USA > Connecticut > History of Connecticut, Volume II > Part 8
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47
617
THE PERIOD OF READJUSTMENT
resignation if the President disapproved of his support of English. Johnson refused the resignation and the Democrats accepted this as tacit support. Hawley resisted pressure from the Radicals to take a more determined stand, and the Chairman of the Party blandly announced that the Party was taking no issue with the President. Hawley won the election, but by a scant margin of 541 votes, which could not be in- terpreted as an endorsement of a program or even of opposition to one. The basic differences between radicals and conservatives continued to grow sharper, however.22
The Radicals gained control of the Republican Party. They nomi- nated a radical, Orris S. Ferry, for Senator in 1866, sent only radicals as delegates to the national convention of Republicans that year, and be- came extreme in their denunciation of the President's plan of recon- struction. In alarm and protest, there arose an independent conserva- tive party which endorsed Johnson's program. At the risk of political success, solidarity within the Republican Party had been achieved by the Spring of 1867.23
Each of the major political parties held firm to its principles on the issue of reconstruction and on the use of Federal power. Labor was the new element in the campaign. The Republican-dominated legislature of 1866 had failed to approve the eight hour day and the Workingmen had formed a separate Party. After drafting a platform dedicated to the advancement of labor, the Workingmen announced that they would support the party which would support their platform. Later, after the Workingmen endorsed the Democratic ticket, the Republicans launched an aggressive campaign to split the labor vote. The popular Democrat, James E. English, defeated Hawley by a narrow margin and began a two year period of conservative administration.24
In 1869, the Republicans benefited from the success of the na- tional party and the question of the ratification of the fifteenth amend- ment. Since the war there had been general agreement on the immorality of slavery and the General Assembly had approved the thirteenth amendment in May, 1865. Yet, there had developed opposition to extending suffrage to the 1,500 or 2,000 negroes in the state. The electorate in 1865 had rejected a proposed amendment which would have extended suffrage rights.25 It was assumed that the issue was
618
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
unpopular in the state. It was believed that the plan of the national congressmen to enfranchise the Negro had contributed to the defeat of the state Republicans in 1867. James Dixon, an ardent foe of en- franchisement, made it an issue in his campaign for election to the
OUTLET
PÅDE
JJWOCa
(Courtesy Conn. Devel. Comm.)
BRIDGEPORT
House after the expiration of his term in the Senate. Dixon gave convincing proof that the Radicals sought to establish a permanent Republican control of the nation's political machinery by securing a solid Negro vote in the South. The Democrats waged a stubborn cam- paign, yet the Republicans elected their state ticket and all but one of the Congressional candidates. Dixon was defeated by 600 votes in Hartford. The Republicans interpreted their success as a mandate from the people. They quickly ratified the fifteenth amendment and the
619
THE PERIOD OF READJUSTMENT
electorate confirmed the action. In Connecticut, this action disposed of the last of the reconstruction amendments. 26
Once the freedom and the rights of the Negro were legally assured, Connecticut began to separate from the Radical Reconstructionists. The state's position was characterized by Senator Orris S. Ferry, who, after voting for the impeachment of Johnson in 1866, moved away from the Radicals. By 1870, papers which normally expressed Republican sentiment, such as the Hartford Post, were attacking the flagrant abuse of military reconstruction. The split between the Connecticut Re- publicans and the national party became obvious in relation to the question of Chinese exclusion. Joseph Hawley of Connecticut strongly denounced this policy from a public platform shared by President Grant, who supported exclusion. The corruption of the Grant admin- istration and the demand that he be removed from office provided a moralistic excuse for returning to a comfortable political conservatism. Many prominent Republicans in the state defected, but Grant carried the state by a margin of some 4,000 votes.27
The effective purpose of politics from 1869 to 1873 was the main- tenance of the status quo. Political power came to those who would cooperate in the manipulations of the financial institutions for such ends as blocking legislation to regulate the financing of railroads and endorsing the favorable tax laws for insurance companies.28 Cries for reforms, except in rare instances, fell on the deaf ears of those who supported the cult of the counting house. Where the clamor for prohibition and for labor reform could not be ignored, it was echoed in electioneering to secure votes, but was not translated into major legislation. Liquor legislation was limited to forbidding liquor shops to be open on the Sabbath and permitting town officials to close them on election days, except in Hartford and New Haven.29 Labor legislation was limited to the requirement that children under fourteen could not be employed unless they had attended school for three months out of the twelve next preceding each year of employment.30 This was en- forceable by a penalty of $100 upon the employer and after 1871 also by a penalty of $5.00 per week, for a maximum of thirteen weeks, upon the parent or guardian, who did not send his child to school when he was temporarily discharged to attend, except that it did not apply to
620
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
(Courtesy Conn. State Lib.)
