, too, were Humphrey Marshall, Henry Winter Davis, Zollicoffer and Cullen, Know-Nothing birds of evil, shouting their No-Popery cry in the House, like Lord George Gordon in the British Parliament, seventy-five years before. There were Alexander H. Stephens, who on the outbreak of sectionalism left the Whigs forever, and now took sides with the National Democrats, John Kelly, Howell Cobb, James L. Orr, and William A. Richardson, marshalling the forces of the administration, and striving to pluck success from the aggressiveand powerful sectionalists. They would have succeeded in electing the Democratic candidate, William Aiken, finally settled upon in place of Messrs. Richardson and Orr, but for the officious intermeddling of a blunderer, who revealed the plans of the Democrats before they were fully matured, and nominated Aiken in a theatrical speech which repelled the two or three wavering votes, only needed to elect him. This was Williamson R. W. Cobb of Alabama. In the homely words of Mr. Stephens, as will be explained more fully a few pages further on, he “plugged the melon before it was ripe.”[23]It was true that Aiken was first nominated by John Kelly in a few tentative words, that attracted several and did not repel any votes. Mr. Kelly made no kite-flying speech, and the anti-Banks Whigs, such as John Scott Harrison, Haven, Cullen and Barclay, who opposed an out-and-out Democrat, were interested in Mr. Kelly’s off-hand manner of presenting William Aiken’s name, and showed a disposition to vote for him as against Banks. Harrison had avowed his intention to do so.[24]But W. R. W. Cobb of Alabama, let the secret out that Aiken was the Democratic dark horse, and the masterly plans of Alexander H. Stephens and John Kelly, just as victory was in reach, were dashed to the ground.An opinion further prevailed among many that one or two Democrats were corruptly bought off.

On the 18th of December, 1855, after nearly two weeks had been spent in a fruitless effort to organize the House, John Letcher of Virginia proposed that all the members should resign, and new elections be held. This proposal was not made seriously, but rather as a protest against the dead-lock. Joshua R. Giddings of Ohio chose to treat the proposition seriously, and on the 18th of December spoke of the Democrats as follows: “These are the gentlemen who propose here to the majority of the House, that we shall resign and go home, if they will. The proposition is unfair. We are endeavoring to organize this House; they are endeavoring to prevent an organization. To illustrate my idea, I will remark that I am reminded of the criminal standing upon the gallows, the rope fastened to the beam over his head and around his neck, the drop on which he stands sustained by a single cord, which the sheriff stands ready with his hatchet to cut. ‘Now,’ says the criminal to the sheriff, ‘if you will resign, I will, and we will go home together, and appeal to the people.’ Let me say to gentlemen, we are each of us now writing our biography with more rapidity than we generally imagine. Gentlemen of the Democratic party, I say again, in your attempt to extend this sectional institution, you have called down the vengeance of the American people upon your heads.The handwriting upon the wall has been seen and read of all men. Your history is written, and your doom is sealed; the sentence is pronounced against you, ‘depart, ye cursed!’ I have already given my views upon Republicanism. They are expressed in the language of that immortal instrument the Declaration of Independence. That is the foundation of my Republicanism, as it is that of a vast majority of the Whigs and Know-Nothings of the North. You, gentlemen of the Democratic party, stand forth here denying this doctrine. You say men are not endowed by their Creator with the inalienable right of liberty. * * * I would to God I could proclaim to every slave in Virginia to-day—You have the right of self-defence, and when the master attempts to exercise the right of dominion over you, slay him as he would slay yourselves!”[25]

Here then the incendiary appeal in favor of a servile insurrection, which John Brown tried to carry out with arms in 1859, was openly made on the floor of Congress in 1855.

That Giddings was either blinded by his fanaticism, or was a dishonest pettifogger, became clearly established a few weeks after he made this seditious speech. On the 18th of January, 1856, the House still being in the wrangle over the Speakership, Mr. Giddings took the floor, and advocated the adoption of theplurality rule. Mr. Banks had the largest number of votes of the several candidates. Giddings, who had bitterly opposed this rule in 1849, now, to help his candidate, as earnestly advocated it.

He said: “We have but one precedent in the history of the Government for our guidance. In 1849 this body found itself in the same condition for three weeks that it now finds itself in during almost seven weeks. There were then, as now, three parties in the House. No one party had sufficient numbers to decide the election. No one party now has sufficient numbers to elect.”

Mr. Jones of Tennessee rose to a question of order.

