BOOK I. HISTORY OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES OF THE UNITED STATES. (continued 17)
Reading edition
POLITICAL CHANGES IN 1882.
With a view to carry this work through the year 1882 and into part of 1883, very plain reference should be made to the campaign of 1882, which in several important States was fully as disastrous to the Republican party as any State elections since the advent of that party to national supremacy and power. In 1863 and 1874 the Republican reverses were almost if not quite as general, but in the more important States the adverse majorities were not near so sweeping. Political “tidal waves” had been freely talked of as descriptive of the situation in the earlier years named, but the result of 1882 has been pertinently described by Horatio Seymour as the “groundswell,” and such it seemed, both to the active participants in, and lookers-on, at the struggle.
Political discontent seems to be periodical under all governments, and the periods are probably quite as frequent though less violent under republican as other forms. Certain it is that no political party in our history has long enjoyed uninterrupted success. The National success of the Republicans cannot truthfully be said to have been uninterrupted since the first 305election of Lincoln, as at times one or the other of the two Houses of Congress have been in the hands of the Democratic party, while since the second Grant administration there has not been a safe working majority of Republicans in either House. Combinations with Greenbackers, Readjusters, and occasionally with dissenting Democrats have had to be employed to preserve majorities in behalf of important measures, and these have not always succeeded, though the general tendency of side-parties has been to support the majority, for the very plain reason that majorities can reward with power upon committees and with patronage.
Efforts were made by the Democrats in the first session of the 47th Congress to reduce existing tariffs, and to repeal the internal revenue taxes. The Republicans met the first movement by establishing a Tariff Commission, which was appointed by President Arthur, and composed mainly of gentlemen favorable to protective duties. In the year previous (1881) the income from internal taxes was $135,264,385.51, and the cost of collecting $4,327,793.24, or 3.20 per cent. The customs revenues amounted to $198,159,676.02, the cost of collecting the same $6,383,288.10, or 3.22 per cent. There was no general complaint as to the cost of collecting these immense revenues, for this cost was greatly less than in former years, but the surplus on internal taxes (about $146,000,000) was so large that it could not be profitably employed even in the payment of the public debt, and as a natural result all interests called upon to pay the tax (save where there was a monopoly in the product or the manufacture) complained of the burden as wholly unnecessary, and large interests and very many people demanded immediate and absolute repeal. The Republicans sought to meet this demand half way by a bill repealing all the taxes, save those on spirits and tobacco, but the Democrats obstructed and defeated every attempt at partial repeal. The Republicans thought that the moral sentiment of the country would favor the retention of the internal taxes upon spirits and tobacco (the latter having been previously reduced) but if there was any such sentiment it did not manifest itself in the fall elections. On the contrary, every form of discontent, encouraged by these great causes, took shape. While the Tariff Commission, by active and very intelligent work, held out continued hope to the more confident industries, those which had been threatened or injured by the failure of the crops in 1881, and by the assassination of President Garfield, saw only prolonged injury in the probable work of the Commission, for to meet the close Democratic sentiment and to unite that which it was hoped would be generally friendly, moderate tariff rates had to be fixed; notably upon iron, steel, and many classes of manufactured goods. Manufacturers of the cheaper grades of cotton goods were feeling the pressure of competition from the South—where goods could be made from a natural product close at hand—while those of the North found about the same time that the tastes of their customers had improved, and hence their cheaper grades were no longer in such general demand. There was over-production, as a consequence grave depression, and not all in the business could at once realize the cause of the trouble. Doubt and distrust prevailed, and early in the summer of 1882, and indeed until late in the fall, the country seemed upon the verge of a business panic. At the same time the leading journals of the country seemed to have joined in a crusade against all existing political methods, and against all statutory and political abuses. The cry of “Down with Boss Rule!” was heard in many States, and this rallied to the swelling ranks of discontent all who are naturally fond of pulling down leaders—and the United States Senatorial elections of 1883 quickly showed that the blow was aimed at all leaders, whether they were alleged Bosses or not. Then, too, the forms of discontent which could not take practical shape in the great Presidential contest between Garfield and Hancock, came to the front with cumulative force after the assassination. There is little use in philosophizing and searching for sufficient reasons leading to a fact, when the fact itself must be confessed and when its force has been felt. It is a plain fact that many votes in the fall of 1882 were determined by the nominating struggle for the Presidency in 1880, by the quarrels which followed Garfield’s inauguration, and by the assassination. Indeed, the nation had not recovered from the shock, and many very good people looked with very grave suspicion upon every act of President Arthur after he had succeeded to the chair. The best informed, broadest and most liberal political minds saw in his course an honest effort to heal existing differences in the Republican party, but many acts of recommendation and appointment directed to this end were discounted by the few which could not thus be traced, and suspicion and discontent swelled the chorus of other injuries. The result was the great political changes of 1882. It began in Ohio, the only important and debatable October State remaining at this time. The causes enumerated above (save the assassination and the conflict between the friends of Grant and Blaine) operated 306with less force in Ohio than any other section—for here leaders had not been held up as “Bosses;” civil service reform had many advocates among them; the people were not by interest specially wedded to high tariff duties, nor were they large payers of internal revenue taxes. But the liquor issue had sprung up in the Legislature the previous winter, the Republicans attempting to levy and collect a tax from all who sold, and to prevent the sale on Sundays. These brief facts make strange reading to the people of other States, where the sale of liquor has generally been licensed, and forbidden on Sundays. Ohio had previously passed a prohibitory constitutional amendment, in itself defective, and as no legislation had been enacted to enforce it, those who wished began to sell as though the right were natural, and in this way became strong enough to resist taxation or license. The Legislature of 1882, the majority controlled by the Republicans, attempted to pass the Pond liquor tax act, and its issue was joined. The liquor interests organized, secured control of the Democratic State Convention, nominated a ticket pledged to their interests, made a platform which pointed to unrestricted sale, and by active work and the free use of funds, carried the election and reversed the usual majority. Governor Foster, the boldest of the Republican leaders, accepted the issue as presented, and stumped in favor of license and the sanctity of the Sabbath; but the counsels of the Republican leaders were divided, Ex-Secretary Sherman and others enacting the role of “confession and avoidance.” The result carried with it a train of Republican disasters. Congressional candidates whom the issue could not legitimately touch, fell before it, probably on the principle that “that which strikes the head injures the entire body.” The Democratic State and Legislative tickets succeeded, and the German element, which of all others is most favorable to freedom in the observance of the Sabbath, transferred its vote almost as an entirety from the Republican to the Democratic party.
Ohio emboldened the liquor interests, and in their Conventions and Societies in other States they agreed as a rule to check and, if possible, defeat the advance of the prohibitory amendment idea. This started in Kansas in 1880, under the lead of Gov. St. John, an eloquent temperance advocate. It was passed by an immense majority, and it was hardly in force before conflicting accounts were scattered throughout the country as to its effect. Some of the friends of temperance contended that it improved the public condition; its enemies all asserted that in the larger towns and cities it produced free and irresponsible instead of licensed sale. The latter seem to have had the best of the argument, if the election result is a truthful witness. Gov. St. John was again the nominee of the Republicans, but while all of the remainder of the State ticket was elected, he fell under a majority which must have been produced by a change of forty thousand votes. Iowa next took up the prohibitory amendment idea, secured its adoption, but the result was injurious to the Republicans in the Fall elections, where the discontent struck at Congressmen, as well as State and Legislative officers.
The same amendment had been proposed in Pennsylvania, a Republican House in 1881 having passed it by almost a solid vote (Democrats freely joining in its support), but a Republican Senate defeated, after it had been loaded down with amendments. New York was coquetting with the same measure, and as a result the liquor interests—well organized and with an abundance of money, as a rule struck at the Republican party in both New York and Pennsylvania, and thus largely aided the groundswell. The same interests aided the election of Genl. B. F. Butler of Massachusetts, but from a different reason. He had, in one of his earlier canvasses, freely advocated the right of the poor to sell equally with those who could pay heavy license fees, and had thus won the major sympathy of the interest. Singularly enough, Massachusetts alone of all the Republican States meeting with defeat in 1882, fails to show in her result reasons which harmonize with those enumerated as making up the elements of discontent. Her people most do favor high tariffs, taxes on liquors and luxuries, civil service reforms, and were supposed to be more free from legal and political abuses than any other. Massachusetts had, theretofore, been considered to be the most advanced of all the States—in notions, in habit, and in law—yet Butler’s victory was relatively more pronounced than that of any Democratic candidate, not excepting that of Cleveland over Folger in New York, the Democratic majority here approaching two hundred thousand. How are we to explain the Massachusetts’ result? Gov. Bishop was a high-toned and able gentleman, the type of every reform contended for. There is but one explanation. Massachusetts had had too much of reform; it had come in larger and faster doses than even her progressive people could stand—and an inconsistent discontent took new shape there—that of very plain reaction. This view is confirmed by the subsequent attempt of Gov. Butler to defeat the re-election of Geo. F. Hoar to 307the U. S. Senate, by a combination of Democrats with dissatisfied Republicans. The movement failed, but it came very near to success, and for days the result was in doubt. Hoar had been a Senator of advanced views, of broad and comprehensive statesmanship, but that communistic sentiment which occasionally crops out in our politics and strikes at all leaders, merely from the pleasure of asserting the right to tear down, assailed him with a vigor almost equal to that which struck Windom of Minnesota, a statesman of twenty-four years’ honorable, able and sometimes brilliant service. To prejudice the people of his State against him, a photograph of his Washington residence had been scattered broadcast. The print in the photograph intended to prejudice being a coach with a liveried lackey. It might have been the coach and lackey of a visitor, but the effect was the same where discontent had run into a fever.
Political discontent gave unmistakable manifestations of its existence in Ohio, Massachusetts, New York (where Ex-Governor Cornell’s nomination had been defeated by a forged telegram), Michigan, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Connecticut, California, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Indiana. The Republican position was well maintained in New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Illinois, and Wisconsin. It was greatly improved in Virginia, where Mahone’s Republican Readjuster ticket carried the State by nearly ten thousand, and where a United States’ Senator and Congressman at large were gained, as well as some of the District Congressmen. The Republicans also improved the situation in North Carolina and Tennessee, though they failed to carry either. They also gained Congressmen in Mississippi and Louisiana, but the Congressional result throughout the country was a sweeping Democratic victory, the 48th Congress, beginning March 4, 1883, showing a Democratic majority of 71 in a total membership of 325.
