Part 5 (2/2)
After the expulsion of the negroes, the lower house asked the governor to send it the names of the candidates who at the election had received the next highest vote to the persons expelled. The governor sent the names and with them a long protest against the expulsion of the negroes.[282] The house, on hearing the message, adopted a tart resolution, reminding the governor that the members of each house were ”the keepers of their own consciences, and not his Excellency.”[283] A similar message to the upper house in response to a similar request provoked a similar resolution, which was defeated by two votes.[284]
It will be remembered that in December, 1868, and January, 1869, the governor urged upon Congress, through his letter presented in the Senate and through his testimony before the Reconstruction Committee, the theory that Georgia had not yet been restored. On January 15, 1869, he urged the same view upon the legislature. He advised it to reorganize itself by summoning all men elected members in 1868, requiring each to take the Test Oath, excluding only those who should not take it, and thus const.i.tuted to repa.s.s the resolutions required by the Omnibus Act. If the legislature did not do this, it must submit to Congressional interference.[285] This message apparently caused the legislature some apprehension. It adopted a joint resolution to the effect that it desired the question of the eligibility of negroes to office to be determined by the supreme court of the state. The governor sent this resolution back with one of his admirably keen and powerful messages. He said that Congress had two grievances against the present legislature; that it had admitted members disqualified by the Fourteenth Amendment, contrary to the Omnibus Act, and that it had expelled twenty-eight negroes. The present resolution, intended to appease Congress, ignored the first grievance and proposed no remedy for the second; therefore it was meaningless and absurd.[286]
On January 21, 1869, the state treasurer, Angier, in response to an inquiry from the house of representatives regarding the affairs of his department, intimated that the governor had drawn money from the treasury under suspicious circ.u.mstances.[287] Thus began the feud between the governor and the treasurer which continued during the rest of Bullock's term. Angier's report was referred to the committee on finance. The majority of the committee reported that the governor's acts had been irregular but in good faith. The minority reported that his acts were culpable and his explanations inadequate, and concluded: ”The facts herein set forth develop the necessity for further legislation for the security of the treasury.”[288] This report the house adopted by a large majority.[289]
Another index of the relations between the governor and the legislature is furnished by the governor's message submitting the proposed Fifteenth Amendment. It opened thus:
It is especially gratifying to learn, as I do from the published proceedings of your honorable body, that senators and representatives who have heretofore acted with a political organization which adopted as one of its principles a denunciation of the acts of a Republican Congress ... should now give expression to their anxious desire to lose no time in embracing this opportunity of ratifying one of the fundamental principles of the Republican party ... and I very much regret that the preparation necessary for a proper presentation of this subject to your honorable body has necessarily caused a short delay, and thereby prolonged the suspense of those who are so anxious to concur.[290]
The radicals probably desired the rejection of the amendment, since it would furnish another strong argument to Congress in favor of reorganizing the legislature. Hence, the Radical governor, as his message shows, did not do his best to induce the legislature to ratify, and probably some Radical members for the same reason voted against the amendment or refrained from voting for it. It was defeated in the lower house on March 12,[291] and in the upper on March 18.[292]
In the last chapter we saw that Terry excluded five men from the legislature because the board of inquiry had found them ineligible, and excluded nineteen others because they had failed to take the required oath, and had applied to Congress for removal of disabilities. It is safe to a.s.sume that all of these twenty-four men were conservatives. Nineteen of them had been elected to the lower house, five to the senate.[293]
Immediately after organization, on advice of Bullock and with the sanction of Terry, the senate gave the five vacated seats to the minority candidates,[294] and the house gave fourteen of its vacated seats to the minority candidates.[295] The result was that the Republicans secured a majority in each house.[296] The Republican control thus secured remained uninterrupted for the remainder of 1870. Perfect accord now existed between the governor and legislature, and in the quarrel between Bullock and Angier, which went on with increased acerbity in the press and before a congressional committee,[297] the legislature proceeded to transfer its support to the governor.[298]
But Republican supremacy was in danger. It was threatened by the Moderate Republicans. J. E. Bryant, a Republican, prominent in the state politics since the beginning of the new _regime_, in testifying before the Reconstruction Committee in January, 1869, had advocated reorganization of the legislature, but had opposed any other interference, especially the restoration of military government.[299] He and other Republicans who shared his opinion were disgusted with the proceedings of Bullock and Terry. As early as January 12, 1870, there were reports that the Radicals were apprehensive of a combination between the Moderate Republicans and the Conservatives.[300] Probably the strenuous efforts of the Radicals to take and make every possible advantage for themselves in the reorganization is partly accounted for by this apprehension. On February 2, Bryant caused to be entered on the journal of the house of representatives a protest denouncing the reorganization proceedings as illegal.[301] Shortly afterwards he published a statement of his position.