Mr. Giddings: “I do not blame the gentleman (Mr. Jones) for rising to a question of order. He then stood with the party which established a precedent which shall go down in all time to the condemnation of his party. I mean that under the circumstances, the Democratic party, as a party, in its caucus, speaking by a party organ, then declared the plurality rule to be the proper and only rule which could be adopted for the organization of the House.”

Mr. Howell Cobb, “Mr. Clerk, the gentleman is mistaken.”

Mr. Giddings: “No, sir; I stand upon the record. I have the record before me, and the gentleman must contradict that before he contradicts me.I read from the Congressional Globe. ‘The House had now’ says the record, ‘reached the contingency contemplated in the proposition of Mr. Stanton. It had exhausted the three votings therein provided for, without a result, and had arrived at that point where, in fulfillment of an agreement entered into between the two parties, a Speaker was to be elected by a plurality vote.’ Here, sir, stands the record. Now we stand precisely where we then stood. I do not know the number of times that we, on this side of the House, have endeavored to follow this established precedent that was then adopted. It was adopted by gentlemen on the other side of the House, and under it the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Cobb) himself was exalted to that chair. The Republican party stands ready to carry out that precedent now. The Republicans stand upon the great principle which was avowed by both of the great parties, Whigs and Democrats.”

Mr. Cobb: “I corrected the gentleman in a statement of fact. I rise now for the purpose of putting that statement correctly before the country in connection with his remarks. He stated that the Democratic party had in 1849 adopted the plurality resolution in caucus. The truth is simply this: the plurality rule was adopted in caucus by the Whig party. When it was reported by the Committee of Conference of the two parties to the Democratic caucus, it was rejected there by a decided majority. And, if he desires tostand by the record, there was no man on the floor more violent or more denunciatory of the operation of the plurality rule than the gentleman from Ohio. My recollection is that he offered a substitute for it, which declared that it was wrong in principle, dangerous in its tendency, and ought not to be adopted.”

Mr. Giddings: “I only repeat what was said by a leading member of the Democratic party, the Hon. Mr. Stanton, of Tennessee, on this floor, and in the presence of the gentleman from Georgia, and his party in this House. That gentleman sat silently in his seat when Mr. Stanton declared the plurality rule to have been agreed to by the Committee, and he did not deny it; no member of his party denied the fact. I call the attention of the country to the fact that in their caucus the Democratic party, as a party, agreed with the Whig party, as a party, that this should be the rule. I do not involve gentlemen; I only involve the Democratic party. I mean to pin it on that party.”

Mr. Edmundson: “Anybody who asserts that the Democratic party agreed to adopt the plurality rule, asserts what is not true.”

Mr. Orr: “I was present on the occasion to which I suppose reference is made; and I state distinctly that no such resolution as that referred to by the gentleman from Ohio was adopted by the Democratic caucus, either directly or indirectly.”

Mr. Millson, and other members who had attended the Democratic caucus of 1849, made similar denials.

Mr. Cobb: “Fortunately the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Stanton), although not a member of this House, is here, and I assert, without one word of conference with him, that he never intended to say before this House, nor did a single member of the House at that time so construe his language—that the Democratic party had adopted the plurality rule in caucus.”

At this point Mr. Jones, of Tennessee, referred to theGlobeof 1849, and showed that the words put in Mr. Stanton’s mouth by Mr. Giddings had not been used by him at all, but were words of the reporter distinctly employed in another connection. This revelation, so damaging to Mr. Giddings’s character for fair dealing, was clinched by Mr. Letcher, who quoted from a speech made in the House by Mr. Giddings himself, in 1849, five days after the adoption of the plurality rule, in which he declared the Whig party had forced the rule upon the House. Having quoted the passage from Mr. Giddings’s speech contradictory of himself, Mr. Letcher remarked: “Now, Sir, I submit that whatever may have been the opinion of other people, it does not become the gentleman from Ohio to rise here in his place, and undertake to charge that the Democratic party adopted that rule, after he has sent out to the country and published a speech, revisedand printed in pamphlet form, in which he purports to give the facts as they occurred in 1849.”

Mr. Giddings: “I repeat what I said when I first rose, that the Democratic party in its caucus, speaking through its committee, did agree to the resolution.”

Mr. Edmundson: “I want to let the gentleman from Ohio know that he is asserting what is not true. I am stating facts within my own knowledge. The Democratic caucus voted down the resolution, and refused to adopt it. Now, any statement made in conflict with that, I say this from my own personal knowledge, is a statement which is not true, and he who makes it knows, at the time he is making it, that it is not true.”