In Pennsylvania alone of all the Northern States, were the Republican elements of discontent organized, and here they were as well organized as possible under the circumstances. Charles S. Wolfe had the year previous proclaimed what he called his “independence of the Bosses,” by declaring himself a candidate for State Treasurer, “nominated in a convention of one.” He secured 49,984 votes, and this force was used as the nucleus for the better organized Independent Republican movement of 1882. Through this a State Convention was called which placed a full ticket in the field, and which in many districts nominated separate legislative candidates.
The complaints of the Independent Republicans of Pennsylvania were very much like those of dissatisfied Republicans in other Northern States where no adverse organizations were set up, and these can best be understood by giving the official papers and correspondence connected with the revolt, and the attempts to conciliate and suppress it by the regular organization. The writer feels a delicacy in appending this data, inasmuch as he was one of the principals in the negotiations, but formulated complaints, methods and principles peculiar to the time can be better understood as presented by organized and official bodies, than where mere opinions of cotemporaneous writers and speakers must otherwise be given. A very careful summary has been made by Col. A. K. McClure, in the Philadelphia Times Almanac, and from this we quote the data connected with the—
The Independent Republican Revolt In Pennsylvania.
The following call was issued by Chairman McKee, of the committee which conducted the Wolfe campaign in 1881:
Headquarters State Committee,
Citizens’ Republican Association, Girard House,
Philadelphia, December 16, 1881.
To the Independent Republicans of Pennsylvania:
You are earnestly requested to send representatives from each county to a State conference, to be held at Philadelphia, Thursday, January 12th, 1882, at 10 o’clock A.M., to take into consideration the wisdom of placing in nomination proper persons for the offices of Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Secretary of Internal Affairs and Supreme Court Judge, and such other matters as may come before the conference, looking to the overthrow of “boss rule,” and the elimination of the pernicious “spoils system,” and its kindred evils, from the administration of public affairs. It is of the utmost importance that those fifty thousand unshackled voters who supported the independent candidacy of Hon. Charles S. Wolfe for the office of State Treasurer as a solemn protest against ring domination, together with the scores of thousands of liberty-loving citizens who are ready to join in the next revolt against “bossism,” shall be worthily represented at this conference.
I. D. McKee, Chairman.
Frank Willing Leach, Secretary.
Pursuant to the above call, two hundred and thirteen delegates, representing thirty-three of the sixty-six counties, met at the Assembly Building, January 12th, 1882, 308and organized by the election of John J. Pinkerton as chairman, together with a suitable list of vice-presidents and secretaries. After a general interchange of views, a resolution was adopted directing the holding of a State Convention for the nomination of a State ticket, May 24th. An executive committee, with power to arrange for the election of delegates from each Senatorial district, was also appointed, consisting of Messrs. I. D. McKee, of Philadelphia; Wharton Barker, of Montgomery; John J. Pinkerton, of Chester; F. M. Nichols, of Luzerne; H. S. McNair, of York, and C. W. Miller, of Crawford. Mr. Nichols afterwards declining to act, George E. Mapes, of Venango, was substituted in his place. Before the time arrived for the meeting of the convention of May 24th, several futile efforts were made to heal the breach between the two wings of the Republican party. At a conference of leading Independents held in Philadelphia, April 23d, at which Senator Mitchell was present, a committee was appointed for the purpose of conferring with a similar committee from the regular organization, upon the subject of the party differences. The members of the Peace Conference, on the part of the Independents, were Charles S. Wolfe, I. D. McKee, Francis B. Reeves, J. W. Lee, and Wharton Barker. The committee on the part of the Stalwarts were M. S. Quay, John F. Hartranft, C. L. Magee, Howard J. Reeder, and Thomas Cochran. A preliminary meeting was held at the Continental Hotel, on the evening of April 29th, which adjourned to meet at the same place on the evening of May 1st; at which meeting the following peace propositions were agreed upon:
Resolved, That we recommend the adoption of the following principles and methods by the Republican State Convention of May 10th.
First. That we unequivocally condemn the use of patronage to promote personal political ends, and require that all offices bestowed within the party shall be upon the sole basis of fitness.
Second. That competent and faithful officers should not be removed except for cause.
Third. That the non-elective minor offices should be filled in accordance with rules established by law.
Fourth. That the ascertained popular will shall be faithfully carried out in State and National Conventions, and by those holding office by the favor of the party.
Fifth. That we condemn compulsory assessments for political purposes, and proscription for failure to respond either to such assessments or to requests for voluntary contributions, and that any policy of political proscription is unjust, and calculated to disturb party harmony.
Sixth. That public office constitutes a high trust to be administered solely for the people, whose interests must be paramount to those of persons or parties, and that it should be invariably conducted with the same efficiency, economy, and integrity as are expected in the execution of private trusts.
Seventh. That the State ticket should be such as by the impartiality of its constitution and the high character and acknowledged fitness of the nominees will justly commend itself to the support of the united Republican party.
Resolved, That we also recommend the adoption of the following permanent rules for the holding of State Conventions, and the conduct of the party:
First. That delegates to State Conventions shall be chosen in the manner in which candidates for the General Assembly are nominated, except in Senatorial districts composed of more than one county, in which conferees for the selection of Senatorial delegates shall be chosen in the manner aforesaid, and the representation of each county shall be based upon its Republican vote cast at the Presidential election next preceding the convention.
Second. Hereafter the State Convention of the Republican party shall be held on the second Wednesday of July, except in the year of the Presidential election, when it shall be held not more than thirty days previous to the day fixed for the National Convention, and at least sixty days’ notice shall be given of the date of the State Convention.
Third. That every person who voted the Republican electoral ticket at the last Presidential election next preceding any State Convention shall be permitted to participate in the election of delegates to State and National Conventions, and we recommend to the county organizations that in their rules they allow the largest freedom in the general participation in the primaries consistent with the preservation of the party organization.
M. S. Quay,
J. F. Hartranft,
Thomas Cochran,
Howard J. Reeder,
C. L. Magee,
On the part of the Republican State Committee, appointed by Chairman Cooper.
Charles S. Wolfe,
I. D. McKee,
Francis B. Reeves,
Wharton Barker,
J. W. Lee,
On the part of Senator Mitchell’s Independent Republican Committee.
309The following resolution was adopted by the joint conference:
Resolved, That we disclaim any authority to speak or act for other persons than ourselves, and simply make these suggestions as in our opinion are essential to the promotion of harmony and unity.
In order, however, that there might be no laying down of arms on the part of the Independents, in the false belief that the peace propositions had ended the contest, without regard to whether they were accepted in good faith, and put in practice by the regular convention, the following call was issued by the Independent Executive Committee:
Executive Committee,
Citizens’ Republican Association of
Pennsylvania, Girard House.
Philadelphia, May 3d, 1882.
To the Independent Republicans of Pennsylvania:
At a conference of Independent Republicans held in Philadelphia, on January 12th, 1882, the following resolution was adopted, to wit:
Resolved, That a convention be held on the 24th day of May, 1882, for the purpose of placing in nomination a full Independent Republican ticket for the offices to be filled at the general election next November.
In pursuance and by the authority of the above resolution the undersigned, the State Executive Committee appointed at the said conference, request the Independent Republicans of each county of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to send delegates to the Independent Convention of May 24th, the basis of representation to be the same as that fixed for Senators and Representatives of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania.
Should the convention of May 10th fail to nominate as its candidates men who in their character, antecedents and affiliations are embodiments of the principles of true Republicanism free from the iniquities of bossism, and of an honest administration of public affairs free from the evils of the spoils system, such nominations, or any such nomination, should be emphatically repudiated by the Independent Convention of May 24th, and by the Independent Republicans of Pennsylvania in November next.
The simple adoption by the Harrisburg Convention of May 10th of resolutions of plausible platitudes, while confessing the existence of the evils which we have strenuously opposed, and admitting the justice of our position in opposing them, will not satisfy the Independent Republicans of this Commonwealth. We are not battling, for the construction of platforms, but for the overthrow of bossism, and the evils of the spoils system, which animated a despicable assassin to deprive our loved President Garfield of his life, and our country of its friend and peacemaker.
The nomination of slated candidates by machine methods, thereby tending to the perpetuation of boss dominion in our Commonwealth, should never be ratified by the Independent Republicans in convention assembled or at the polls. Upon this very vital point there should be no mistake in the mind of any citizen of this State. The path of duty in this emergency leads forward, and not backward, and forward we should go until bossism and machinism and stalwartism—aye, and Cameronism—are made to give way to pure Republicanism. The people will not submit to temporizing or compromising.
We appeal to the Independent Republicans of Pennsylvania to take immediate steps toward perfecting their organization in each county, and completing the selection of delegates to the Independent State Convention. Use every exertion to secure the choice as delegates of representative, courageous men, who will not falter when the time arrives to act—who will not desert into the ranks of the enemy when the final time of testing comes. Especially see to it that there shall not be chosen as delegates any Pharisaical Independents, who preach reform, yet blindly follow boss leadership at the crack of the master’s whip. Act quickly and act discreetly.
A State Campaign Committee of fifty, comprising one member from each Senatorial district, has been formed, and any one desiring to co-operate with us in this movement against the enemies of the integrity of our State, who shall communicate with us, will be immediately referred to the committeeman representing the district in which he lives. We urgently invite a correspondence from the friends of political independence from all sections of the State.
Again we say to the Independent Republicans of Pennsylvania in the interest of justice and the Commonwealth’s honor, leave no stone unturned to vindicate the rights of the people.
I. D. McKee, Chairman.
Wharton Barker.
John J. Pinkerton.
Geo. E. Mapes.
H. S. McNair.
Charles W. Miller.
Frank Willing Leach, Secretary.
In pursuance of the above call, the Independent Convention met, May 24th, in Philadelphia, and deciding that the action of the regular Republican Convention, held 310at Harrisburg on May 10th, did not give the guarantee of reform demanded by the Independents, proceeded to nominate a ticket and adopt a platform setting forth their views.