MANCHESTER
children mentally or physically unfit for schooling or if the pecuniary circumstances of their family required continual absence from school as judged by the board of school visitors of the town in which the family resided.31 In 1872, the law made it clear that the three months of schooling were required out of every year and provided that at least six weeks of the education should be consecutive. Financial circumstances were no longer stated as grounds for exception, but home instruction was permitted as a substitute.32 The eyes of political leaders were fixed
621
THE PERIOD OF READJUSTMENT
upon the edifices of progress rising about them; the more subtle needs of society were not seen. Neither party was capable of forming challeng- ing programs and both supported matters of regional interest, such as the resumption of specie payments, so it seemed to matter little who occupied the seats of the Assembly. An inert complacency settled over all. There was scant difference in the apparent social and economic philosophies of James Edward English, the Democratic Governor in 1870, and of Marshall Jewell, the Republican Governor in 1869, 1871, and 1872.33
Frequently, politicians of both parties, in their eagerness to secure the spoils of victory, transgressed the bounds permitted in the elective process. The factional fights of the "Register clique" with the New Haven Irish and the close relations of the Democrats with New York's Tweed Ring indicated the low state of politics. The free junkets of Democrats to Tweed's Greenwich home became a matter of comment and the alleged connections of James E. English with the New York politician became an important issue in the campaign of 1871. Political manipulation reached its lowest ebb in this election and there was so much confusion it was not possible to tell who had won. A joint legislative committee was appointed to investigate and was given com- plete inquisitorial powers. The Republicans forecast irregularities in New Haven's fourth ward, but were surprised when it was found that 101 votes which should have been credited to English had been counted for Jewell. The Republicans asserted that the ballot box must have been tampered with and the minions of the Post Office and Custom House, well supplied with cash, secured enough affadavits from voters who stated that they had voted for Jewell to give him a majority in this district. The affidavits were accepted by the investigating committee, which gave Jewell an official majority. This was confirmed in the Assembly by a straight party vote. Although irregularities prevailed in the years which followed, there seems to have been a growing concern for morality in public affairs.34
Political bitterness was intensified, however, by the dispute over the location of the state capitol. Since New Haven had merged with Connecticut in colonial days, state houses had been maintained in both Hartford and New Haven and the Assembly had sat alternately in each
622
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
city. Hartford and New Haven had competed for railroad terminals, war contracts, and industrial leadership, but none of these was more important to New Haven than the location of the capitol. This was important to assuage its discontent over the loss of independence.35 The pressure for a single seat of government continued to mount until 1871. In that year a five man commission was appointed to proceed with plans for a new state house. The Assembly voted $500,000 to match the $500,000 proffered by Hartford and authorized that city to issue bonds up to $1,000,000 for the construction. The state also agreed to donate the old State House to the city. The New Haven delegation waged a determined stand, led by Charles Ingersoll, to block the proceedings. After failing in a motion to adjourn the 1871 session, the New Haven delegation sought unsuccessfully in 1872 the privilege of building a capitol in New Haven without cost to the state. It re- mained necessary, however, to make it constitutional for the Assembly to meet solely in Hartford. A proposed amendment to this effect had failed of passage in the 1871 session, but, in 1872, a similar resolution was passed by the simple majority of 126 to 103 which was sufficient for passage on the first reading. On second reading, in 1873, the measure received the required two-thirds majority, because there had been a shift of 60 votes, 44 of which came from New London, Litchfield, and Fairfield counties. New Haven proceeded to express her discontent by raising again the question of reforming the basis of representation.36
There were many valid reasons for reforming the method of repre- sentation. Despite repeated efforts to accomplish this reform, the method had not been changed since 1818.37 In 1872, ten towns with a total population of 7,274 and a grand list of $3,912,557 sent 16 repre- sentatives to the lower house, while 10 cities with a population of 185,638 and a grand list of more than $134,000,000 sent the same number. Bridgeport, the third largest city in the state, had one repre- sentative, while nearby Redding, with a population of 1,600, had two.38 Representation in the Senate was also disproportionate. Seven of the Senate's 21 members represented more than half the state's population, while another seven represented less than one-fifth.39
The move for a constitutional convention to alter the basis of representation, as before, reaped the determined opposition of the
623
THE PERIOD OF READJUSTMENT
rural towns, and failed to arouse great popular interest or to secure broad legislative support. However, in 1872 a number of citizens in New Haven and Bridgeport organized a Constitutional Reform Asso- ciation to secure an equitable representation.4º The Association elicited
(Courtesy Mills Coll., Conn. State Lib.)