Mr. Giddings:

“‘Go, show your slaves how choleric you are,And make your bondmen tremble,’

“‘Go, show your slaves how choleric you are,

And make your bondmen tremble,’

but do not come here to make any imputations upon me.”

Mr. Edmundson (advancing towards Mr. Giddings, who had sprung Shakespeare on him unexpectedly): “I want to hear what the gentleman from Ohio is saving.”

Mr. Giddings: “Let gentlemen keep cool.”

Mr. Edmundson: “I will keep cool, if you will state the facts.”

At this point there were loud cries of “Order,order,” and much confusion and excitement in the hall.

Mr. Cobb: “When the gentlemen from Ohio stated that the Democratic party had adopted as a party the plurality rule, I unhesitatingly denied that statement. When he said that the resolution was introduced by Mr. Stanton, he read the language of Mr. Stanton to show that he made the statement to the House, and to the country, to that effect. I stated then that it was a misconstruction of the language of Mr. Stanton, and that it must have been so from the facts as they were. Now, Mr. Clerk, I ask this House, and I put it to the candor of every man on this floor, if, at the time this declaration was made, it was not its understanding that the language quoted was the language of Mr. Stanton?”

Several members: “He so stated, expressly.”

Mr. Cobb: “I put it to the memory and candor of gentlemen here, if the gentleman from Ohio did not so intend it, then he made a charge against the party without any particle of ground to stand on. If he did intend it, it was an effort to falsify the record on which he was standing. This language was the language of the reporter, giving an account of the proceedings of the day, and does not occur in connection with Mr. Stanton’s name at all. There is a vote intervening between the time when Mr. Stanton addressed the House, and the remarks here made by thereporter, which had no earthly connection with them whatever. Where, then, is the point of the gentleman’s remarks when he charges me with sitting by and allowing Mr. Stanton to state that the plurality proposition was the result of an agreement between the two parties, unless it be because he had put in Mr. Stanton’s mouth the language of the reporter? I submit the facts to the House; I shall not characterize them.”

Mr. Orr: “Since the debate commenced, Mr. Stanton has come within the limits of this hall. I have had an interview with him, and he has authorized me to state, that when the proposition to elect by plurality was presented to the Democratic caucus, it was almost unanimously rejected by them, and that when he offered the plurality resolution he did it upon his own individual responsibility.”

These crushing refutations of the charges of Mr. Giddings raise a strong doubt of his honesty in this matter. He was a sharp politician, and sought without regard to the means to elect Mr. Banks Speaker of the House.

The Know-Nothings, recruited as were the Republicans from the same parent stem of John Adams Federalism, were the allies of the Sectionalists led by Mr. Giddings in 1856. The folly of the Southern Know-Nothings in the great conflict over the Speakership in the Thirty-fourth Congress was remarkable.

Some of them, like Zollicoffer and Humphrey Marshall, were afterwards such violent Secessionists that they became Generals in the Confederate army. Even Henry Winter Davis was so much opposed to the Republican party at this time, and for several years after, that he denounced it as a miserable, useless faction, and sneeringly asked, “Why cumbers it the ground?” Mr. Zollicoffer, a Southern man, of no mean powers, with surprising inconsistency refused to vote for a Democratic candidate for Speaker when none other had the remotest chance to beat Banks, and at the same time inveighed against Mr. Campbell, a Pennsylvania Know-Nothing, for voting for Banks, and thereby aiding the Sectionalists in opening the door for disunion and civil war. These men and their congeners in bigotry, like the blood-stained fanatic Lord George Gordon before them, strove to excite a religious war, and preached proscription of foreigners, and persecution of Catholics in the American Congress. No union with slaveholders, was the platform of Joshua R. Giddings; no-Popery, and no citizenship for foreigners, the platform of Henry Winter Davis.

“I go against the Catholics,” said Mr. Cullen of Delaware, during the same Speakership contest. “I never will support them. They are not fit to be supported by Americans. The people of the State from which I come look upon them with abhorrence. ACatholic priest, a short time ago, came among us. He was a stranger. He taught the doctrine of purgatory. After he had proclaimed that doctrine, an honorable gentleman of the State of Delaware, and who at the last election ran for Governor on the same ticket with myself, declared that he ought to be egged! I vote against the Catholics!”

