Volume III Part 39 (2/2)
The Democrats, who supported Lieutenant-governor Dorsheimer for United States senator, protested against granting Conkling a certificate of election because no alteration of senate or a.s.sembly districts had occurred since the enumeration of 1875, as required by the const.i.tution, making the existing legislature, it was claimed, a legislature _de facto_ and not _de jure_. This was a new way of presenting an old grievance. For years unjust inequality of representation had fomented strife, but more recently the rapid growth of New York and Brooklyn had made the disparity more conspicuous, while continued Republican control of the Senate had created intense bitterness. In fact, a tabulated statement of the inequality between senatorial districts enraged a Democrat as quickly as a red flag infuriated the proverbial bull.[1621] Although the caucus refused to adopt the protest, it issued an address showing that New York and Kings were ent.i.tled to ten senators instead of seven and forty-one a.s.semblymen instead of thirty-one. These additional members, all belonging to Democratic districts, said the address, are now awarded to twelve counties represented by Republicans. The deep indignation excited throughout the State by such manifest injustice resulted in a new apportionment which transferred one a.s.semblyman from each of six Republican counties to New York and Kings. This did not correct the greater injustice in the senatorial districts, however, and in permitting the measure to become a law without his signature Governor Robinson declared that the ”deprivation of 150,000 inhabitants in New York and Kings of their proper representation admits of no apology or excuse.”[1622]
[Footnote 1621: The following table gave great offense:
+------------+-----------+-------------+ | Democratic | | | | Districts. | Counties. | Population. | +------------+-----------+-------------+ | 3d | Kings | 292,258 | | 8th | New York | 235,482 | | 7th | New York | 173,225 | | 2d | Kings | 172,725 | | 9th | New York | 167,530 | +------------+-----------+-------------+
+------------+------------------------+-------------+ | Republican | | | | Districts. | Counties. | Population. | +------------+------------------------+-------------+ | 20th | Herkimer, Otsego | 89,338 | | 18th | Jefferson, Lewis | 90,596 | | 26th | Ontario, Yates, Seneca | 91,064 | | 16th | Clinton, Ess.e.x, Warren | 101,327 | | 27th | Cayuga, Wayne | 106,120 | +------------+------------------------+-------------+]
[Footnote 1622: Appleton's _Cyclopaedia_, 1879, p. 672.]
CHAPTER x.x.xI
REMOVAL OF ARTHUR AND CORNELL
1878-9
One week before the election of 1877 President Hayes nominated Theodore Roosevelt for collector of customs, L. Bradford Prince for naval officer, and Edwin A. Merritt for surveyor, in place of Chester A. Arthur, Alonzo B. Cornell, and George H. Sharpe.[1623] The terms of Arthur and Cornell had not expired, and although their removal had been canva.s.sed and expected for several months, its coming shocked the party and increased the disgust of the organisation. George William Curtis, with the approval of Evarts, urged the promotion of James L.
Benedict for collector, a suggestion which the Secretary of the Treasury stoutly opposed. If Arthur, the latter argued, was to be removed because of his identification with a system of administration which the President desired to abolish, no reason existed for promoting one who had made no effort to reform that system. No one questioned Roosevelt's ability, high character, and fitness for the place, but to those who resented the removal of Arthur his nomination was an offence.
[Footnote 1623: Sharpe's term having expired he had withdrawn his application for reappointment.]
Chester A. Arthur had succeeded Thomas Murphy as collector of the port in November, 1871. He was then forty-seven years old, a lawyer of fair standing and a citizen of good repute. He had studied under the tuition of his clergyman father, graduated at Union College, taught school in his native Vermont, cast a first vote for Winfield Scott, and joined the Republican party at its organisation. At the outbreak of the rebellion Governor Morgan appointed him quartermaster-general, his important duties, limited to the preparation and forwarding of troops to the seat of war, being performed with great credit. When Seymour succeeded Morgan in 1863 Arthur resumed his law practice, securing some years later profitable employment as counsel for the department of city a.s.sessments and taxes.
From the first Arthur showed a liking for public life. He was the gentleman in politics. The skill of an artist tailor exhibited his tall, graceful figure at its best, and his shapely hands were immaculately gloved. His hat advertised the latest fas.h.i.+on just as his exquisite necktie indicated the proper colour.[1624] He was equally particular about his conduct. Whatever his environment he observed the details of court etiquette. His stately elegance of manner easily unbent without loss of dignity, and although his volatile spirits and manner of living gave him the appearance of a _bon vivant_, lively and jocose, with less devotion to work than to society, it was noticeable that he attracted men of severer mould as easily as those vivacious and light-hearted a.s.sociates who called him ”Chet.” While Fenton, after Greeley's failure as a leader, was gathering the broken threads of party management into a compact and aggressive organisation, Arthur enjoyed the respect and confidence of every local leader, who appreciated his wise reticence and perennial courtesy, blended with an ability to control restless and suspicious politicians by timely hints and judicious suggestions. Indeed, people generally, irrespective of party, esteemed him highly because of his kindness of heart, his conciliatory disposition, his lively sense of humour, and his sympathetic attention to the interests of those about him. He was neither self-opinionated, argumentative, nor domineering, but tactful, considerate, and persuasive. There was also freedom from prejudice, quickness of decision, a precise knowledge of details, and a flexibility of mind that enabled him to adapt himself easily to changing conditions.
