Volume III Part 25 (1/2)
But as the year grew older it became apparent that designs more fatal in their consequences than removals from office threatened the Fenton organisation. It was not a secret that the Governor had kept his control largely through the management of politicians, ent.i.tled ”Tammany Republicans,” of whom ”Hank” Smith, as he was familiarly called, represented an active type. Smith was a member of the Republican State committee and of the Republican general city committee. He was also a county supervisor and a Tweed police commissioner. Moreover, he was the very model of a resourceful leader, acute and energetic, strong and unyielding, and utterly without timidity in politics. In supporting Fenton he appointed Republicans to city offices, took care of those discharged from the custom-house, and used the police and other instruments of power as freely as Thomas Murphy created vacancies and made appointments.[1293]
In his despotic sway he had shown little regard for opposition leaders and none whatever for minorities, until at last a faction of the general city committee, of which Horace Greeley was then chairman, pet.i.tioned the State committee for a reorganisation. So long as Fenton controlled State conventions and State committees, Smith's iron rule easily suppressed such seceders; but when the State committee revealed a majority of Conkling men, with Cornell as chairman, these malcontents found ready listeners and active sympathisers.
[Footnote 1292: _Ibid._, April 4, 1871.]
[Footnote 1293: ”Mr. Murphy's 'weeding out' process is exactly the one which the devil would use if he were appointed collector of this port, and that he would perform it on exactly the same principles and with the same objects and results as Mr. Murphy performs it, we challenge any one to deny who is familiar with the devil's character and habits and Mr. Murphy's late doings.”--_The Nation_, January 19, 1871.
”No collector was ever more dest.i.tute of fit qualifications for the office.” He made ”three hundred and thirty-eight removals every five days during the eighteen months” he held office. Report of D.B. Eaton, chairman of the Civil Service Commission, p. 23.]
Alonzo B. Cornell, then thirty-nine years old, had already entered upon his famous career. From the time he began life as a boy of fifteen in an Erie Railroad telegraph office, he had achieved phenomenal success in business. His talents as an organiser easily opened the way. He became manager of the Western Union telegraph lines, the promoter of a steamboat company for Lake Cayuga, and the director of a national bank at Ithaca. Indeed, he forged ahead so rapidly that soon after leaving the employ of the Western Union, Jay Gould charged him with manipulating a ”blind pool” in telegraph stocks.[1294] His education and experience also made him an expert in political manipulation, until, in 1868, he shone as the Republican candidate for lieutenant-governor. After his defeat and Grant's election, he became surveyor of the port of New York, a supporter of Conkling, and the champion of a second term for the President. His silence, deepened by cold, dull eyes, justified the t.i.tle of ”Sphinx,”
while his ma.s.sive head, with bulging brows, indicated intellectual and executive power. He was not an educated man. Pa.s.sing at an early age from his studies at Ithaca Academy into business no time was left him, if the disposition had been his, to specialise any branch of political economic science. He could talk of politics and the rapid growth of American industries, but the better government of great cities and the need of reform in the national life found little if any place among his activities. In fact, his close identification with the organisation had robbed him of the character that belongs to men of political independence, until the public came to regard him only an office-holder who owed his position to the favour of a chief whom he loyally served.
[Footnote 1294: Stephen Fiske, _Off-Hand Portraits_, p. 58.]
Very naturally the scheme of the malcontents attracted Cornell, who advised Horace Greeley that after careful and patient consideration the State Committee,[1295] by a vote of 20 to 8, had decided upon an entire reorganisation of his committee. Cornell further declared that if their action was without precedent so was the existing state of political affairs in the city, since never before in the history of the party had the general committee divided into two factions of nearly equal numbers, one ordering primaries for the election of a new committee, and the other calling upon the State committee to direct an entire reorganisation. However, he continued, abundant precedent existed for the arbitrary reorganisation of a.s.sembly, district, and ward committees by county committees. Since the State committee bore the same official relation to county committees that those committees sustained to local organisations within their jurisdiction, it had sufficient authority to act in the present crisis.[1296]
[Footnote 1295: ”Mr. Conkling had already had much to do with the appointment of this committee, but it is worthy of note that several changes in the federal offices were made almost simultaneously with the vote of the committee for Mr. Murphy's reorganisation, and that the men who voted for it got the best places. Addison H. Laflin was made naval officer, Lockwood L. Doty was made pension agent, Richard Crowley was made United States attorney for the Northern District. It will be seen that the committee were not disinterested in trying to please Conkling and Murphy.”--New York _Evening Post_, September 29, 1871.]
[Footnote 1296: New York _Times_, March 11, 1871.]