Although the break between the two wings of the party was thus made final to all appearances, yet all efforts for a reconciliation were not entirely abandoned. Thos. M. Marshall having declined the nomination for Congressman at Large on the Republican ticket, the convention was reconvened June 21st, for the purpose of filling the vacancy, and while in session, instructed the State Central Committee to use all honorable means to secure harmony between the two sections of the party. Accordingly, the Republican State Committee was called to meet in Philadelphia, July, 13th. At this meeting the following propositions were submitted to the Independents:
Pursuant to the resolution passed by the Harrisburg Convention of June 21st, and authorizing the Republican State Committee to use all honorable means to promote harmony in the party, the said committee, acting in conjunction with the Republican candidates on the State ticket, respectfully submit to the State Committee and candidates of the Independents the following propositions:
First. The tickets headed by James A. Beaver and John Stewart, respectively, be submitted to a vote of the Republican electors of the State, at primaries, as hereinafter provided for.
Second. The selection of candidates to be voted for by the Republican party in November to be submitted as aforesaid, every Republican elector, constitutionally and legally qualified, to be eligible to nomination.
Third. A State Convention to be held, to be constituted as recommended by the Continental Hotel Conference, whereof Wharton Barker was chairman and Francis B. Reeves secretary, to select candidates to be voted for by the Republican party in November, its choice to be limited to the candidates now in nomination, or unlimited, as the Independent State Committee may prefer.
The primaries or convention referred to in the foregoing propositions to be held on or before the fourth Wednesday of August next, under regulations or apportionment to be made by Daniel Agnew, Hampton L. Carson, and Francis B. Reeves, not in conflict, however, with the acts of Assembly regulating primary elections, and the candidates receiving the highest popular vote, or the votes of a majority of the members of the convention, to receive the united support of the party.
Resolved, That in the opinion of the Republican State Committee the above propositions fully carry out, in letter and spirit, the resolution passed by the Harrisburg Convention, June 21st, and that we hereby pledge the State Committee to carry out in good faith any one of the foregoing propositions which may be accepted.
Resolved, That the chairman of the Republican State Committee be directed to forward an official copy of the proceedings of this meeting, together with the foregoing propositions, to the Independent State Committee and candidates.
Whereupon, General Reeder, of Northampton, moved to amend by adding a further proposition, as follows.
Fourth. A State Convention, to be constituted as provided for by the new rules adopted by the late Republican State Convention, to select candidates to be voted for by the Republican party in November, provided, if such convention be agreed to, said convention shall be held not later than the fourth Wednesday in August. Which amendment was agreed to, and the preamble and resolutions as amended were agreed to.
This communication was addressed to the chairman of the Independent State Committee, I. D. McKee, who called the Independent Committee to meet July 27th, to consider the propositions. In the meantime the Independent candidates held a conference on the night of July 13th, and four of them addressed the following propositions to the candidates of the Stalwart wing of the party:
Philadelphia, July 13th, 1882.
To General James A. Beaver, Hon. William T. Davies, Hon. John M. Greer, William Henry Rawle, Esq., and Marriott Brosius, Esq.
Gentlemen: By a communication received from the Hon. Thomas V. Cooper, addressed to us as candidates of the Independent Republicans, we are advised of the proceedings of the State Committee, which assembled in this city yesterday.
Without awaiting the action of the Independent State Committee, to which we have referred the communication, and attempting no discussion of the existing differences, or the several methods proposed by which to secure party unity, we beg to say that we do not believe that any of the propositions, if accepted, would produce harmony in the party, but on the contrary, would lead to wider divisions. We therefore suggest that the desired result can be secured by the hearty co-operation of the respective candidates. We have no authority to speak for the great body of voters now giving their support to the Independent Republican ticket, nor 311can we include them by any action we may take. We are perfectly free, however, to act in our individual capacity, and desire to assure you that we are not only willing, but anxious to co-operate with you in the endeavor to restore peace and harmony to our party. That this can be accomplished beyond all doubt we feel entirely assured, if you, gentlemen, are prepared to yield, with us, all personal considerations, and agree to the following propositions:
First. The withdrawal of both tickets.
Second. The several candidates of these tickets to pledge themselves not to accept any subsequent nomination by the proposed convention.
Under these conditions we will unite with you in urging upon our respective constituencies the adoption of the third proposition submitted by your committee, and conclude the whole controversy by our final withdrawal as candidates. Such withdrawal of both tickets would remove from the canvass all personal as well as political antagonisms, and leave the party united and unembarrassed.
We trust, gentlemen, that your judgment will approve the method we have suggested, and that, appreciating the importance of concluding the matter with as little delay as possible, you will give us your reply within a week from this date.
Very respectfully, your obedient servants,
John Stewart.
Levi Bird Duff.
George W. Merrick.
George Junkin.
William McMichael, Independent candidate for Congressman at Large, dissented from the proposition of his colleagues, and addressed the following communication to Chairman Cooper:
Philadelphia, July 13th, 1882.
Hon. Thomas V. Cooper, Chairman, etc.
Dear Sir: Your letter of July 12th is received, addressed to the chairman of the State Committee of the Independent Republicans and their candidates, containing certain propositions of your committee. I decline those propositions, because they involve an abandonment of the cause of the Independent Republicans.
If a new convention, representing all Republicans, had nominated an entirely new ticket, worthy of popular support, and not containing the name of any candidate on either of the present tickets, and sincerely supporting the principles of the Independent Republicans, the necessity for a separate Independent Republican movement would not exist. Your proposition, however, practically proposes to re-nominate General Beaver, and reaffirm the abuse which we oppose.
The convention of Independent Republicans which met in Philadelphia on May 24th, announced principles in which I believe. It nominated me for Congressman at Large, and I accepted that nomination. It declared boldly against bossism, the spoils system, and all the evils which impair Republican usefulness, and in favor of popular rule, equal rights of all, national unity, maintenance of public credit, protection to labor, and all the great principles of true Republicanism. No other ticket now in the field presents those issues. The people of Pennsylvania can say at the polls, in November, whether they approve of those principles, and will support the cause which represents them. I will not withdraw or retire unless events hereafter shall give assurance that necessary reform in the civil service shall be adopted; assessments made upon office-holders returned, and not hereafter exacted; boss, machine, and spoils methods forever abandoned; and all our public offices, from United States Senator to the most unimportant officials, shall be filled only by honest and capable men, who will represent the people, and not attempt to dictate to or control them.
I shall go on with the fight, asking the support of all my fellow-citizens who believe in the principles of the Independent Republican Convention of May 24th.
Yours truly,
William McMichael.
To these propositions General Beaver and his colleagues replied in the following communication:
Philadelphia, July 15th, 1882.
Hon. Thomas V. Cooper, Chairman Republican State Committee, Philadelphia, Pa.
Sir: We have the honor to acknowledge the receipt through you of a communication addressed to us by the Hon. John Stewart, Colonel Levi Bird Duff, Major G. W. Merrick, and George Junkin, Esq.; in response to certain propositions submitted by the Republican State Committee, representing the Republican party of Pennsylvania, looking to an amicable and honorable adjustment of whatever differences there may be among the various elements of the party. Without accepting any of the propositions submitted by your committee, this communication asks us, as a condition precedent to any recommendation on the part of the writers thereof, to declare that in the event of the calling of a new convention, we will severally forbid the Republicans of Pennsylvania to call upon us for our services as candidates for the various positions to be filled by the people at the coming election. To say 312that in the effort to determine whether or not our nomination was the free and unbiased choice of the Republican party we must not be candidates, is simply to try the question at issue. We have no desire to discuss the question in any of its numerous bearings. We have placed ourselves unreservedly in the hands of the Republicans of Pennsylvania. We have pledged ourselves to act concurrently with your committee, and are bound by its action. We therefore respectfully suggest that we have no power or authority to act independently of the committee, or make any declaration at variance with the propositions submitted in accordance with its action. There ought to be and can be no such thing as personal antagonism in this contest. We socially and emphatically disclaim even the remotest approach to a feeling of this kind toward any person. We fraternize with and are ready to support any citizen who loves the cause of pure Republicanism, and with this declaration we submit the whole subject to your deliberate judgment and wise consideration.
James A. Beaver.
William Henry Rawle.
Marriott Brosius.
W. T. Davies.
John M. Greer.
At the meeting of the Independent State Committee, July 27th, the propositions of the Regular Committee were unanimously rejected, and a committee appointed to draft a reply, which was done in the following terms:
Thomas V. Cooper, Esq., Chairman Republican State Committee.
Dear Sir: I am instructed to advise you that the Independent Republican State Committee have considered the four suggestions contained in the minutes of the proceedings of your committee, forwarded to me by you on the 12th instant.
I am directed to say that this committee find that none of the four are methods fitted to obtain a harmonious and honorable unity of the Republican voters of Pennsylvania. All of them are inadequate to that end, for the reason that they afford no guarantee that, being accepted, the principles upon which the Independent Republicans have taken their stand would be treated with respect or put into action. All of them contain the probability that an attempt to unite the Republicans of the State by their means would either result in reviving and strengthening the political dictatorship which we condemn or would permanently distract the Republican body, and insure the future and continued triumph of our common opponent, the Democratic party.
Of the four suggestions, the first, second and fourth are so inadequate as to need no separate discussion: the third, which alone may demand attention, has the fatal defect of not including the withdrawal of that “slated” ticket which was made up many months ago, and long in advance of the Harrisburg Convention, to represent and to maintain the very evils of control and abuses of method to which we stand opposed. This proposition, like the others, supposing it to have been sincerely put forward, clearly shows that you misconceive the cause of the Independent Republican movement, as well as its aims and purposes. You assume that we desire to measure the respective numbers of those who support the Harrisburg ticket and those who find their principles expressed by the Philadelphia Convention. This is a complete and fatal misapprehension. We are organized to promote certain reforms, and not to abandon them in pursuit of votes. Our object is the overthrow of the “boss system” and of the “spoils system.”
In behalf of this we are willing and anxious to join hands with you whenever it is assured that the union will be honestly and earnestly for that purpose. But we cannot make alliances or agree to compromises that in their face threaten the very object of the movement in which we have engaged. Whether your ticket has the support of many or few, of a majority or a minority of the Republican voters, does not affect in the smallest degree the duty of every citizen to record himself against the abuses which it represents. Had the gentlemen who compose it been willing to withdraw themselves from the field, as they were invited to join in doing, for the common good, by the Independent Republican candidates, this act would have encouraged the hope that a new convention, freely chosen by the people, and unembarrassed by claims of existing candidates, might have brought forth the needed guarantee of party emancipation and public reform.