SAYBROOK POINT LIGHT HOUSE, OR LYNDE LIGHT (1935 PHOTO)
numerous proposals for reform arrangements, including one from a rising young New Haven lawyer, Simeon E. Baldwin, a member of the Association and legal counsel for the New York and New Haven Rail- road.41 Apparently understanding the difficulties of securing any changes in the lower house, Baldwin proposed redistricting the Senate and making it a popular branch of the government.42 The Association directed its arguments to members of the General Assembly in a pam- phlet, "Consideration on Constitutional Reform in Connecticut." In
624
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
this it was proposed that representation be based on population, and, ever mindful of the balance of power in the Assembly, it was suggested that the alteration be made by means of a convention rather than through a constitutional amendment.43 The press was attracted to the activities of the Association, and this forced the political parties to take a stand on the issue. After a spirited discussion, the Democrats adopted the aims of the Association. The Republicans split along urban-rural lines.44 The proponents of the proposal sought to assuage the fears of the small towns by including, in the bill submitted to the legislature, a guarantee that each town would have at least one representative.45 Support for the proposed constitutional convention was sapped by addi- tional suggestions designed to correct other specific defects of govern- ment. The fate of the bill could be anticipated. It was rejected by a vote of 140 to 69. The proposal for a constitutional convention was carried over for the next two sessions of the General Assembly, but was rejected in each.47
At least in part because of its official endorsement of reform in the basis of representation to accord with population, the Democratic Party somewhat undeservedly became identified as the party of reform and of urban interests. In the final vote on the constitutional convention, only 16 Republicans voted for the bill and 84 Republicans voted against it, while 51 Democrats voted in favor of the bill and 58 opposed. Among those absent were 22 Democrats as well as 10 Republicans.48 The Democrats had a sufficient majority to pass the bill, but the public lost count of the Democrats who did not vote for the measure when the New Haven Palladium, a Republican newspaper, regretted that the affirmative vote had been solely by Democrats, while the Republicans had opposed the measure. Momentarily, at least, there must have been many who believed that the reform could not be carried on within the framework of the Republican Party. Simeon E. Baldwin, a rising Republican, headed the resultant movement of the Reform Association in the Fall of 1873 in its unsuccessful effort to establish a third party.49 A change in representation was not accomplished, but when minorities in urban centers sought to realize their objectives through political action, they turned to the Democratic Party.
The minorities in the urban centers became the natural allies of
625
THE PERIOD OF READJUSTMENT
the Democrats in their effort to unseat the Republicans from power. The Republicans, a majority party since 1865, had rebuffed minorities whether they had articulated their programs as emigrants, as laborers, or as proponents of a particular cause such as prohibition. The Re- publican Party had powerful support from the owners of the textile industries in eastern Connecticut and from the insurance companies, but it became increasingly more dependent upon rural areas for numerical· majorities. The Democrats had maintained a surprising degree of unity during the hectic days of reconstruction and with the urban vote were able to interrupt the Republican monopoly.50
From 1873 to 1879, the Democrats had uninterrupted control of the machinery of state government. Charles R. Ingersoll, member of a prominent New Haven family and New Haven's representative in Congress during the war years and in the early years of reconstruction, won sizeable majorities over his Republican opponents and served three terms as Governor. During the last term, the Governor's tenure was extended from one to two years.51 In 1875, the Democrats held both Senatorial seats and secured three of the four Congressional seats as well as winning the Governor's office. The new Governor was Richard Dudley Hubbard, who, from comparatively meager beginnings, rose in the profession of law and served as U. S. Representative from Hartford for one term before becoming Governor. The Democrats gained control of the lower house of the Assembly in 1873 for the first time in twenty years.52
At no time during these years did the Democrats possess the necessary two-thirds majority to amend the constitution without Re- publican assistance. After the move for the constitutional convention had been scuttled, an amendment was passed and ratified which allowed two representatives to each town possessing or attaining a population of 5,000 and allowing other towns to retain their existing representation. In 1876, it was further provided that new towns and those under 2,500 were to have no representatives.53 This was perhaps as much as the Democrats could accomplish on this point, yet, in the entirety of their legislative actions, the Democrats failed to fit the image which had been sketched of them.