Mr. Dowdell, of Alabama: “I am exceedingly pained at the spectacle which has been presented to-night. When Rome was burning Nero was fiddling and dancing. Now, sir, we are standing upon a slumbering volcano. Upon our borders in the common territory of this country, our people are marshalling their forces to try the great question whether they are able to govern themselves, it may be with rifles in their hands. I have been reminded by the ludicrous scenes witnessed here of a parallel to be found in a book entitled, ‘Georgia Scenes.’ Ned Brace, the hero of the story, happened to be in a city during the prevalence of a great fire, the flames in red volumes were rising higher and higher each moment, the people were running to and fro in great consternation, women and children were screaming through the streets, and the midnight fire-bells were sending out their rapid and startling sounds, when Ned quietly took his position on the sidewalk. About this time a large old man, nearly out of breath, came running by in great haste, whose home was threatened with destructionperhaps, and was abruptly stopped by Ned with the interrogatory: ‘Sir, can you tell me where I can find Peleg Q. C. Stone?’ ‘Damn Peleg Q. C. Stone, my house is on fire;’ was the impatient reply. Now, sir, while the fire of civil war is threatening to be kindled upon our borders, questions are propounded here quite as impertinent at this time of danger, and calculated to provoke similar impatience, if not a similar reply. I have no fear that any party in this country opposed to religious liberty will ever be strong enough to control its legislation.”

Mr. Paine, of North Carolina: “I ask whether any gentleman in this House is willing to see the Government of the United States, and the Congress of the United States, in the hands of the Roman Catholics of this country? This is a matter which enters into the private feelings, however unwilling members may be to expose it. These very gentlemen themselves would not trust the government of the country and Congress in the hands of Roman Catholics.”

Mr. Valk, of New York: “The honorable gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Dowdell) took occasion to draw the attention of the House to the once living embodiment of that portrait on my right—that of La Fayette. I frankly and freely do honor to his memory. But the gentleman forgets one remark which fell from the lips of that man when living. He said: ‘If everthe liberties of this country are destroyed it will be by Catholic priests.’”

Mr. Bowie of Maryland: “Sparks says that is a lie.”

At this point Mr. Kelly tried to get the floor to repel the furious assaults of the Know-Nothings upon his church, of which the preceding extracts are but a few specimens.

Mr. Kelly: “I should like to explain my vote.”

The Clerk: “The clerk would remind the gentleman from New York that it is too late. He can proceed, however, if no objection is made.” There were loud cries of “object!”

Mr. Kelly: “Does the Clerk decide that I am not in order?”

The Clerk: “The Clerk makes no decision.”

Mr. Pennington: “I move that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Kelly) have leave to explain his vote, and I do so because the gentleman is a Catholic, and the only one I believe of that faith upon this floor. I think that under the circumstances it would be only common courtesy to hear him.” Loud cries of “Hear him.”

Mr. Bowie: “Hear him; he is the only Catholic here.”

Mr. Washburn: “I will yield to the gentleman for ten minutes.” Mr. Kelly, without previous preparation, now proceeded to make his second speech in theHouse, January 9, 1856, his first having been delivered December 19, 1855, in reply to Mr. Whitney, a New York Know-Nothing.

Mr. Kelly: “I am aware, Mr. Clerk, that it is very improper to bring religious matters into legislative business at all but when I hear such remarks as have fallen from the intelligent gentleman who has just spoken, I feel that it becomes me, as a member of the religious body which the gentleman has been assailing, to say something, at least, in its defense.

“The accusation is made here that the Catholic religion is dangerous to the institutions of this Republic. Sir, no man possessed of any intelligence would give any weight to a charge of that sort. When have the Catholic clergy urged their flocks to support particular individuals for office? When have they from their pulpits urged their congregations to support particular measures, or to vote for particular men? There is not in the history of this country an instance in which the Catholic clergy have so acted. But can the same be said of other religious denominations in this country? In the Eastern portion of the Union you will frequently find ministers from their pulpits invoking their flocks to vote for measures which interest them, and the section of the Union to which they belong. Now, Mr. Clerk, I am a Catholic, and I love this Union. I defy any man in this Congress to say that he is a better citizen, or more devoted to the trueinterests of this Union than I am. This is not only my sentiment, but it is the sentiment of the religious body to which I belong. It is the sentiment of our priesthood.