This service, however, they have declined to render their party; they not only claim and receive your repeated assurances of support, but they permit themselves to be put forward to secure the use of the Independent Republican votes at the same time that they represent the “bossism,” the “spoils” methods, and the “machine” management which we are determined no longer to tolerate. The manner in which their candidacy was decreed, the means employed to give it convention formality, the obligations which they incur by it, the political methods with which it identifies them, and the political and personal plans for which their official influence would be required, all join to make it the most imperative 313public duty not to give them support at this election under any circumstances.
In closing this note, this committee must express its regret, that, having considered it desirable to make overtures to the Independent Republicans, you should have so far misapprehended the facts of the situation. It is our desire to unite the Republican party on the sure ground of principle, in the confidence that we are thus serving it with the highest fidelity, and preserving for the future service of the Commonwealth that vitality of Republicanism which has made the party useful in the past, and which alone confers upon it now the right of continued existence. The only method which promises this result in the approaching election is that proposed by the Independent Republican candidates in their letter of July 13th, 1882, which was positively rejected by your committee.
On behalf of the Independent Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania,
I. D. McKee, Chairman.
With this communication ended all efforts at conciliation.
The election followed, and the Democratic ticket, headed by Robert E. Pattison of Philadelphia, received an average plurality of 40,000, and the Independent Republican ticket received an average vote of about 43,000–showing that while Independence organized did not do as well in a gubernatorial as it had in a previous off-year, it yet had force enough to defeat the Republican State ticket headed by Gen. James A. Beaver. All of the three several State tickets were composed of able men, and the force of both of the Republican tickets on the hustings excited great interest and excitement; yet the Republican vote, owing to the division, was not out by nearly one hundred thousand, and fifty thousand more Republicans than Democrats remained at home, many of them purposely. In New York, where dissatisfaction had no rallying point, about two hundred thousand Republicans remained at home, some because of anger at the defeat of Gov. Cornell in the State nominating convention—some in protest against the National Administrations, which was accused of the desire for direct endorsement where it presented the name of Hon. Chas. J. Folger, its Secretary of the Treasury, as the home gubernatorial candidate,—others because of some of the many reasons set forth in the bill of complaints which enumerates the causes of the dissatisfaction within the party.
At this writing the work of Republican repair is going on. Both the Senate and House at Washington are giving active work to the passage of a tariff bill, the repeal of the revenue taxes, and the passage of a two-cent letter postage bill—measures anxiously hastened by the Republicans in order to anticipate friendly and defeat unfriendly attempts on the part of the Democratic House, which comes in with the first session of the 48th Congress.
In Pennsylvania, as we close this review of the struggle of 1882, the Regular and Independent Republican State Committees—at least the heads thereof—are devising a plan to jointly call a Republican State Convention to nominate the State ticket to be voted for in November, 1883. The groundswell was so great that it had no sooner passed, than Republicans of all shades of opinion, felt the need of harmonious action, and the leaders everywhere set themselves to the work of repair.
The Republicans in the South differed from those of the North in the fact that their complaints were all directed against a natural political enemy—the Bourbons—and wherever there was opportunity they favored and entered into movements with Independent and Readjuster Democrats, with the sole object of revolutionizing political affairs in the South. Their success in these combinations was only great in Virginia, but it proved to be promising in North Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana, and may take more definite and general shape in the great campaign of 1884.
The Democratic party was evidently surprised at its great victory in 1882, and has not yet formally resolved what it will do with it. The Congress beginning with December, 1883, will doubtless give some indication of the drift of Democratic events.
The most notable law passed in the closing session of the 47th Congress, was the Civil Service Reform Bill, introduced by Senator Geo. H. Pendleton of Ohio, but prepared under the direction of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Republicans, feeling that there was some public demand for the passage of a measure of the kind, eagerly rushed to its support, at a time when it was apparent that the spoils of office might slip from their hands. From opposite motives the Democrats, who had previously encouraged, now ran away from it, but it passed both Houses with almost a solid Republican vote, a few Democrats in each House voting with them. President Arthur signed the bill, but at this writing the Commission which it creates has not been appointed, and of course none of the rules and constructions under the act have been formulated. Its basic principles are fixed tenure in minor places, competitive examinations, and non-partisan selections.
314
POLITICAL CHANGES—1883.
In the fall of 1883 nearly all of the States swept by the tidal wave of 1882 showed that it had either partially or completely receded, and for the first time since the close of the Hayes administration (always excepting the remarkable Garfield-Hancock campaign), the Republican party exhibited plain signs of returning unity and strength. Henry Ward Beecher has wittily said that “following the war the nation needed a poultice, and got it in the Hayes administration.” The poultice for a time only drew the sores into plainer view, and healing potions were required for the contests immediately following. The divisions of 1882 were as much the result of the non-action of the Hayes administration, as of the misunderstandings and feuds which later on found bitter manifestation between the Stalwarts and Half-Breeds of New York.
The Independents took no organized form except in New York and Pennsylvania, and yet the underlying causes of division for the time swept from their Republican moorings not only the States named, but also Massachusetts, Connecticut, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Kansas, Colorado and California.
The year 1882 seemed the culmination of every form of Republican division, and then everything in the States named gave place to faction. Very wisely the Republican leaders determined to repair the mischief, as far as possible, in the otherwise uneventful year of 1883. Their efforts were in most instances successful, especially in Massachusetts where Robinson overthrew Gen. Butler’s State administration by 20,000 majority; in Pennsylvania, where the Republican State ticket received about 20,000 majority, after the reunion of the Regular and independent factions. In Pennsylvania the efforts at reconciliation made in the Continental Conference, and in subsequent conventions, gave fruit in 1883, and at this writing in July, 1884 there is no mark of division throughout the entire State, if we except such as must inevitably follow the plain acceptance of Free Trade and Protective issues. Very few of the Republicans of Pennsylvania favor Free Trade, and only in the ranks of this few could any division be traced after the close of the elections of 1883.
Ohio was an exception to the Republican work of reconciliation. Division still continued, and Judge Hoadly, a leading and very talented Democrat, was elected Governor by about 15,000 majority, after a contest which involved the expenditure of large sums of money. In the Convention which nominated Hoadly, Senator Pendleton was practically overthrown because of his attachment to the Civil Service law which takes his name, and later on he was defeated for U. S. Senator by Mr. Payne, the McLean and Bookwalter factions uniting for his overthrow, which was accomplished despite the efforts of Thurman, Ward and other leaders of the older elements of the party. Both the Hoadly and Payne battles were won under the banners of the “Young Democracy.”
Any compilation of the returns of 1883 must be measurably imperfect, for in only a few of the States were important and decisive battles waged. Such as they were, however, are given in the table on the next page:
315
State Elections of 1882 and 1883, compared with the Presidential Election of 1880.
STATES. 1880.[67]
Garfield, Rep. Hancock, Dem. Weaver, Gbk. Dow, Pro.
Alabama 56,221 91,185 4,642
Arkansas 42,436 60,775 4,079
California 80,348 80,426 3,392
Colorado 27,450 24,647 1,435
[68]Connecticut 67,071 64,415 868 40
Delaware 14,133 15,275 120
Florida 23,654 27,964
Georgia 54,086 102,470 969
Illinois 318,037 277,321 26,358 443
Indiana 232,164 225,522 12,986
Iowa 183,927 105,845 32,701 592
Kansas 121,549 59,801 19,851 25
Kentucky 106,306 149,068 11,499 258
Louisiana 38,637 65,067 439
Maine 74,039 65,171 4,408 93
Maryland 78,515 93,706 818
Massachusetts 165,205 111,960 4,548 682
Michigan 185,341 131,597 34,895 942
Minnesota 93,903 53,315 3,267 286
Mississippi 34,854 75,750 5,797
Missouri 153,567 200,699 35,135
Nebraska 54,979 28,523 3,950
Nevada 8,732 9,613
New Hampshire 44,852 40,794 528 180
New Jersey 120,555 122,565 2,617 191
New York 555,544 534,511 12,373 1,517
North Carolina 115,874 124,208 1,126
Ohio 375,048 340,821 6,456 2,616
Oregon 20,619 19,948 249
Pennsylvania 444,704 407,428 20,668 1,939
Rhode Island 18,195 10,779 236 20
South Carolina 58,071 112,312 556
Tennessee 107,677 128,191 5,917 43
Texas 57,893 156,428 27,405
Vermont 45,567 18,316 1,215
Virginia 84,020 128,586
West Virginia 46,243 57,391 9,079
Wisconsin 144,400 114,649 7,986 69
Total 4,454,416 4,444,952 308,578 10,305
Plurality 9,464
Total vote 9,219,947
STATES. 1882.[69]
Rep. Dem. Gbk. Pro.
Alabama 46,386 100,591
Arkansas 49,352 87,675 10,142
California 67,175 90,694 1,020 5,772
Colorado 27,552 29,897
[68]Connecticut 54,853 59,014 607 1,034
Delaware 10,088 12,053
Florida 20,139 24,067 3,553
Georgia 24,930 81,443 68
Illinois 254,551 249,067 11,306 11,202
Indiana 210,234 220,918 13,520
Iowa 149,051 112,180 30,817
Kentucky 79,036 110,813 736
Louisiana 33,953 49,892
Maine 72,724 63,852 1,302 395
Maryland 74,515 80,725 1,833
Minnesota 92,802 46,653 3,781 1,545
Mississippi 30,282 48,159
Missouri 128,239 198,620 33,407
Nebraska 43,495 28,562 16,991
New Hampshire 38,299 36,879 449 338
New Jersey 97,860 99,962 6,063 2,004
North Carolina 111,320 111,763
Ohio 297,759 316,874 5,345 12,202
Oregon 21,481 20,069
Rhode Island 10,056 5,311 120
South Carolina 67,458 17,719
Texas 41,761 142,087 41,825
Vermont 35,839 14,466 1,535
Virginia 100,690 94,184
West Virginia 43,440 46,661
Wisconsin 94,606 103,630 2,496 13,800
Total 3,620,844 4,051,035 277,691 76,303
Plurality 130,195
Total vote 8,025,975
STATES. 1883.[68]
Rep. Dem. Gbk. Pro.
