Volume III Part 23 (1/2)
The Republican State convention which a.s.sembled at Saratoga on September 7 was not so harmonious as the Tammany body. For several years Senator Morgan and Governor Fenton had represented the two sections of the party, the latter, soon after his inauguration on January 1, 1865, having commenced building his political machine. As an organiser he had few equals. One writer declares him ”the ablest after Van Buren.”[1245] At all events he soon became the head of the party, controlling its conventions and distributing its patronage.
After entering the Senate he paid a.s.siduous attention to the President. The repeal of the Tenure-of-Office Act and an effort to secure the confirmation of Alexander T. Stewart for secretary of the treasury opened the way to Grant's heart, and for these and other favours he received the lion's share of appointments. In the meantime his opponents insisted that under cover of loud radical professions he had relied wholly upon trickery for success, banning able men and demoralising the party.[1246]
[Footnote 1245: Charles E. Fitch, formerly editor of the Rochester _Democrat-Chronicle_.]
[Footnote 1246: _Harper's Weekly_, June 24, 1871.]
To these criticisms and Conkling's advances the President presented a listening ear. Conkling had not thrust himself upon Grant, but the more the President tired of Fenton's importunities, the more he liked Conkling's wit and sarcasm and forceful speech. As patronage gradually disappeared Fenton redoubled his efforts to retain it, until in his desperation he addressed a letter to the Chief Executive, referring to his own presidential aspirations, and offering to withdraw and give him New York if the question of offices could be satisfactorily arranged.[1247] This ended their relations.
[Footnote 1247: Conkling's speech, New York _Times_, July 24, 1872.]
Subsequent appointments, however, did not meet with more favour.
Fenton declared them fatal to party harmony, since some of the new officials, besides holding confidential relations with Tammany, had been friendly to the Philadelphia movement in 1866 and to Hoffman in 1868. Bitter criticism especially followed the nomination of Thomas Murphy for collector of New York in place of Moses H. Grinnell. ”The President appointed Murphy without consulting either Senator,” says Stewart, for thirty years a senator from Nevada. ”Grant met him at Long Branch, and being thoroughly acquainted with the country and quite a horseman he made himself such a serviceable friend that the Chief Executive thought him a fit person for collector.”[1248] The New York _Times_ said, ”the President has taken a step which all his enemies will exult over and his friends deplore.”[1249] The _Tribune_ was more severe. ”The objection is not that he belongs to a particular wing of the Republican party,” it said, ”but that he does not honestly belong to any; that his political record is one of treachery well rewarded; his business record such that the merchants of New York have no confidence in him; and the record of his relations to the government such that, until cleared up, he ought to hold no place of trust under it.”[1250] Yet Murphy bore endors.e.m.e.nts from men of the highest respectability. ”Of those who in writing recommended his appointment or confirmation,” said Conkling, ”are Edwin D. Morgan, George Opd.y.k.e, Henry Clews, John A. Griswold, Charles J. Folger, Matthew Hale, George Dawson, and others. Their signatures are in my possession.”[1251]
[Footnote 1248: William M. Stewart, _Reminiscences_, p. 255.]
[Footnote 1249: June 17, 1870.]
[Footnote 1250: September 19, 1871.]
[Footnote 1251: New York _Times_, July 24, 1872.]
Nevertheless, Conkling preferred another, and until urged by his friend Stewart to secure Murphy's confirmation ”to avoid the possible appointment of a less deserving man,” he hesitated to act. ”I told him that the struggle to confirm Murphy would enlighten the President as to the political situation in New York, and that he would undoubtedly accord him the influence to which he was ent.i.tled. Then, to force the fight, Conkling, at my suggestion, objected to further postponement.”[1252]
The contest came on July 11, 1870.
[Footnote 1252: Stewart, _Reminiscences_, pp. 255-256.]
Fenton recalled Murphy's malodorous army contracts, spoke of his disloyalty to the party while a member of the State Senate, submitted proof of his unscrupulous business relations with the leaders of Tammany, and denounced his political treachery in the gubernatorial contest of 1866. In this fierce three hours' arraignment the Senator spared no one. He charged that Charles J. Folger and Chester A. Arthur had appeared in Was.h.i.+ngton in Murphy's behalf, because to the latter's potent and corrupt influence with Tammany, Folger owed his election to the Court of Appeals in the preceding May,[1253] while Arthur, through Murphy's unclean bargaining with Tweed, was fattening as counsel for the New York City Tax Commission.[1254]
[Footnote 1253: Under the provisions of the new judiciary article of the Const.i.tution a chief justice and six a.s.sociate justices of the Court of Appeals were elected on May 17, 1870, each party being allowed to put up only four candidates for a.s.sociate justices. To complete their ticket the Democrats selected Folger and Andrews, two of the four Republican candidates. The election resulted in the choice of the Democratic ticket.]