“I let the accusation that the Catholic religion is dangerous to our beloved country, go for what it is worth; for I am satisfied that no sane man would make such an assertion. But this charge has been frequently made since we first met here. When my colleague, Mr. Valk, made several charges against the Catholic religion, I had not an opportunity to say one word in reply but, sir, I am surprised that the gentleman from Long Island, a man of intelligence and a Christian, as I take him to be, should rise upon this floor, and denounce his fellow Christians because he differs with them in opinion upon religious questions.” Mr. Valk, who had indulged in such denunciation, nevertheless, made a denial at this point.

Mr. Kelly: “The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Paine, asks, would you like to see this Government in the hands of the Catholic people? Suppose that it was in the hands of the Catholic people, have the Catholic people of this Union ever been false to its true interests? Why, sir, look at the early history of our country, and look to that State which borders upon this District. A Catholic community existed there, which extended a liberality to all other religionsthat could not be found in other colonies at that time. While Calvert, Lord Baltimore, was founding a free colony there, religious persecution was going on in other colonies; and when people were persecuted in other colonies, where did they go that they might worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences? They came to the Catholic colony of Maryland. These are the Catholic people to whom the honorable gentleman from Alabama has referred. Such, sir, is the history of the Catholics in this country, and such has it ever been. These people when they leave their homes in Germany, in Ireland, or in whatever country they may be found, and come here, it is to make this country their home. They imbibe the spirit of true patriotism before they leave the Old World. They come here with their parents, brethren, and friends, because here they can enjoy their liberty. And tell me, sir, is not the assertion, that they are inimical to your liberties unfounded? Are not the people who make it blinded by prejudice and bigotry? Why, sir, foreigners have always composed a large portion of the army of the country. They have fought side by side with our native-born citizens in every battle that has been fought from the earliest period of our existence as a nation, down to the present time. They have been working in a common cause to promote common objects—the blessings and prosperity of this Union. Let me say to thisHouse, if they come not here with wealth, they come with willing hands to work and earn their bread upon your public works, from their very commencement to their completion. How could your great public works have been constructed without these men?”

The Know-Nothings, not liking Kelly’s argument, at this point made a determined effort to cut him off.

Mr. Russell Sage, of New York: “I move that this House do now proceed to vote for Speaker, and upon that motion I demand the previous question.”

Mr. Smith, of Alabama: “I hope the gentleman from New York, Mr. Kelly, will be allowed to proceed with his explanation.”

Mr. Eustis, of Louisiana: “I hope Mr. Kelly will be allowed to proceed by unanimous consent.”

Several members objected.

Mr. Leiter, of Ohio: “I appeal to the House to withdraw all objection, and allow the gentleman from New York to go on with his speech.” Objection was again made.

Mr. Kelly: “I do not care about proceeding further. I wished to deny the charges made by the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Paine, and by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Valk, and having done that I am satisfied to let the matter rest for the present.”[26]

Mr. Kelly, had he not been cut off by objections, intended to read the letter of La Fayette, writtenfrom Paris in 1829 to a Protestant citizen of New York, whose guest the old patriot had been during his last visit to this country. This letter Mr. Valk had grossly perverted. At the earliest opportunity during that session Mr. Kelly replied to Mr. Valk and Mr. Smith, and read the La Fayette letter. The sentences in it which Mr. Valk had so garbled were in reality as follows:—“But I must be permitted to assure you that the fears which in your patriotic zeal you seem to entertain, that if ever the liberty of the United States is destroyed it will be by Romish priests, are certainly without any shadow of foundation whatever. An intimate acquaintance of more than half a century with the prominent and influential priests and members of that Church, both in England and America, warrant me in assuring you that you need entertain no apprehension of danger to your republican institutions from that quarter.”

FOOTNOTES:[22]Captain Rynders died suddenly about the middle of January, 1885, having enjoyed his usual good health up to within a few hours of his demise.[23]Life of A. H. Stephens, by Johnston & Browne, p. 306.[24]Ibid, p. 306.[25]Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 34th Congress, p. 44,et seq.[26]Cong. Globe, 1855-56, Thirty-first Congress, 1st Session, pp. 191,et seq.

[22]Captain Rynders died suddenly about the middle of January, 1885, having enjoyed his usual good health up to within a few hours of his demise.

[23]Life of A. H. Stephens, by Johnston & Browne, p. 306.

[24]Ibid, p. 306.

[25]Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 34th Congress, p. 44,et seq.

[26]Cong. Globe, 1855-56, Thirty-first Congress, 1st Session, pp. 191,et seq.

Back to Index Next