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado [68]
Connecticut 51,749 46,146
Delaware
Florida
Georgia 23,680
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa 164,182 139,093 23,089
Kansas
Kentucky 89,181 133,615
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland 80,707 92,694 1,881
Massachusetts 160,092 150,228 13,950
Michigan 122,330 127,376
Minnesota 72,404 57,859
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska 52,305 47,795
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey 97,047 103,856 2,960 4,153
New York 429,252 445,817 7,187 19,368
North Carolina
Ohio 347,164 359,793 2,937 8,362
Oregon
Pennsylvania 319,106 302,031 4,452 6,602
Rhode Island 13,068 10,907
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Total 1,998,587 2,040,890 40,629 54,316
Plurality 42,303
Total vote 4,134,458
316
POLITICAL CHANGES—1884.
The Republican National Convention met at Chicago, in the Exposition Building, on Tuesday, June 3d, 1884. It was called to order by Senator Sabin, the Chairman of the National Committee, who at the conclusion of his address, at the request of his Committee, presented the name of Hon. Powell Clayton, of Arkansas, for temporary President. Gen. Clayton, as a friend of Blaine, was antagonized by the field, which named Hon. John R. Lynch for the place. An exciting debate followed, at the close of which Mr. Lynch received 431 votes to 387 for Clayton. Ex-Senator Henderson of Missouri was made permanent President without a contest. The contested seats were amicably settled, the most notable being that of the straight-out Republicans of Virginia against Gen. Mahone’s delegation. The latter was admitted, the only contest being in the Committee. The Blaine leaders did not antagonize, but rather favored Mahone’s admission, as did the field generally, for the State Convention which elected this delegation had openly abandoned the name of the Readjuster Party and taken that of the Republican. None of the Straightouts expressed dissatisfaction at what appeared to be the almost universal sentiment.
Candidates for the Nomination.
On the third day the following candidates were formally placed in nomination, after eloquent eulogies, the most notable being those of Judge West of Ohio, in behalf of Blaine; Gen. H. H. Bingham, of Penna., for President Arthur; and Geo. W. Curtis for Senator Edmunds:
James G. Blaine, of Maine.
Chester A. Arthur, of New York.
John Sherman, of Ohio.
George F. Edmunds, of Vermont.
John A. Logan, of Illinois.
Joseph R. Hawley, of Connecticut.
On the adjoining page is given the result of the ballots.
The convention sat four days, completed its work harmoniously, and adopted a platform without a negative vote. [We give it in full in our Book of Platforms, and compare its vital issues with that of the Democratic in our comparison of Platform Planks.]
The Democratic National Convention.
This body assembled at Chicago, in the Exposition Building, on Tuesday, July 8th, 1884, and was called to order by Ex-Senator Barnum, the Chairman of the National Committee. The Committee presented Governor Richard B. Hubbard, of Texas, for temporary chairman. After his address a notable contest followed on the adoption of the unit rule, the debate being participated in by many delegates. Mr. Fellows, of New York, favored the rule, as did all of the advocates of Governor Cleveland’s nomination for President, while John Kelly opposed it with a view to give freedom of choice to the twenty-five delegates from New York who were acting with him. The contest was inaugurated by Mr. Smalley, of Vermont, who was instructed by the National Committee to offer the following resolution:
Resolved, that the rules of the last Democratic Convention govern this body until otherwise ordered, subject to the following modification: That in voting for candidates for President and Vice-President no State shall be allowed to change its vote until the roll of the States has been called, and every State has cast its vote.
Mr. Grady, of New York, offered the following amendment to the resolution:
When the vote of a State, as announced by the chairman of the delegation from such State is challenged by any member of the delegation, then the Secretary shall call the names of the individual delegates from the State, and their individual preferences as expressed shall be recorded as the vote of such State.
After discussion the question was then put, the chairman of each State delegation announcing its vote as follows:
317
THE VOTE IN DETAIL.
States. First Ballot.
No. Delegates. Blaine. Arthur. Edmunds. Logan. Sherman, John. Hawley. Lincoln. Sherman, W. T.
[74]Alabama 20 1 17 1
Arkansas 14 8 4 2
California 16 16
Colorado 6 6
Connecticut 12 12
Delaware 6 5 1
Florida 8 1 7
Georgia 24 24
Illinois 44 3 1 40
Indiana 30 18 9 1 2
Iowa 26 26
Kansas 18 12 4 1 1
Kentucky 26 5½ 16 2½ 1 1
[74]Louisiana 16 2 10 3
Maine 12 12
Maryland 16 10 6
Massachusetts 28 1 2 25
Michigan 26 15 2 7 2
Minnesota 14 7 1 6
Mississippi 18 1 17
Missouri 32 5 10 6 10 1
Nebraska 10 8 2
Nevada 6 6
New Hampshire 8 4 4
New Jersey 18 9 6 1 2
New York 72 28 31 12 1
North Carolina 22 2 19 1
Ohio 46 21 25
Oregon 6 6
Pennsylvania 60 47 11 1 1
Rhode Island 8 8
South Carolina 18 1 17
Tennessee 24 7 16 1
Texas 26 13 11 1
Vermont 8 8
Virginia 24 2 21 1
West Virginia 12 12
Wisconsin 22 10 6 6
Territories.
Arizona 2 2
Dakota 2 2
Idaho 2 2
Montana 2 1 1
New Mexico 2 2
Utah 2 2
Washington 2 2
Wyoming 2 2
Dist. of Columbia 2 1 1
Total 820 334½ 278 93 63½ 30 13 4 2
States. Second Ballot.
No. Delegates. Blaine. Arthur. Edmunds. Logan. J. Sherman Hawley. Lincoln. G. Sherman
[74]Alabama 20 2 17 1
Arkansas 14 11 3
California 16 16
Colorado 6 6
Connecticut 12 12
Delaware 6 5 1
Florida 8 1 7
Georgia 24 24
Illinois 44 3 1 40
Indiana 30 18 9 1 2
Iowa 26 26
Kansas 18 13 2 2 1
Kentucky 26 5 17 2 1 1 [74]
Louisiana 16 4 9 2
Maine 12 12
Maryland 16 12 4
Massachusetts 28 1 3 24
Michigan 26 15 4 5 2
Minnesota 14 7 1 6
Mississippi 18 1 17
Missouri 32 7 10 5 8 1
Nebraska 10 8 2
Nevada 6 6
New Hampshire 8 5 3
New Jersey 18 9 6 1 2
New York 72 28 31 12 1
North Carolina 22 3 18 1
Ohio 46 23 23
Oregon 6 6
Pennsylvania 60 47 11 1 1
Rhode Island 8 8
South Carolina 18 1 17
Tennessee 24 7 16 1
Texas 26 13 11 2
Vermont 8 8
Virginia 24 2 21 1
West Virginia 12 12
Wisconsin 22 11 6 5
Territories.
Arizona 2 2
Dakota 2 2
Idaho 2 2
Montana 2 1 1
New Mexico 2 2
Utah 2 2
Washington 2 2
Wyoming 2 2
Dist. of Columbia 2 1 1
Total 820 349 275 85 61 28 13 4 2
States. Third Ballot.
No. Delegates. Blaine. Arthur. Edmunds. Logan. J. Sherman Hawley. Lincoln. G. Sherman
[75]Alabama 20 2 17 1
Arkansas 14 11 3
California 16 16
Colorado 6 6
Connecticut 12 12
Delaware 6 5 1
Florida 8 1 7
Georgia 24 24
Illinois 44 3 1 40
Indiana 30 18 10 2
Iowa 26 26
Kansas 18 15 2 1
Kentucky 26 6 16 2 1 1 [75]
Louisiana 16 4 9 2
Maine 12 12
Maryland 16 12 4
Massachusetts 28 1 3 24
Michigan 26 18 3 3 1
Minnesota 14 7 2 5
Mississippi 18 1 16 1
Missouri 32 12 11 4 4 1
Nebraska 10 10
Nevada 6 6
New Hampshire 8 5 3
New Jersey 18 11 1 6
New York 72 28 32 12
North Carolina 22 4 18
Ohio 46 25 21
Oregon 6 6
Pennsylvania 60 50 8 1 1 1
Rhode Island 8 8
South Carolina 18 2 16
Tennessee 24 7 17
Texas 26 14 11 1
Vermont 8 8
Virginia 24 4 20
West Virginia 12 12
Wisconsin 22 11 10
Territories.
Arizona 2 2
Dakota 2 2
Idaho 2 2
Montana 2 1 1
New Mexico 2 2
Utah 2 2
Washington 2 2
Wyoming 2 2
Dist. of Columbia 2 1 1
Total 820 375 274 69 53 25 13 8 2
States. Fourth Ballot.
No. Delegates. Arthur. Blaine. Edmunds. Logan. Sherman. Hawley. Lincoln.
[76]Alabama 20 12 8
Arkansas 14 3 11
California 16 16
Colorado 6 6
Connecticut 12 12
Delaware 6 1 5
Florida 8 5 3
Georgia 24 24
Illinois 44 3 34 6
Indiana 30 30
Iowa 26 2 24
Kansas 18 18
Kentucky 26 15 9 1 1[77]
Louisiana 16 7 9
Maine 12 12
Maryland 16 1 15
Massachusetts 28 7 3 18
Michigan 26 26
Minnesota 14 14
Mississippi 18 16 2
Missouri 32 32
Nebraska 10 10
Nevada 6 6
New Hampshire 8 2 5 3
New Jersey 18 0 17 1
New York 72 30 26 9 2 1
North Carolina 22 12 8 1
Ohio 46 0 46
Oregon 6 0 6
Pennsylvania 60 8 51 1
Rhode Island 8 1 7
South Carolina 18 15 2 1
Tennessee 24 12 11
Texas 26 8 15
Vermont 8 0 0 8
Virginia 24 20 4
West Virginia 12 0 12
Wisconsin 22 0 22
Territories.
Arizona 2 0 2
Dakota 2 0 2
Idaho 2 0 2
Montana 2 0 2
New Mexico 2 2 0
Utah 2 0 2
Washington 2 0 2
Wyoming 2 2 0
Dist. of Columbia 2 1 1
Total 820 207 541 41 7 15 2
318
States. Yeas Nays
Alabama 15 5
Arkansas 14
California 16
Colorado 4 2
Connecticut 2 10
Delaware 6
Florida 2 6
Georgia 12 12
Illinois 22 22
Indiana 30
Iowa 6 20
Kansas 3 15
Kentucky 20 6
Louisiana 16
Maine 2 10
Maryland 16
Massachusetts 21 7
Michigan 12 12
Minnesota 14
Mississippi 18
Missouri 18 24
Nebraska 5 5
Nevada 6
New Hampshire 8
New Jersey 14 4
New York 72
North Carolina 10 12
Ohio 25 21
Oregon 6
Pennsylvania 21 39
Rhode Island 8
South Carolina 3 14
Tennessee 17 7
Texas 12 10
Vermont 8
Virginia 6 18
West Virginia 9 3
Wisconsin 5 17
The Secretary announced the result of the vote as follows: Total number of votes cast, 795; yeas, 332; nays, 463.