Conscious of the motive inspiring Cornell's action, Greeley replied that the State committee was the creature of State conventions, delegated with certain powers confined to the interval of time between such conventions. It executed its annual functions and expired. When contesting delegations from rival general committees had presented themselves in 1868, the State convention, rather than intrust the reorganisation to the State committee, appointed a special committee for the purpose, and when, in 1869, that committee made its report, the State convention resolved that the general committee of 1870 should thereafter be the regular and the only organisation. Nor was that all. When a resolution was introduced in the State convention of 1870 to give the State committee power to interfere with the general committee, the convention frowned and peremptorily dismissed it.
Neither did the State committee, Greeley continued, take anything by a.n.a.logy. County committees had never a.s.sumed to dissolve or reorganise a.s.sembly or district committees, nor had the power ever been conceded them, since a.s.sembly and district committees were paramount to county committees. But aside from this the general committee had other and greater powers than those of county committees, for the State convention in 1863, in 1866, and again in 1869 ordered that Republican electors in each city and a.s.sembly district should be enrolled into a.s.sociations, delegates from each of which composed the general committee. No such power was conceded to county committees.[1297]
[Footnote 1297: New York _Tribune_, March 3 and May 2, 1871.]
Although this statement seemed to negative its jurisdiction to interfere, the State committee, exposing the real reason for its action, based its right to proceed on the existence of improper practices, claiming that certain officers and members of the Greeley and district committees held positions in city departments under the control of Tammany, and that when members of Republican a.s.sociations were discharged from federal offices by reason of Democratic affiliations, they were promptly appointed to places under Democratic officials.[1298] To this the Greeley committee replied that Republicans holding munic.i.p.al offices did so under a custom growing out of mixed commissions of Republicans and Democrats, which divided certain places between the two parties--a custom as old as the party itself, and one that had received the sanction of its best men. Indeed, it continued, George Opd.y.k.e, a member of the State committee, had himself, when mayor, appointed well-known Democrats on condition that Republicans should share the minor offices,[1299] and a Republican governor and Senate, in placing a Tammany official at the head of the street-cleaning department, invoked the same principle of division.[1300] Several members of the State committee had themselves, until recently, held profitable places by reason of such an understanding without thought of their party fealty being questioned.
It was a recognition of the rights of the minority. As to the wisdom of such a policy the committee did not express an opinion, but it suggested that if members of the general committee or of district a.s.sociations, holding such city places, should be charged with party infidelity, prompt expulsion would follow proof of guilt. It declared itself as anxious to maintain party purity and fidelity as the State committee, and for the purpose of investigating all charges it appointed a sub-committee.[1301]
[Footnote 1298: New York _Times_, January 26.]
[Footnote 1299: New York _Tribune_, September 8.]
[Footnote 1300: New York _Times_, February 3.]
[Footnote 1301: New York _Times_, Feb. 3, 1871.]
It was manifest from the first, however, that no investigation, no purging of the rolls, no compromise would avail. The charge had gone forth that ”Tammany Republicans” controlled the Greeley committee, and in reply to the demand for specifications the State committee accused Henry Smith and others with using Tammany's police, taking orders from Sweeny, and partic.i.p.ating in Ring enterprises to the detriment of the Republican party.[1302] ”These men,” said the _Times_, ”are receiving the devil's pay, and consequently, it is to be presumed, are doing the devil's work. Republicans under Tammany cannot serve two masters. A Republican has a right to serve Tweed if he chooses. But he ought not at the same time to be taken into the confidence of Republicans who wage war against Tammany for debasing the bench, the bar, and every channel of political life.”[1303]
[Footnote 1302: _Ibid._, Jan. 7, 12, 25.]
[Footnote 1303: _Ibid._, Jan. 25.]
To articles of this character Greeley replied that the Republicanism of Cornell and Smith did not differ. They had graced the same ticket; they had gone harmonious members of the same delegation to the last State convention; and they were fellow members of the State committee, created by that convention, Smith being aided thither by Cornell's vote.[1304] In the presence of such evidence the Fenton faction declared that there was neither soundness nor sincerity in the _Times'_ statements or in the State committee's charges. Nevertheless, it was known then and publicly charged afterward that, although thoroughly honest himself, Greeley had long been a.s.sociated with the most selfish politicians in the State outside of Murphy and the Tammany Ring.[1305] Thus the accusation against ”Tammany Republicans”
became a taking cry, since the feeling generally obtained that it was quite impossible for a man to perform service for Tweed and be a faithful Republican. Formerly the question had a.s.sumed less importance, but Tammany, identified with fraudulent government, a corrupt judiciary, and a dishonest application of money, could no longer be treated as a political organisation. Its leaders were thieves, it was argued, and a Republican entering their service must also be corrupt. In his letter to John A. Griswold, Conkling openly charged the Greeley committee with being corrupted and controlled by Tammany money.[1306]
[Footnote 1304: New York _Tribune_, September 15, 1871.]
[Footnote 1305: The _Nation_, May 9, 1872.]
[Footnote 1306: New York _Tribune_, September 4, 1871.]
The controversy, bitter enough before, became still more bitter now.