USA > New York > History of the state of New York, political and governmental, Vol. III 1865-1896 > Part 24
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
9The ticket was: Governor, Roswell P. Flower, New York; Lieutenant- Governor, William F. Sheehan, Erie; Secretary of State, Frank Rice, Ontario; Comptroller, Frank Campbell, Steuben; Attorney-General, Simon W. Rosendale, Albany; State Engineer, Martin Schenck, Rensselaer.
365
THE STOLEN SENATE,
1891]
centered his fire upon Tammany and the threatened extension of its power to Albany. This plea, however, did not especially arouse the rural voter, and the Cleve- land Democrats were too much interested in the coming Presidential nomination to break with the party. The Democrats had a large campaign fund and made an unusually thorough campaign. Flower won by 47,937 plurality, the vote being : Flower, 582,893; Fassett, 534,956; John W. Bruce (Prohibition), 30,353; Daniel DeLeon (Socialist), 14,651. Sheehan's plurality for Lieutenant-Governor was 34,419, and the other Demo- cratic candidates received about 43,000 plurality. The Democrats again won the Assembly, which stood, Democrats, 67; Republicans, 61. The Senate was in doubt, and Hill's desperate effort to obtain control developed into one of the most notable, and, in its effects on personal and party fortunes, most far-reach- ing political scandals in the history of the State. No such striking abuse of the election machinery had occurred in New York State since 1792, when John Jay was deprived of the Governorship by the throwing out of the votes of three counties on pretexts of the most extreme technicality in clear denial of substantial jus- tice and the rights of voters.
Each party had elected fourteen Senators beyond question, while four seats were in dispute. The Demo- crats contested the election of a Republican in the Troy district on charges of minor irregularities, which the courts held to be without merit. In the Steuben county district, Franklin D. Sherwood, Republican, received 1,762 plurality, but Charles E. Walker, Democrat,
366
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1891
claimed the seat on the ground of Sherwood's ineligi- bility as Park Commissioner of Hornellsville. In Onondaga county Republican official ballots, indorsed with the number of the district for which they were intended, had been in several cases exchanged, so that voters in the one district cast ballots indorsed on the back for another district. The law required the issue of official ballots, and gave the voter no practical alterna- tive to the use of ballots that had been missent by official error. If these 1,252 ballots were rejected, the seat would be taken from Rufus T. Peck, Republican, for whom a majority of the electors undoubtedly voted, and given to John A. Nichols, Democrat. In the Dutchess county district a majority of the votes was cast for Gilbert A. Deane, but some of the Deane ballots were marked by a printer's quad. The Democratic county board of canvassers declared that this, though it was evidently a mere typographical blemish, made the votes illegal as marked ballots; and when the County Clerk refused to sign a certificate giving the count to Edward B. Osborne, the Democratic candidate, the board appointed one of its own number to sign the certificate and transmitted to the State board of canvassers this certificate, which was afterward known by the name of the signer as the "Mylod return." For refusing to sign the certificate, Governor Hill removed the County Clerk and appointed in his place Storm Emans, a Democrat.
All of these cases were taken into the courts, and a tangle of conflicting orders resulted. In the Dutchess county case, Justices Barnard and Cullen,
367
THE STOLEN SENATE
1891]
both Democrats, issued orders to Emans to forward a correct return showing the election of Deane. Emans did so, putting in the mail triplicate certificates addressed to the Governor, the Secretary of State, and the Comptroller. After he had mailed them he received an order from Justice Ingraham not to forward them. Apparently honestly uncertain of his duty, he followed them to Albany, and there, after consulting with Hill and with Isaac H. Maynard, Deputy Attorney-General who was actively advising with the Democratic inter- ests, he obtained the three certificates and took them back to Poughkeepsie.
On December 29 the Court of Appeals, to which the decision of all the issues had been committed by a stip- ulation of all the parties, including the members of the State board of canvassers, handed down its decision. The Troy seat was given to the Republicans without division.1ยบ The Onondaga seat was given to the Demo- crats by the vote of Chief-Judge Ruger and Judges Earl, Gray, and O'Brien, all' Democrats, while Judges Andrews and Finch, Republicans, and Judge Peckham, Democrat, dissented.
Although the long Democratic fight against an official ballot had been based on concern for the inherent right of the voter to have his vote cast and counted and not invalidated by any circumstances beyond his control, the majority of the court construed the misnumbering, which apparently nobody chal- lenged while the voting was going on, as a mark inval- idating the ballots. It would not even allow them to be
10People ex rel. Derby vs. Rice, 129 N. Y., p. 461.