The report of the Committee on Permanent Organization was then made; the name of W. H. Vilas, of Wisconsin, being presented as President, with a list of vice-presidents (one from each state) and several secretaries and assistants, and that the secretaries and clerks of the temporary organization be continued under the permanent organization.
The Contest over the Platform.
There was a two-days contest in the Committee on Resolutions over the adoption of the revenue features of the Platform. It advocated the collection of revenue for public uses exclusively, the italicized word being the subject of the controversy. It was retained by a vote of 20 to 18. To avoid extended debate in the Convention an agreement was made that Gen. Butler should make a minority report, and that three speeches should be made, these by Butler, Converse and Watterson. Col. Morrison, of Illinois, made the majority report, which was adopted with but 97½ negative votes out of a total of 820.
The Ballots.
Before balloting an effort was made to abolish the two-third rule, but this met with such decided disfavor that it was withdrawn before the roll of States was completed.
There were two ballots taken on the Presidential candidates, and they were as follows:
First. Second.
Total number of votes 820 820
Necessary to a choice 547 547
Grover Cleveland, of New York 392 684
Thomas F. Bayard, of Delaware 168 81½
Allen G. Thurman, of Ohio 88 4
Samuel J. Randall, of Penn 78 4
Joseph E. McDonald of Indiana 56 1
John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky 27
Roswell P. Flower, of New York 4
George Hoadly, of Ohio 3
Samuel J. Tilden, of New York 1
Thomas A. Hendricks, of Indiana 1 45½
Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, who was defeated eight years ago on the Tilden ticket, was nominated for Vice-President by acclamation.
The Kelly and Butler elements of the Convention, at all of the important stages, manifested their hostility to Cleveland, but there was no open bolt, and the Convention completed its work after sitting four days.
[In the Book of Platform is given the Democratic Platform in full, and its tariff plank will be found in comparison with the Republican in the same book.]
THE CAMPAIGN OF 1884.
In what were regarded as the pivotal States the campaign of 1884, was attended with the utmost interest and excitement. Blaine, the most brilliant political leader of modern times, was acceptable to all of the more active and earnest elements of the Republican party, and the ability with which he had championed the protective system and a more aggressive foreign policy, attracted very many Irishmen who had formerly been Democrats. The young and more intelligent leaders of this element promptly espoused the cause of the Republicans, and their action caused a serious division in the Democratic ranks. Wherever Irish-Americans were sufficiently numerous to form societies of their own, such as the “Irish-American League,” the “Land League,” the “Clan na Gael,” etc., there supporters of Blaine were found, and these were by a singular coincidence most numerous in the doubtful States of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Ohio and Indiana. Cleveland’s nomination by the Democrats had angered the Tammany wing of the party in New York, and not until very close to the election was a reconciliation effected. Tilden had from the first favored Cleveland, and with Daniel Manning as his manager in New York, no effort was spared to heal Democratic divisions and to promote them in the Republican ranks. Thus the Independent or Civil Service wing of the Republican party, which in Boston and New 319York cities, and in the cities of Connecticut, confessed attachment to free trade, was easily rallied under the Democratic banner. In convention in New York city this element denounced Blaine on what it pronounced a paramount moral issue, and for a time such brilliant orators as Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, George W. Curtis and Carl Schurz, “rang the changes” upon the moral questions presented by the canvass. They were halted by scandals about Cleveland, and the Maria Halpin story, almost too indecent for historical reference, became a prominent feature of the campaign with the acquiescence, if not under the direction of the Republican managers. Many of our best thinkers deplored the shape thus given to the canvass, but the responsibility for it is clearly traceable to the plan of campaign instituted by the Independents, or “Mugwumps,” as they were called—“Mugwump” implying a small leader.
Only Ohio, West Virginia and Iowa remained as October States, and in the height of the canvass all eyes were turned upon Ohio. In all of the Western States both of the great parties had been distracted by prohibitory and high license issues, and Ohio,—because of temperance agitations, which still remained as disturbing elements—had drifted into the Democratic column. If it were again lost to the Republicans, their national campaign would practically have ended then and there, so far as reasonable hopes could be entertained for the election of Blaine. This fact led to an extraordinary effort to influence favorable action there, and both Blaine and Logan made tours of the State, and speeches at the more important points. Mr. Blaine first went to New York city, thence through New Jersey, speaking at night at all important points on the Pennsylvania Railroad, and was the following day received by the Union League of Philadelphia. In the evening he reviewed a procession of 20,000 uniformed men. He then returned to New York, not yet having uttered a partisan sentence, but in passing westward through its towns, he occasionally referred to their progress under the system of protection. Reaching Ohio, he spoke more and more plainly of the issues of the canvass as his journey proceeded, and wherever he went his speeches commanded national comment and attention. His plain object was, for the time at least, to smother local issues by the graver national ones, and he did this with an ability which has never been matched in the history of American oratory. The result was a victory for the Republicans in October; they carried Ohio by about 15,000, and greatly reduced the Democratic majority in West Virginia.
From this time forward the battle on the part of the Republicans was hopeful; on the part of the Democrats desperate but not despairing. Senator Barnum, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, was a skilled and trained politician, and he sedulously cultivated Independent and Prohibition defection in New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Indiana. Whether the scandals growing out of the result be true or false, every political observer could see that the elements named were under at least the partial direction of the Democratic National Committee, for their support was inconsiderable in States where they were not needed in crippling the chances of the Republicans. The Republican National Committee, headed by Mr. B. F. Jones, of Pennsylvania, an earnest and able, but an untrained leader, did not seek to check these plain efforts at defection. This Committee thought, and at the time seemed to be justified in the belief that the defection of Irish-Americans in the same States would more than counterbalance all of the Independent and Prohibitory defection. The Republicans were likewise aided by General Butler, who ran as the Greenback or “People’s” candidate, as he called himself. It would have done it easily, but for an accident, possibly a trick, on the Thursday preceding the November election. Mr. Blaine was at the Fifth Avenue Hotel in New York, and among the many delegations which visited him was one of three hundred ministers who wished to show their confidence in his moral and intellectual fitness for the Chief Magistracy. The oldest of the ministers present was Mr. Burchard, and he was assigned to deliver the address. In closing it he referred to what he thought ought to be a common opposition to “Rum, Romanism and Rebellion,”—an alliteration which not only awakened the wrath of the Democracy, but which quickly estranged many of the Irish-American supporters of Blaine and Logan. Mr. Blaine on the two following days tried to counteract the effects of an imprudence for which he was in no way responsible, but the alliteration was instantly and everywhere employed to revive religious issues and hatreds, and to such an extent that circulars were distributed at the doors of Catholic churches, implying that Blaine himself had used the offensive words. A more unexpected blow was never known in our political history; it was quite as sudden and more damaging than the Morey forgery at the close of the Garfield campaign. It determined the result, and was the most prominent of half a dozen 320mishaps, which if they had not happened, must have inevitably led to the election of Blaine.
As it was, the result was so close in New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Indiana and West Virginia, that it required several days to determine it, and it was not known as to New York until the 19th of November.
The popular vote for Presidential electors was cast on the 4th of November last, and the results are tabulated below. Where differences were found to exist in the vote for Electors in any State the vote for the highest on each ticket is given in all cases where the complete statement of the vote of the State has been received. The results show a total vote of 10,046,073, of which the Cleveland ticket received 4,913,901, the Blaine ticket 4,847,659, the Butler ticket 133,880, and the St. John ticket 150,633, showing a plurality of 66,242 for Cleveland. The total vote in 1880 was 9,218,251, and Garfield’s plurality 9464. It should be noted, in considering the tabulated statement of this year’s vote, that the Blaine Electoral tickets were supported by the Republicans and the People’s Party in Missouri and West Virginia, and that Cleveland Electoral tickets were supported by the Democrats and the People’s Party in Iowa, Michigan and Nebraska. The People’s Party claims to have cast about 41,300 votes for the fusion ticket in Michigan and about 33,000 votes in Iowa. The vote of California is official from all but two counties; the unofficial reports from these are included in the totals given in the table. South Carolina returns 1237 “scattering” votes.
STATES. 1884.
Blaine, Rep. Cleveland, Dem. Butler, People’s St. John, Pro. Electoral Vote.
Blaine. Cleveland.
Alabama 59,444 92,973 762 610 10
Arkansas 50,895 72,927 1,847 7
California 102,397 89,264 2,017 2,920 8
Colorado 36,277 27,627 1,957 759 3
Connecticut 65,898 67,182 1,685 2,494 6
Delaware 12,778 17,054 6 55 3
Florida 28,031 31,769 74 4
Georgia 47,603 94,567 125 184 12
Illinois 340,497 312,314 10,910 12,074 22
Indiana 238,480 244,992 8,293 3,013 15
Iowa 197,082 177,286 1,472 13
Kansas 154,406 90,132 16,346 4,495 9
Kentucky 118,674 152,757 1,655 3,106 13
Louisiana 46,347 62,546 120 338 8
Maine 72,209 52,140 3,953 2,160 6
Maryland 85,699 96,932 531 2,794 8
Massachusetts 146,724 122,481 24,433 10,026 14
Michigan 192,669 189,361 763 18,403 13
Minnesota 111,685 70,065 3,583 4,684 7
Mississippi 42,774 78,547 9
Missouri 202,029 235,988 2,153 16
Nebraska 76,877 54,354 2,858 5
Nevada 7,193 5,577 3
New Hampshire 43,249 39,192 552 1,575 4
New Jersey 123,436 127,798 3,496 6,159 9
New York 562,005 563,154 17,064 25,003 36
North Carolina 125,068 142,905 448 11
Ohio 400,082 368,280 5,179 11,069 23
Oregon 26,852 24,593 723 488 3
Pennsylvania 474,268 393,747 16,992 15,306 30
Rhode Island 19,030 12,394 422 928 4
South Carolina 21,733 69,890 9
Tennessee 124,078 133,258 957 1,131 12
Texas 88,353 223,208 3,321 3,511 13
Vermont 38,411 17,342 785 1,612 4
Virginia 139,356 145,497 143 12
West Virginia 63,913 67,331 805 927 6
Wisconsin 161,157 146,477 4,598 7,656 11
Total 4,847,659 4,913,901 133,880 150,663 182 219
Plurality 66,242
There was no hitch in the count of the vote in any of the Electoral Colleges, held at the capitols of the various States. On the 9th of February, 1885, the two Houses of Congress assembled to witness the counting of the vote. Mr. Edmunds, President of the Senate, upon its completion, announced that “it appears” from the count that Mr. Cleveland has been elected President, etc. This form was used upon his judgment as the only one which he could lawfully use, the Electoral law not having as yet determined the power or prescribed the form for declaring the result of Presidential elections.