He said that he was a Republican, but was opposed to the corrupt ring which controlled the party in Georgia.[302] From this time on the papers frequently referred to the alliance between the followers of Bryant and the Conservatives as the salvation of the state.[303]
The Radical majority was not quite strong enough to pa.s.s a resolution declaring that there should be no election in 1870, as was attempted in August of that year.[304] But it was strong enough to pa.s.s an election law very favorable to the Radical party. It changed the date of the election from the regular time in November to December 22, and following the example set by General Pope in 1867, provided that it should continue three days. It established a board of five election managers for each county, three to be appointed by the governor and senate, and two by the county ordinary. It provided that the board should have ”no power to refuse the ballot of any male person of apparent full age, a resident of the county, who [had] not previously voted at the said election.” Also it said: ”They [the managers] shall not permit any person to challenge any vote.”[305] Another act was pa.s.sed, calculated to prevent the loss of Republican votes through disqualification of negroes for non-payment of taxes. It declared the poll tax levied in 1868, 1869 and 1870 illegal.[306]
At the election thus provided for were to be chosen a new legislature (except half of the senators, who held four years) and Congressmen. To what extent the Republicans availed themselves of the advantages offered by the election law we do not know. At any rate, the Conservatives obtained two-thirds of the seats in the legislature, and five of the seven seats in Congress.[307]
This result meant trouble for the governor, whose term ran to November, 1872. His efforts to secure Congressional interference, his conduct in January, 1870, and the accusations of extravagance, corruption, and other crimes continually made by an intemperate press, had raised public indignation to a high point. It was certain that when the new legislature met it would investigate the charges, and it was hoped that the governor would be impeached.[308] The time of reckoning had been postponed, however, by the prudence of the outgoing legislature, which had provided that the next session of the legislature should begin, instead of in January, the regular time set by the const.i.tution,[309] on the first Wednesday in November, 1871.[310]
The first Wednesday in November, 1871, was November 1. On October 23, the governor recorded in the executive minutes that he resigned his office, for ”good and sufficient reasons,” the resignation to take effect on October 30.[311] He then quietly left the state. The fact that he had resigned was kept secret until October 30.[312]
In case of a vacancy in the office of governor, the const.i.tution directed the president of the senate to fill the office.[313] On October 30, therefore, Conley, the president of the senate at its last session, hastened to be sworn in as governor.[314] By resigning just before the meeting of the incoming Conservative legislature, Bullock had thus cleverly prolonged Republican power, while at the same time resigning. The question whether under the const.i.tution the governor's office should not be filled by the president of the newly-organized senate, was raised by the papers.[315] But Conley was by common consent left in possession of the office. Though, as he said in his first message to the legislature,[316] ”a staunch Republican,” he was not personally unpopular.[317] Moreover, the legislature intended to furnish a successor very soon.
On November 22, a bill was pa.s.sed ordering a special election for governor for the remainder of the unexpired term, to be held on the third Tuesday in December.[318] The authority for this act was found in the following provision of the const.i.tution: ”The general a.s.sembly shall have power to provide by law for filling unexpired terms by a special election.”[319]
Conley vetoed the bill, on the ground that the section of the const.i.tution quoted empowered the legislature to make general provisions for filling unexpired terms, not to make special provision for single cases.[320] The bill was pa.s.sed over his veto.
Although Republican power was now doomed in a few weeks, and although resistance to a legislature which could easily override his vetoes was futile, yet Conley stubbornly continued to offer obstructions to the legislature at every possible point up to the very day when his successor was inaugurated.[321] He exhibited a courage and a political efficiency worthy of his predecessor, but accomplished nothing. He was able, however, to help his friends by means of the pardoning power. Several prominent Republicans were indicted at this time for various acts of public malfeasance. On the ground that in the existing state of public excitement these men could not obtain a fair trial, Conley ordered proceedings against several of these to be discontinued.[322]
On January 11, 1872, the returns from the special election were sent to the legislature by Conley, under protest,[323] and James M. Smith was declared elected. On January 12, Smith was inaugurated. Conley a.s.sisted at this ceremony, thus yielding the last inch of Republican ground.[324]
Reviewing the events recorded from the beginning of this chapter, we observe that the period of reconstruction in Georgia was not a period when a swarm of harpies took possession of the state government and preyed at will upon a helpless people. The const.i.tutional convention of 1867-68 forebodes such a period, but when the Conservatives rouse themselves, from that time on the stage presents an internecine war between two very well matched enemies. This struggle is usually represented as between a wicked a.s.sailant and a righteous a.s.sailed. That it was a struggle between Republicans and Democrats is much more characteristic. In such a contest mutual vilifying of course abounded, and it is not to be supposed _a priori_ that the vilifying of one party was more truthful than that of the other.
It is often vaguely said that reconstruction resulted in government by carpet-baggers. John B. Gordon, the Conservative candidate for governor who was defeated by Bullock, expressed before a Congressional committee in 1870 the belief that there were not more than a dozen men holding offices in Georgia who had recently been non-residents. He further said that the judges appointed by the Republican governor were entirely satisfactory.[325]
The reconstruction government is charged with having imposed such heavy taxes that as a result the people were impoverished, industry was checked, and many plantations went to waste. During the decade before the war the law provided that a tax should be annually levied at such a rate as to produce $375,000, provided the rate should not exceed one-twelfth of one per cent.[326] The revenue law of 1866 provided that a tax should be levied at such a rate as to produce $350,000.[327] Owing to the vast destruction of property during the war, this necessitated a higher rate than that before the war. The law of 1867 ordered a levy at such a rate as to raise $500,000.[328] This law, made by the Johnson government, before reconstruction began, was continued by the legislature in the four following years.[329] In 1870 the rate of a.s.sessment was two-fifths of one per cent.[330] This rate was much higher than the one prevailing before the war, but this misfortune cannot be charged to reconstruction, since the reconstruction government merely followed the example of the Johnson government.
That the reconstruction _regime_ did not do the economic harm often attributed to it is shown by the fact that during that _regime_ the value of land and of all property in the state steadily increased, as appears from the following table:
a.s.sESSED VALUATION.
<script>