At the beginning of the last term of this Democratic interlude,
626
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
Governor Hubbard suggested that if lawmakers "would conscientiously give as much time and study to needed reforms in the body politic," as they gave to partisan politics, civil government would be improved.54 He concluded one of his recommendations with the warning that "there is no use of scratching the skin where incision and surgery are
---
(Courtesy "Meriden Record-Journal"')
MERIDEN
needed."55 The Democrats in the session expended some effort in per- fecting the governmental machinery. They changed the date of elections to November; passed a proposed amendment providing a two year term for members of the Assembly, which would conform to the Governor's new term; and passed another proposed amendment making a change in the procedure of appointing judges. They also provided for the appointment of a joint committee on engrossed bills in line with Hubbard's request for reforms to insure that bills sent to the Governor at least accurately and legibly record legislative action.56 In general, however, the Democrats chose to patch or ignore rather than to basically
627
THE PERIOD OF READJUSTMENT
reform or boldly reconstruct. Governor Hubbard's recommendations did not call for radical changes in basic thinking. He was filled with solicitude for the railroads, which were "entitled to be treated with consideration,"57 for the insurance companies, a "much exposed, often abused, and most important interest,"58 and the banks, which might be "embarrassed" in earning satisfactory dividends for depositors.59 In this context, suggestions for regulations of these institutions and for reforms of corporation laws seem less ominous than routine and a law to indicate clearly that "willful false swearing by officers of financial insti- tutions" in their required returns to the State could be punished as perjury does not seem unreasonable.60 The Governor could not accord striking laborers the right to prevent others from filling the positions they vacated,61 nor, in fact, go beyond such constants in Connecticut political thought as complacency in regard to the schools and support for stringent economy in state and national governments.62 Other real concerns of Governor Hubbard have continued to concern all Gov- ernors until the present moment. Among these are the practice of the Assembly in waiting until just before adjournment to pass all major and in fact most legislation, correction of the "crying and scandalous" delays in the administration of justice, reform of the probate courts to obviate the use of untrained judges, the disposition of the criminal in- sane, and the survival of the national guard under control of the states.63 Hubbard asserted, "We have outgrown our old swaddling clothes and bandages," and declared "It is time we had sloughed them off." Yet, the Democrats chose to patch or accept rather than to reform basically or reconstruct boldly. The populace returned the Republicans to control.64
NOTES-CHAPTER XXIV
1 Public Acts, State of Conn., May, 1865, p. 101.
2 Journal, Senate, May, 1865, p. 34; Journal, Senate, May, 1865, pp. 307-08.
3 Public Acts, May, 1865, pp. 23-25.
4 Journal, Senate, May, 1865, Governor's Message, p. 28; Niven, "Time of the Whirl- wind," p. 152.
5 Public Acts, Conn., May, 1865, pp. 116-20; Niven, "Time of the Whirlwind," pp. 152- 54.
6 Governor's Message in Public Documents, May, 1861, p. 65.
7 Niven, "Time of the Whirlwind," pp. 321-28.
8 Public Acts, 1872, pp. 10, 96.
628
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
9 Niven, "Time of the Whirlwind," pp. 178-92.
10 Ibid., pp. 166-70.
12 Niven, "Time of the Whirlwind," pp. 170-71.
13 Mary Ritter Beard, The American Labor Movement (New York, 1942), p. 27.
14 Henry E. Hoagland, "Humanitarianism," in John Commons et al., History of Labour in the United States, 2 vols. (New York, 1918), Vol. I, p. 543; Niven, "Time of the Whirlwind," p. 214.
15 Ibid., pp. 210, 214-15; Beard, The American Labor Movement, p. 68; John B. An- drews, "Nationalism," in Commons et al., History of Labour, Vol. II, p. 19.
16 Public Acts, Conn., 1867, p. 77.
17 Lane, Political History of Connecticut, p. 277.
18 Ibid., p. 276.
19 Niven, "Time of the Whirlwind," pp. 237-38.
20 Ibid., p. 234; Buckingham, William A. Buckingham, pp. 430-35.
21 Niven, "Time of the Whirlwind," pp. 241-47.
22 Ibid., pp. 236-69.
23 Ibid., pp. 258-66.
24 Ibid., pp. 220-32, 257-68; Norton, "Connecticut Governors," in Connecticut Magazine, Vol. VIII, 1903-1904, pp. 117-20.