321
Cleveland’s Administration.
President Cleveland was inaugurated on the 4th of March, 1885, amid much military and civic pomp and ceremony. Jubilant Democrats from all parts of the country visited the National Capital to celebrate their return to National power after a series of Republican successes extending through twenty-four years. The inaugural address was chiefly noted for its promises in behalf of civil service reform. It showed a determination on the part of the President to adhere to the pledges given to what are still termed the “Mugwumps” prior to the election. The sentiments expressed secured the warm approval of Geo. W. Curtis, Carl Schurz, Henry Ward Beecher and other civil service reformers, but were disappointing to the straight Democrats, who naturally wished to enjoy all of the fruits of the power won after so great a struggle. Vice-President Hendricks voiced this radical Democratic sentiment, and was rapidly creating a schism in the ranks of the party, but his sudden death checked the movement and deprived it of organization, though there still remains the seed of dissatisfaction, much of which displayed itself in the contests of 1885.
President Cleveland appointed the following Cabinet:
Secretary of State: Thomas F. Bayard of Delaware.
Secretary of the Treasury: Daniel Manning of New York.
Secretary of War: W. C. Endicott of Massachusetts.
Postmaster-General: Wm. F. Vilas of Wisconsin.
Secretary of the Interior: L. Q. C. Lamar of Mississippi.
Attorney-General: Augustus H. Garland of Arkansas.
Up to this writing, May, 1886, the Administration of President Cleveland has not been marked by any great event or crisis—its greatest political efforts being directed toward appeasing the civil and holding in close political alliance with the civil service reformers, without disrupting the Democratic party by totally refusing to distribute the spoils of office. It had long been predicted by practical politicians that a serious attempt to defeat the doctrine “to the victor belongs the spoils,” would destroy the administration attempting it. The elections of 1885 point to a realization of this prophecy, though it is yet too soon to accurately judge the result with nearly three years of administration yet to be devoted to its pursuit.
Ohio witnessed in her last October election the first great struggle under the Democratic State and National Administrations. Gov. Hoadley was renominated by the Democrats, and Judge Foraker was renominated by the Republicans. The latter were aided by the strong canvass of John Sherman for his return to the U. S. Senate. The contest was throughout exciting, some of the best speakers of the country taking the stump. The result was as follows:
Foraker, R. 359,538
Hoadley, D. 341,380
Leonard, Pro. 28,054
Northrop, G. 2,760
The Irish-Americans who had left the Democratic party to vote for Blaine, adhered to the Republican standard, and really increased their numbers—more than a third more voting for Foraker than for Blaine, while the Mugwump element practically disappeared. The Prohibition vote had almost doubled, but as all third or fourth parties as a rule attract their vote from the parties in which the most discontent prevails, the excess came not from the Republican but the Democratic ranks.
Pennsylvania’s result, following in November, was similar in all material points to that of Ohio. Col. M. S. Quay, an acknowledged political leader and a man of national reputation, thought it wise that his party should oppose in the most radical and direct way, the Democratic State and National Administration, and with this purpose became a candidate for State Treasurer. The Democrats nominated Conrad B. Day of Philadelphia. The result was as follows:
Quay, R. 324,694
Day, D. 281,178
Spangler, Pro. 15,047
Whitney, G. 2,783
Col. Quay’s majority greatly exceeded all expectation, and was universally accepted as a condemnation of the two Democratic administrations.
New York, of all the November States, very properly excited the most attention. The Democrats renominated Gov. Hill upon a platform tantamount to a condemnation of civil service reform—a platform dictated by Tammany Hall, which was already quarrelling with the National administration. The Mugwump leaders and journals immediately condemned both the Democratic ticket and platform, and joined 322with the Republicans in support of Davenport. The result was:
Governor.
Hill, D. 501,418
Davenport, R. 489,727
Bascom, Pro 30,866
Jones, G. 2,127
Lieutenant-Governor.
Jones, D. 495,450
Carr, R. 492,288
Demorest, Pro. 31,298
Gage, G. 2,087
In New York the Irish-Americans, angered by the return of the Mugwumps, whose aristocratic and free trade tendencies they were especially hostile to, under the lead of the Irish World left the Republicans and returned to the support of the Democracy. They decided the contest and their attitude in the future will be of immediate concern in all political calculations. The net results in three great States gave satisfaction to both parties—probably the most to the Republicans, but it is certain that they left politics in a very interesting and very uncertain shape.
THE CAMPAIGN OF 1886.
The campaign of 1886 showed that the Republican party was capable of making gains in the South, especially in Congressional districts and upon protective and educational issues. Indeed, so plain was this in the State of Virginia that Randolph Tucker, for whom the Legislature had apportioned a district composed of eleven white counties, refused to run again, and Mr. Yost, editor of the Staunton Virginian, who had canvassed the entire district on tariff issues and in favor of the Blair educational bill, was returned over a popular Democrat, by 1900 majority. Of the ten Congressmen from Virginia the Republicans elected six. Morrison, the tariff reform leader of Illinois, was defeated, as was Burd of Ohio, while Speaker Carlisle’s seat was contested by Mr. Thoche, a protectionist candidate of the Knights of Labor. These and other gains reduced the Democratic majority in the House to about fifteen, and this could not be counted upon for any tariff reduction or financial measures. The Republicans lost one in the U. S. Senate.
Local divisions in the Republican ranks were seriously manifested in but one State, that of California, which chose a Democratic Governor and a Republican Lieutenant-Governor, so close was the contest. The Governor has since died, the Lieutenant-Governor has taken his place, but the Legislature re-elected Senator Hearst, Democrat, who had previously been appointed before the retirement of Governor Stoneman.
New York city witnessed, not a revolution, but such a marked change in politics that it excited comment throughout the entire country. The Labor party ran Henry George, the author of Progress and Poverty, and other works somewhat socialistic and certainly agrarian in their tendencies, for Mayor of the city. Hewitt, the well-known Congressman, was the candidate of the Democracy, while the Republicans presented Roosevelt, known chiefly for his municipal-reform tendencies. Hewitt was elected, but George received over 60,000 votes, and this unlooked-for poll changed the direction of political calculations for a year. George was aided by nearly all the Labor organizations, and he drew from the Democrats about two to the one drawn from the Republicans—a fact which greatly raised the hopes of the latter and at the same time made the Democrats more cautious.
In 1886 the Republicans and Democrats, with the qualifications noted above, held their party strength, with the future prospects so promising to both that at this early date preparations began for the Presidential campaign, General Beaver, defeated for Governor of Pennsylvania in 1882 by a plurality of 40,000, was now elected by a plurality of 43,000, though the Prohibitionists polled 32,000 votes, two-thirds of which came from the Republican party. The general result of the campaign indicated that the Republicans were gaining in unity and numbers.
323
THE CAMPAIGN OF 1887.
Interest in the forthcoming Presidential campaign was everywhere manifested in the struggles of 1887. The first skirmish was lost by the Republicans, and while it encouraged Mr. Cleveland’s administration, it gave warning to the Republicans throughout the country that they must heal all differences and do better work. So quickly was this determination reached that Rhode Island came back to the Republican column in November, by the election of a Congressman.
The elections of the year, as a whole, were largely in favor of the Republicans, and three pivotal States were captured—Connecticut, New Jersey, and Indiana, with Virginia claimed by both parties. True the issues and candidates in Indiana and Connecticut were purely local, a fact which contributed largely to the continued hopefulness of the Democracy, who had again carried New York by an average majority of 14,000, notwithstanding Henry George now ran for Secretary of State in the hope of more greatly dividing the Democratic than the Republican vote. He did this, in somewhat less proportion than when he ran for Mayor of the city, but the agitation of High License for the cities alone, and the Prohibitory agitation led to the union of all the saloon interests with the Democracy. These interests, headed by the organization of brewers, established Personal Liberty Leagues in all of the larger cities, which Leagues held a State Convention at Albany said to represent 75,000 voters, or 500 to each delegate. The figures were grossly exaggerated, but nevertheless an alliance was formed with the Democratic party in the State by the substantial adoption of the anti-sumptuary plank in its platform. Sufficient Republicans were in this way won to balance the Henry George defections from the Democracy, and the result was practically the same as in 1886. The Mugwumps supported the Republicans in 1886, but they cut little if any figure in 1887. It was very plain to the hind-sight of the Republican leaders of New York, that if they had resisted and resented the formation of the Personal Liberty Leagues, and made a direct and open issue against the control of the saloon in politics, they would have easily won a victory like that achieved in Pennsylvania. Two acts contributed to the swelling of the Prohibitory vote, which in 1887 came more equally from both parties. Governor Hill had vetoed the High License act, and thus angered the Temperance Democrats, while the Republicans had failed to submit to a vote of the people the prohibitory amendment, thus angering an additional number of Republicans, so that the Prohibitory vote was swelled to 42,000.
New York’s complete vote for Secretary of State was:
Grant, Republican 452,822
Cook, Democrat 469,802
Huntington, Prohibitionist 41,850
George, United Labor 69,836
Beecher, Greenback 988
Preston, Union Labor 988
Hall, Progressive Labor 7,768
Scattering 1,351
Total vote 1,045,405
The Republicans of Pennsylvania met the growing temperance agitation in such a way as to keep within and recall to its lines nearly all who naturally affiliated with that party. The State Convention of 1886 promised to submit the prohibitory amendment to a vote of the people, and the Republican Legislature of 1887 passed the amendment for a first time, and also passed a High License law, which placed the heaviest licenses upon the cities, but increased all, and gave four-fifths and three-fifths of the amount to the city and country treasuries.