368
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1891
considered unofficial ballots, the use of which was permitted in case the proper ballots were lost or destroyed. It refused to concede that, if these ballots were not proper official ballots, there were no official ballots and therefore unofficial ballots were legal. It held the ballots official and therefore the only ones that could be cast by those wishing to vote the Republican ticket, and then threw them out as illegal. In dissent Judge Andrews wrote a strong opinion in which he said: "To reject these votes on the ground that the policy of a secret ballot was thereby invaded, is subordinating the right of suffrage to an unanticipated incident. This decision defeats the will of the majority and subverts, in the particular case, the foun- dation principle of republican government, and this upon a narrow, technical, harsh, and unnecessary con- struction of the law. In place of protecting the right of suffrage, it destroys it."11
In the Steuben county case the majority of the court held that Sherwood was ineligible and refused him a mandamus to compel the State board of canvassers to give him a certificate, on the ground that this writ could be given only to secure a clear legal right. At the same time it declared unequivocally that the duty of the State board of canvassers was purely ministerial; it had no right to consider the question of Sherwood's eligi- bility. That could only be determined by the Senate itself. Judges Finch and Andrews dissented, holding that, as the canvassers had no right to pass on Sher- wood's eligibility, they should be ordered to certify the
11People ex rel. Nichols vs. Board of Canvassers, 129 New York, p. 443.
369
THE STOLEN SENATE
1891]
true count, which the court said was their sole duty, especially as the proceedings indicated an intention to sit in judgment on the question. These Judges also condemned the action of the court itself in determining Sherwood's qualification and on that ground refusing him relief, while admitting that it had no jurisdiction over the question, which belonged exclusively to the Senate.12
The Dutchess county case came up on appeal from a writ of mandamus ordering the State board of can- vassers to disregard the "Mylod return" and consider only such return as might thereafter be filed, certified to by the County Clerk of Dutchess. The court unani- mously held that the certificate of the County Clerk was not necessary to a valid return and that the "Mylod return" was valid in form but uncontradictedly incor- rect in fact, and that if a correct return was filed it could be counted. The court therefore affirmed the writ commanding the State board to disregard the "Mylod return," merely modifying it by striking out the provisions requiring a return to be certified by the County Clerk.13
On the evening of the 29th, immediately after the decisions were read, and before formal orders were entered, the State board of canvassers met and issued certificates to the Republican from Troy and the Democrat from Syracuse in accordance with the decision. That left the Senate 15 to 15. Then, despite the court's decision that they had no right to judge of
12People ex rel. Sherwood vs. Rice, 129 New York, p. 391 et seq.
13People ex rel. Daley vs. Rice, 129 New York, p. 449 et seq.
370
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1891
Sherwood's eligibility, the canvassers refused to certify his election, which would have given him his seat temporarily pending a decision of the contest by the Senate, and instead adopted a resolution declaring that he was ineligible and that the board was unable to certify any election in that district. When they came to the Dutchess case, the canvassers interpreted the court's decision as an affirmance of the legality of the "Mylod return" in the absence of any other. The Republican counsel protested and called attention to the forwarding of the true return and demanded to know what had become of it. Attorney-General Tabor denied any knowledge on the subject. Frank Rice and Wemple sat silent, and Maynard, acting as counsel for the board, also sat silent, although both he and Rice knew that it had been officially delivered to the Secre- tary of State's office. Counting the "Mylod return," the board gave the certificate to Osborne, so that when the Senate convened there were 16 Democrats and 15 Republicans, and the Democrats promptly used their stolen plurality of one to give the Steuben seat to Walker, Sherwood's opponent, thus giving them con- trol of the Senate by 17 to 15.