25 Niven, "Time of the Whirlwind," pp. 233-35, 243, 394, 397-99, 400-01.
26 Ibid., pp. 398-400.
27 Ibid., pp. 434-38.
28 Ibid., pp. 232-33, 300-07, 353-54.
29 Public Acts, Connecticut, May Session, 1872, p. 19; May Session, 1870, pp. 498-99.
30 Ibid., 1866-68, p. 333.
31 Ibid., and 1871, pp. 594-95.
32 Ibid., May Session, 1872, pp. 43-44.
33 Norton, "Governors of Connecticut," Connecticut Magazine, Vol. VIII, 1903-1904, pp. 117-23; Niven, "Time of the Whirlwind," pp. 400-30.
34 Ibid., pp. 405-20; Report of the Joint Select Committee on the Canvass of Votes for the Governor, Public Documents, Conn., 1871.
35 Niven, "Time of the Whirlwind," p. 440.
36 Ibid., pp. 440-41; Public Acts, Connecticut, 1871, p. 659; 1872, pp. 113-14; in Osborne, ed., History of Connecticut, Vol. II, pp. 41-45.
37 Efforts in 1848, 1849, 1855, and 1867 had failed for lack of the necessary majorities in the Assembly. Melbert B. Cary, The Struggle for Constitutional Reform in Con- necticut, p. 14.
38 Niven, "Time of the Whirlwind," pp. 449-50.
39 Simeon E. Baldwin, Considerations on Constitutional Reform in Connecticut, Sub- mitted to the Members of the Legislature of 1873 and to the People (New Haven, 1873), p. 5.
40 Simeon E. Baldwin, The Three Constitutions of Connecticut, p. 240.
41 Frederick H. Jackson, Simeon Eben Baldwin (New York, 1955), pp. 58, 62-63.
42 Baldwin, Constitutional Reform,
43 Hartford Courant, March 20, October 24, 27, 1873.
44 Niven, "Time of the Whirlwind," pp. 440-42.
45 Public Acts, Connecticut, 1873, p. 180.
47 Ibid., 1874, p. 505; 1876, p. 356.
48 Hartford Courant, July 10, 1873.
49 Jackson, Baldwin, p. 61.
50 Niven, "Time of the Whirlwind," pp. 440-43.
629
THE PERIOD OF READJUSTMENT
51 Ibid., pp. 445-50. Ingersoll's Republican opponent in 1873 was Henry P. Haven of New London; in 1874, it was Henry B. Harrison of New Haven; and in 1875, Henry C. Robinson of Hartford. See, Norton, "Governors of Connecticut," Connecticut Magazine, Vol. 8, 1903-1904, pp. 123-26.
52 Ibid .; Niven, "Time of the Whirlwind," pp. 445-50.
53 Journal, House, in Osborn, ed., History of Connecticut, Vol. II, p. 49.
54 Public Documents, Connecticut, 1878, Governor's Message, p. 3.
55 Ibid., p. 9.
56 Public Acts, 1877, p. 259; January Session, 1878, pp. 357-58; Public Documents, 1879, Vol. I, Governor's Message, p. 5.
57 Ibid., p. 15.
58 Ibid., p. 20.
59 Ibid., p. 21.
60 Ibid., pp. 12 ff.
61 Ibid., pp. 16-17.
62 Ibid., pp. 25, 29-30.
63 Ibid., pp. 3-31.
64 Ibid., p. 11.
Chapter XXV
The Aggregation of Capital, Banking and Insurance
P OLITICAL MACHINERY, regardless of which party con- trolled it, was, in fact, the handmaiden of economic development, and was subordinated to the objective of creating a favorable climate for the corporate activities which were regarded as of greatest benefit to the state. In the last decades of the nineteenth century, the power of wealth was evident. Its power had been indicated especially by the operations of the financial institutions.
Banking
Banks had benefited from the shift from a war to a peace time economy, from the shortage of money, and from the cooperation of the Assembly in granting legal confirmation to banking practices which endorsed their philosophy and policy. Bank policy was not de- veloped entirely as a free choice of bank directors: in part it reflected the pressure of depositors seeking high returns. The final policy, how- ever, was a factor in creating periods in which less favorable economic situations prevailed. The banks, in turn, were caught in the web of general economic conditions. Banks joined with other corporations to insure that a favorable tax structure would be maintained. Independ- ently, they sought to remove restrictions on interest rates and invest- ments.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.