During the closing week of the campaign of 1885 in Pennsylvania, a combination was made by the brewers of Allegheny County with the Democracy for a combined raid against the Republican State ticket headed by General Beaver. A large sum of money was raised, and the sinking societies, or such of them as could be induced to enter the movement, were marshalled as a new and potent element. The result was a surprise to the Republicans and a reduction of about 4,000 in their majority. Thus began the movement which this year culminated in the organization of Personal Liberty Leagues throughout the cities of New York and Pennsylvania. Encouraged by this local success in Pennsylvania and angered by the passage of a High License law, an immense fund was raised in Philadelphia and Pittsburg, and the Democratic workers in all singing and social clubs and societies were employed to create from these, as their nucleus, the Personal Liberty Leagues. In Philadelphia alone the Central Convention represented over 300 societies, and this fact led to extravagant claims as to the number of voters whose views were thus reflected. The organization was secret, but the brewers, maltsters, and wholesale dealers who created it, opened State headquarters and likewise established a State headquarters for the Leagues. Much the same plan was adopted in Pittsburg and great boasts were made that it would be extended to all the towns and cities of the State. From the first combinations were made by the Democratic city committees, the State Committee giving them a friendly wink.
This work was allowed to go on for a full month, the Republican State Committee, and the Republican city committees as well, giving such careful investigation to the facts that every charge could be proven. Then it was that the State Address was issued, wherein all the leading facts were given and each and every challenge accepted. The Republican party thus publicly renewed its pledge to cast the second and final legislative vote for submission to the people the prohibitory amendment for the maintenance of high license, and just as unequivocally pledged the maintenance of the Sunday laws assailed by the Personal Liberty Leagues.
The effect was to group in a solid and an aggressive mass of good citizens all who believed that the people should not be denied the right to make their own laws upon liquor as upon other questions; all who valued a high license which, while general, placed the higher charges upon the cities, and which gave three and four-fifths of all the revenues to the city and county treasuries, and as well all who believed in maintaining an American Sabbath.
The grouping of these three positions proved more powerful than the quarter of a million dollars supplied the combination by the brewing and wholesale liquor interests; more powerful than the hundreds of social and singing societies supposed to be grouped with the Democratic liquor combination; more powerful than all of the combined elements of disorder planted by the side of the Democracy.
It was a royal battle, fought out in the open day! Indeed, the Republican address compelled publicity and made a secret battle thereafter impossible. Every effort at continued secrecy was immediately exposed by the Republican State Committee and the leading daily Republican journals, and every country paper bristled with these exposures. In very desperation the combination became more and more public as the canvass advanced. It was shown that the Personal Liberty Leagues were under the direction of the Socialists, and this arrayed against them all of the Israelites in the State besides thousands of other law-abiding citizens; the demand for the repeal of the Sunday laws compelled the opposition of all branches of religious Germans—Catholics, Lutherans, Mennonites, Dunkards, etc.—and called forth the protests of nearly all of the pulpits. The fact that in Philadelphia and Allegheny the brewers and wholesale dealers, just as they do in the great cities of New York, own nearly all of the saloons—drinking places without accommodations for strangers and travellers—and that their battle was for the saloon in competition with the hotel, inn or tavern, divided the liquor interests and induced all who favored the High License bill, partially framed to protect this class, to support the Republican party. So true was this that a resolution before the Convention of the State Liquor League indorsing high license save a few vexatious features, came so near passing that the saloon keepers subsequently established a separate organization.
The battle at no time and in no place took shape for prohibition beyond that sense of fair play which suggests submission to a vote of the people any question which a law-abiding and respectable number desire to vote upon. The battle was almost distinctly for and against the Sunday laws and for and against high license, and the Republicans everywhere gave unequivocal support to these measures. In Allegheny, shocked the year before by the sudden raid of the brewers, some of the leading politicians for a time feared to face the issues as presented by the Republican State Committee, and really forced upon them by the Democratic liquor combination, but an eloquent Presbyterian divine sounded from his pulpit the slogan, a great Catholic priest followed, the Catholic Temperance Union and the T. A. B.’s, not committed to prohibition, but publicly committed to high license, passed resolutions denouncing the combination. Some of the assemblies of the Knights of Labor followed, and in open battle the Republicans of Allegheny accepted the issue and the challenge and were rewarded for their courage by a gain of 1,200 just where brewing and distillery interests are strongest. The Democratic liquor combination did not show a gain over their Gubernatorial majorities in a single German county except Northampton, where a citizens’ local movement by its sharp antagonism drew out the full Democratic vote for their State ticket. The combination, with all of the power of money, with the entire saloon interests, with the Personal Liberty Leagues, called from the Republican ranks in the entire State not over 12,000 votes, of which 6,000 were in Philadelphia and 4,000 in Allegheny. These were more than made up by 15,000 out of 32,000 Prohibitionists who returned to the Republican party, and by 5,000 Democrats who joined the Republican column. Given more time, and with the issues as universally acknowledged by all parties as they 324have been since the election, far more Prohibitionists would have returned and more Democrats would have voted the Republican ticket. As it was, the Prohibition vote cast was about equally divided between the Democrats and Republicans; there was probably more Democrats than Republicans. In 1886 the 32,000 Prohibitionists comprised 24,000 Republicans and 8000 Democrats. All of the latter remained and were reinforced in nearly every quarter. There had always been from 5,000 to 6,000 third party Prohibitionists.
If the Republicans had not bravely faced the issues thus forced upon them they would have lost the State, for the Democratic liquor combination polled 15,000 votes more than the Republican candidate—Colonel Quay, an exceptionally strong man—had received in 1885; but the bravery of the Republicans and the fact that their attitude was right called out 60,000 more votes than the party cast in ’85, and in this way increased its majority despite all combinations.
These are the leading facts in the most novel of all the campaigns known to Pennsylvania’s history. The situation was much the same in New York.
The total vote for State Treasurer was:
Hart, Republican 385,514
McGrann, Democrat 340,269
Irish, Prohibitionist 18,471
Kennedy, Greenback 8,900
Total 753,154
An important feature of the year was the interest shown in the question of prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. Four States have voted on this issue, Michigan leading off in April, Texas voting in August, Tennessee in September, and Oregon in November. Prohibition was defeated in each instance, but its advocates succeeded in polling a surprisingly large vote. The poll in these States was as follows:
For Pro. Against Pro.
Michigan 178,488 184,429
Texas 129,273 221,627
Tennessee 117,504 145,197
Oregon 19,973 27,958
Totals 445,238 579,211
Majority against prohibition 133,973
To this should be added the defeat of prohibition in Atlanta and Fulton counties, Ga., by 1122 majority, where it had won two years before by 228 majority. The interest shown in local option and high license as a solution of the temperance question, and its popularity wherever adopted, is also a marked feature of the year’s politics. In Michigan local option succeeded the failure of prohibition, while in Pennsylvania the people are promised a choice between high license and prohibition.
The elections of 1887 as a whole, without removing doubts as to the future, were generally accepted as favorable to the Republicans. The following is a fair comparison with Rhode Island omitted, for the plain reason that her spring result was reversed in the fall:
1883. 1887.
Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem.
Mass 160,092 150,228 136,000 118,394
New York 429,757 445,976 452,435 469,886
New Jersey 97,047 103,856 107,026 104,407
Penna 319,106 302,031 385,514 340,269
Maryland 80,707 92,694 86,644 98,936
Ohio 347,164 359,793 356,937 333,205
Kentucky 89,181 133,615 126,476 143,270
Iowa 164,182 139,093 168,696 152,886
Nebraska 56,381 41,998 86,725 56,548
Virginia 144,419 124,080 119,380 119,806
Totals 1,888,036 1,893,364 2,025,833 1,937,607
Democratic majority in 1883 5,328
Republican majority in 1887 88,226
Gain in the Dem. vote in four years 44,243
Gain in the Rep. vote in four years 137,797
The vote in Rhode Island would probably reduce the Republican gain of the year about 5000. But as the figures for Virginia are disputed and not the official vote, which it is known would add several thousand to the Republican total, the above result can be taken as a just estimate of the gain made by the Republicans in these eleven states, where general elections were held. It would be at least 25,000 larger if the vote of the highest candidate, instead of the head of the ticket, were taken.
326
OPENING OF THE CAMPAIGN OF 1888.
The fiftieth Congress convened in December, 1887, the Senate consisting of 38 Republicans, 37 Democrats, and 1 Readjuster, Mr. Riddleberger, of Virginia. In the House there were 168 Democrats, 153 Republicans, and 4 Independents—Anderson, of Iowa and Hopkins, of Virginia, classed with the Democrats, and Smith of Wisconsin and Nichols of North Carolina, classed with the Republicans upon tariff and educational subjects—two questions which in the form of Revenue measures and of the Blair educational bill, gave early promise of becoming the issues for the campaign of 1888.
Upon the assembling of the fiftieth Congress President Cleveland, instead of sending the usual message describing the condition of the Nation and its relations with foreign nations, together with such recommendations as he desired to make, sent simply a message upon questions of revenue, and in this way gave the subject such emphasis as to make his views the issue in the campaign to follow. The message excited wide and varied political comment, and when Mr. Blaine, who at the time was in Paris, permitted an answer to be wired to the New York Tribune, the two opposing views seemed to meet the wishes of the two great opposing parties, and they were at once accepted as defining the tendencies of each party, at least, upon tariff and revenue subjects.
As these two papers will prove the text for much of the discussion incident to the campaign of 1888, we give below their text:
President Cleveland’s Message.
To the Congress of the United States:
You are confronted at the threshold of your legislative duties with a condition of the national finances which imperatively demands immediate and careful consideration.
The amount of money annually exacted, through the operation of the present laws, from the industries and necessities of the people, largely exceeds the sum necessary to meet the expenses of the government.
When we consider that the theory of our institutions guarantees to every citizen the full enjoyment of all the fruits of his industry and enterprise, with only such deduction as may be his share towards the careful and economical maintenance of the government which protects him, it is plain that the exaction of more than this is indefensible extortion, and a culpable betrayal of American fairness and justice. This wrong inflicted upon those who bear the burden of national taxation, like other wrongs, multiplies a brood of evil consequences. The public treasury, which should only exist as a conduit conveying the people’s tribute to its legitimate objects of expenditure, becomes a hoarding-place for money needlessly withdrawn from trade and the people’s use, thus crippling our national energies, suspending our country’s development, preventing investment in productive enterprise, threatening financial disturbance, and inviting schemes of public plunder.