[Footnote 1624: ”You remember, don't you, what Orville Baker told us about Arthur's two pa.s.sions, as he heard them discussed at Sam Ward's dinner in New York? New coats being one, he then having ordered twenty-five from his tailor since the New Year came in.”--Mrs. James G. Blaine, _Letters_ (January 28, 1882), Vol. 1, p. 294.]
When Conkling finally wrested the Federal patronage from Fenton and secured to himself the favour and confidence of the Grant administration, Arthur bivouacked with the senior Senator so quietly and discreetly that Greeley accepted his appointment as collector without criticism. ”He is a young man of fair abilities,” said the editor, ”and of unimpeached private character. He has filled no such role in public affairs as should ent.i.tle him to so important and responsible a part, but as things go, his is an appointment of fully average fitness and acceptability. With the man we have no difference; with the system that made him collector we have a deadly quarrel. He was Mr. Murphy's personal choice, and he was chosen because it is believed he can run the machine of party politics better than any of our great merchants.”[1625]
[Footnote 1625: New York _Tribune_, November 22, 1871. See also, _Ibid._, November 21.]
In party initiative Arthur's judgment and modesty aided him in avoiding the repellent methods of Murphy. He did not wait for emergencies to arise, but considering them in advance as possible contingencies, he exercised an un.o.btrusive but masterful authority when the necessity for action came. He played an honest game of diplomacy. What others did with Machiavellian intrigue or a cynical indifference to ways and means, he accomplished with the cards on the table in plain view, and with motives and objects frankly disclosed.
No one ever thought his straightforward methods clumsy, or unbusinesslike, or deficient in cleverness. In like manner he studied the business needs of the customs service, indicating to the Secretary of the Treasury the flagrant use of backstair wiles, and pointing out to him ways of reform.[1626] He sought in good faith to secure efficiency and honesty, and if he had not been pinioned as with ball and chain to a system as old as the custom-house itself, and upon which every political boss from DeWitt Clinton to Roscoe Conkling had relied for advantage, he would doubtless have reformed existing peculation and irregularities among inspectors, weighers, gaugers, examiners, samplers, and appraisers.[1627] Until this army of placemen could be taken out of politics Secretary Sherman refused to believe it possible to make the custom-house ”the best managed business agency of the government,” and as Arthur seemed an inherent part of the system itself, the President wished to try Theodore Roosevelt.[1628] It is safe to conclude, judging the father's work by the later achievements of his ill.u.s.trious son, that the Chief Executive's choice would have accomplished the result had Conkling allowed him to undertake it.
[Footnote 1626: See his letters to the Secretary of the Treasury, New York _Tribune_, January 28, 1879.]
[Footnote 1627: In his testimony before the Jay Commission, Arthur spoke of ”10,000 applicants,” backed and pressed upon him with unabated energy by the most prominent men ”all over the country.”--New York _Tribune_, July 28, 1877.]
[Footnote 1628: Arthur was offered an appointment as consul-general to Paris.--See Theodore E. Burton, _Life of John Sherman_, p. 294.]
When Conkling felt himself at ease, in congenial society, he displayed his mastery of irony and banter, neither hesitating to air his opinion of persons nor shrinking from admissions which were candid to the verge of cynicism. At such times he had not veiled his intense dislike of the Administration. After Hayes's election his conversation discovered as aggressive a spirit as he had exhibited at Rochester, speaking of the Secretary of State as ”little Evarts,” and charging the President with appointing ”a Democratic cabinet,” whose princ.i.p.al labour had been ”to withdraw Republican support from me.” Apropos of Schurz, he told a story of the man who disbelieved the Bible because he didn't write it. He criticised the Republican press for praising Tilden as governor and ”lampooning” him as a candidate for the presidency, p.r.o.nounced Packard's t.i.tle as good as Hayes's, and declared the President's ”objectionable and dishonourable” record consisted not in the withdrawal of the troops but in bargaining with Southerners. ”Every man knows,” he said, ”that on the face of the returns Packard was more elected than Hayes. You cannot present those returns in any form that will not give more legality to Packard as Governor than to Hayes as President. People say this man a.s.sumes all the virtues of reform in an office which he has gained by the simple repudiation of the ladder that lifted him. It is the general record of usurpers that though sustained they do their favours to the other side.... I have no faith in a President whose only distinct act is ingrat.i.tude to the men who voted for him and to the party which gave him its fealty. In the domain and forum of honour that sense of Mr.
Hayes's infidelity stands forward and challenges him. It is felt by honest men all over the country. He smiles and showers on the opposition the proofs of a disturbed mind.”
Speaking of the civil service order the Senator was no less severe.
”That celebrated reformatory order was factional in its intent, made in the interests of envious and presuming little men. Sherman (secretary of the treasury) goes out to Ohio and makes speeches in defiance of it; McCrary (secretary of war) goes to Iowa and manages a convention in spite of it; and Devens (attorney-general) says the order meant itself to be disobeyed, and that the way to obey it was to violate it.”[1629]
[Footnote 1629: New York _Herald_, November 9, 1877. Respecting this interview Conkling made a personal explanation in the Senate, in which he said: ”Though some of the remarks in question may at some time have been made in private casual conversations, others of them never proceeded from me at any time.”--New York _Tribune_, November 13. It is a.s.sumed that the portions quoted above, taken from a three-column interview, are substantially correct, since they are corroborated by several persons now living (1908) who heard the Senator's expressions.
See, also, Alfred R. Conkling, _Life of Conkling_, pp. 552-554.
<script>