Volume III Part 48 (1/2)

For these purely personal reasons an extraordinary situation was created, revealing the methods of purse and patronage by which the Gould-Conkling combine and the Administration got revenge. In their efforts in Folger's behalf delegates were coerced, and efficient officials at Albany, Brooklyn, Utica, and Ogdensburg, removed in the middle of their terms, were replaced by partisans of the President.

Even after the patronage packed convention a.s.sembled the questionable methods continued. Gould's agent hovered about Saratoga. To secure the selection of a temporary chairman by the State committee, Stephen B.

French, an intimate of Arthur, presented a fraudulent proxy to represent William H. Robertson.[1787] Had the convention known this at the moment of voting swift defeat must have come to the Administration, which barely escaped (251 to 243) by getting postmasters into line.[1788]

[Footnote 1787: French presented a telegram to the secretary of the State committee purporting to be sent from New York by Robertson. An investigation made later showed that the message was written in Albany on a sender's blank and had not been handled by the telegraph company.

French explained that he had wired Robertson for a proxy, and when handed the message supposed it to be an answer. It was plain, however, that the telegram to Robertson and his alleged answer were parts of the same scheme.]

[Footnote 1788: New York _Times_, September 22; see also the _Nation_, October 5; _Harper's Weekly_, October 14 and 21; New York _Sun_, September 22; Albany _Evening Journal_, September 22.]

The candidacy of James W. Wadsworth, son of the famous general, and recently state-comptroller, likewise became a decoy for Folger.

Wadsworth himself had no understanding with that wing. He was absolutely independent and unpledged. But the Stalwarts, in districts opposed to them, promoted the choice of such so-called Wadsworth delegates as could be captured by the persuasive plea for harmony, and under the stress of the second ballot, when Starin's and Robinson's support broke to Cornell, some of them voted for Folger. This gave the Administration's candidate eight more than the required number.[1789]

[Footnote 1789: Whole number of votes, 447. Necessary to a choice, 249. First ballot: Folger, 223; Cornell, 180; Wadsworth, 69; Starin, 19; Robinson, 6. Second ballot: Folger, 257; Cornell, 222; Wadsworth, 18.

The ticket was as follows: Governor, Charles J. Folger, Ontario; Lieutenant-Governor, B. Platt Carpenter, Dutchess; Chief Judge of Appeals, Charles Andrews, Onondaga; Congressman-at-large, A. Barton Hepburn, St. Lawrence. Subsequently, Howard Carroll of New York, was subst.i.tuted for Hepburn.]

The belated platform, fulsomely eulogistic of Cornell, added to the indignation of the Independents, since it seemed a mockery to present what the Stalwarts did not offer until after a nomination. It gave still greater offence when the State Committee selected John F. Smyth as its chairman to conduct the campaign.[1790]

[Footnote 1790: ”Look at John F. Smyth and B. Platt Carpenter. Instead of being at the head of the whole business, they should be at the tail or out of sight.”--From speech of Theodore F. Pomeroy, the _Nation_, October 5.]

”It is hardly worth while a.n.a.lysing the influences which have contributed to this result,” said the New York _Times_. ”The fact is plain that the Gould-Conkling combination, backed by the power of the Federal Administration, has accomplished what it set out to do.”[1791]

Henry Ward Beecher in a Sunday evening sermon, said that ”When Cornell went out, Avarice and Revenge kissed each other.” Theodore L. Cuyler, then pastor of the Lafayette Avenue Presbyterian Church in Brooklyn, declared that he ”stood by the cradle of the Republican party, but when it shunted off on the wrong track I will not go over the precipice with it.”[1792] In hastening to deny that _Harper's Weekly_ would support Folger, George William Curtis wrote: ”Judge Folger's ability and character are not in question, but his nomination is. That nomination was procured by the combined power of fraud and patronage, and to support it would be to acquiesce in them as legitimate forces in a convention.”[1793] The Buffalo _Express_, a vigorous and independent Republican journal, also bolted the ticket,[1794] an example followed by several other papers of similar character throughout the State. After the lapse of a fortnight, Hepburn, candidate for congressman-at-large, declined to accept because ”it is quite apparent that a very large portion of the Republicans, owing to the unfortunate circ.u.mstances which have come to light since the adjournment of the convention, are not disposed to accept its conclusion as an authoritative utterance of the party.”[1795]

[Footnote 1791: September 23.]

[Footnote 1792: The _Nation_, October 5.]

[Footnote 1793: New York _Tribune_, October 4.

”By one of those curious blunders to which editorial offices are liable in the absence of the responsible head, an article by Mr.

Curtis was modified to commit the paper to the support of the candidate. Curtis resigned the editors.h.i.+p. It was promptly and in the most manly manner disavowed by the house of Harper & Bros.”--Edward Cary, _Life of Curtis_, p. 275.]

[Footnote 1794: September 22.]

[Footnote 1795: New York daily papers, October 4.]

Folger was not suspected of any personal complicity with unfair dealing, but the deep and general Republican dissatisfaction greatly disturbed him. His friends urged him to withdraw. Stewart L. Woodford, then United States attorney, insisted that fraud and forgery vitiated all the convention did, and that the ”short, direct, and honourable way out of it was to refuse the nomination.”[1796] The Kings County executive committee a.s.sured him that many influential Republicans considered this the wisest course. From prominent men in all parts of the State came similar advice. This view appealed to his own better judgment, and he had decided so to act until persuaded otherwise by the pleadings of the Stalwarts.[1797] His acceptance, recalling the Tilden letter of 1880, was a touching appeal to the voters. Referring to the fraudulent practices, he said: ”No one claims, no one believes, that I had lot or part therein, or previous hint or suspicion thereof.

I scorn an end to be got by such means. I will not undertake to measure the truth of all these reports; that of one is beyond dispute.”[1798] Nevertheless, Folger could not deny that he was a willing recipient of that ”one,” through the influence of which, by creating the impression that Robertson and other anti-Administration leaders favoured the Stalwart's choice of a temporary chairman, he gained a much greater power in the convention than his eight majority represented.[1799]

[Footnote 1796: New York _Times_, September 29.]

[Footnote 1797: Albany _Evening Journal_, October 16.]

[Footnote 1798: Folger's letter is found in the daily papers of October 4.]

[Footnote 1799: It was generally known that this influence changed the votes of two acting State committeemen, who had agreed to act with the Cornell men.--See the _Nation_ of October 5; also the New York _Tribune_, October 4.]

In accepting the Democratic nomination Cleveland had the great advantage of not being obliged to refer to anything of which he was ashamed. Its tone was simple, sober, and direct, and from the principles expressed, the measures advocated, or the language employed, the reader could form no idea to what party the writer belonged. He desired primary elections to be ”uncontaminated and fairly conducted”; condemned the interference of ”officials of any degree, State or Federal, for the purpose of thwarting or controlling the popular wish”; favoured tenure of office in the civil service being dependent upon ”ability and merit”; and denounced the levying of political a.s.sessments, declaring ”the expenditure of money to influence the action of the people at the polls or to secure legislation is calculated to excite the gravest concern.”[1800]