[Footnote 1254: New York _Times_, July 12, 1870.]
In his reply Conkling spoke for an hour in his most vigorous style.
”Every sentence,” said Stewart, ”was replete with logic, sarcasm, reason, and invective. Sometimes the senators would rise to their feet, so great was the effect upon them. Toward the conclusion of his speech Conkling walked down the aisle to a point opposite the seat of Fenton. 'It is true,' he said, 'that Thomas Murphy is a mechanic, a hatter by trade; that he worked at his trade in Albany supporting an aged father and mother and crippled brother, and that while thus engaged another visited Albany and played a very different role.' At this point he drew from his pocket a court record, and extending it toward Fenton, he continued,--'the particulars of which I will not relate except at the special request of my colleague.' Fenton's head dropped upon his desk as if struck down with a club. The scene in the Senate was tragic.”[1255]
[Footnote 1255: Stewart, _Reminiscences_, pp. 256-7.
”In early life Fenton, having undertaken to carry $12,000 to Albany, reported the money lost. He was arrested and discharged after much testimony was taken. Whether accused justly or unjustly (most persons thought unjustly) it blurred his career. Conkling had a copy of the proceedings before the criminal court.”--_Ibid._ See also _The Nation_, July 14, 1870.]
It was a desperate battle. For several weeks heated politicians, with pockets full of affidavits, had hurried to Was.h.i.+ngton from all parts of New York, and while it was admitted that the appointee was not a s.h.i.+ning credit to his backers, the belief obtained that the control of the party in the State depended upon the result. The two Senators so understood it, and their preparation for the contest omitted all amenities. Fenton, regardless of whom he hit, relied upon carefully drawn charges sustained by affidavits; Conkling trusted to a fire of scathing sarcasm, supported by personal influence with his Democratic colleagues and the President's power in his own party. The result showed the senior Senator's shrewdness, for when he ceased talking the Senate, by a vote of 48 to 3, confirmed the appointment.
From Was.h.i.+ngton the contest was transferred to Saratoga. Fenton, desiring to impress and coerce the appointing power, made a herculean effort to show that although Conkling had the ear of the President, he could control the convention, and his plan included the election of Charles H. Van Wyck for temporary chairman and himself for permanent president. No doubt existed that at this moment he possessed great power. Delegates crowded his headquarters, and a score of lieutenants reported him far in the lead. From Fenton's accession to the governors.h.i.+p a majority of the State Committee had supported him, while chairmen, secretaries, and inspectors of the Republican district organisations in New York City, many of whom held munic.i.p.al appointments under Tweed, had been welded together in the interest of the Chautauquan's ascendency. To try to break such a combine was almost attempting the impossible. Indeed, until the President, in a letter dated August 22, expressed the wish that Conkling might go as a delegate, the Senator had hesitated to attend the convention.[1256]
Even on the eve of its meeting he counselled with friends on the policy of not taking his seat, while his backers talked of harmony and proposed George William Curtis for chairman. The confident Fenton, having retired for the night, would listen to no compromise. Meanwhile the senior Senator, accompanied by Thomas Murphy, visited the rooms of the up-State delegates, telling them that a vote for Fenton was a blow at the Administration.[1257] This was the argument of desperation. It meant to one man the loss of a federal office and to another the hope that one might be gained. Such a significant statement, addressed by the favourite of the President to internal revenue and post-office officials, naturally demoralised the Fenton ranks, and when the convention acted Curtis had 220 votes to 150 for Van Wyck.[1258]
Promptly upon this announcement Conkling, with great cunning, as if acting the part of a peacemaker, moved that the committee on organisation report Van Wyck for permanent president. The acceptance of this suggestion without dissent settled Fenton, who an hour later heard Conkling named at the head and himself at the foot of the committee on resolutions.
[Footnote 1256: A.R. Conkling, _Life of Roscoe Conkling_, p. 328. New York _World_, September 8, 1870.]
[Footnote 1257: The _Nation_, September 15, 1870.]