This high-handed action was bitterly denounced by independents, as well as Republicans. Indignation became more pronounced when on the sudden death of Chief-Judge Ruger, Governor Flower on January 19 appointed Maynard an Associate-Judge of the Court of Appeals in place of Earl, who was advanced to the Chief-Judgeship. This was generally regarded as a reward for Maynard's services in the contest. Still the
371
THE STOLEN SENATE
1891]
criticism was mainly directed to the impropriety of rewarding political service with a seat on the bench and did not go farther than to denounce Maynard's partici- pation as legal adviser in the manipulations of others. But immediately an unexpected shock aroused the State. Proceedings for contempt had been taken against Emans for disobedience to the court's order to transmit the true return. This brought out the fact that all three copies had been legally in the custody of members of the State board of canvassers. On the morning of December 22 Emans, after consultation with Hill and Maynard, visited the Executive cham- ber, where the Governor's messenger went through the unopened morning's mail and gave back to Emans the envelope containing the return, fifteen minutes before Governor Hill appeared in the office. The Secretary of State himself permitted Emans to take the paper from his desk, that he "might not be embarrassed" when they came to canvass the "Mylod return." Maynard accom- panied Emans to the Comptroller's office, where he was well known as Deputy Attorney-General, and himself took from the messenger the return and gave it to Emans. The messenger testified that when Comp- troller Wemple came to the office he told him that he had taken the paper at Maynard's request from the mail on the Comptroller's desk and Wemple said it was all right.14 Yet Wemple, Rice, and Maynard sat silent when the lawyers were asking if the lawful certificate
14New York Tribune, reports of testimony, January 21, February 2 and 11, 1892.
372
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1892
had not been received, and Tabor denied all knowledge of it.15
Justice Cullen dismissed the contempt case against Emans, holding that the latter had obeyed the court in transmitting the return, and saying that the crime, which he did not hesitate to characterize as a crime, of withdrawing it from the board of canvassers had been committed subsequently and been participated in by the public officials. Two years later the Court of Appeals (Judges Earl and O'Brien alone dissenting) punished Rice and the other members of the board of canvassers for contempt of court in counting the "Mylod return."16
The revelation that a Judge of the Court of Appeals had been guilty of taking from a public office official documents in order to permit a fraudulent canvass of votes resulting in a fraudulent majority for his party in the State Senate, and had in fact owed his judicial position to that theft, aroused the greatest indignation. The Bar Association of New York City, under the leadership of some of the most respected Democratic lawyers, in March condemned Maynard's conduct and in December reiterated its condemnation.17 By a strictly partisan vote, the Democratic majority in both the Senate and Assembly approved Maynard's conduct in connection with the abstracted election return.18 When in December Maynard's appointment expired
15New York Tribune, December 30, 1891.
16People ex rel. Platt vs. Rice, 144 N. Y., p. 249.
17New York Tribune, March 23 and December 31, 1892. 18New York Tribune, April 21, 1892.
373
THE STOLEN SENATE
1892]
with the return of Earl to his former seat, Governor Flower defied public opinion by appointing him to sit for another year in the seat vacated by Andrews, who had been elected Chief-Judge. A year later the Democracy, feeling bound to defend itself through him, nominated him for a full term, and his crushing defeat marked the turn of the tide that was to give the Republicans sixteen unbroken years of complete con- trol of the State government.
CHAPTER XXXI THE RETURN OF CLEVELAND 1892
W ITH Sheehan as Lieutenant-Governor pre- siding over the Senate, and Robert P. Bush of his own county of Chemung in the Speaker's chair, Hill proceeded to carry out his long deferred program. A bill was passed for an enumer- ation to be made between February 16 and 29. When the bill as originally introduced was brought up in the Senate, without ever having been reported or considered in committee, a substitute bill, which had never been printed or even engrossed, was offered for final passage and ordered to vote without debate. Senators Erwin, Saxton, and O'Connor refused to vote on a bill that they had had no chance even to read, and for this were declared in contempt and suspended for a week.1 The bill reapportioning Congress districts on the basis of the Federal census of 1890 was passed. The Excise laws were codified and the tax much reduced, that for general saloons being made $250 and that for the sale of ale and beer from $30 to $75. An extra session of the Legis- lature was held on April 25 to reapportion the Senate and Assembly districts according to the February
1New York Tribune, January 15, 16, 20, 21, 1892.
374
375
THE RETURN OF CLEVELAND
1892]
enumeration, which had been thus taken in midwinter to make possible the apportionment before another election. The new apportionment greatly increased the power of the Democrats. The Republicans denounced it as grossly unfair: For instance, Dutchess with 78,000 inhabitants received two Assemblymen, while St. Lawrence with 86,000 received only one. Monroe with 200,000 had only three Assemblymen, and Albany with 167,000 had four. The average population of a Senate district in New York City was 174,059, while five Republican counties in western New York, including Ontario, were grouped into a district con- taining 207,678 people.2 Nevertheless the Court of Appeals by a divided vote sustained the apportionment, and Republican complaints did not excite much indignation among those who remembered that for years these now unjustly treated Republican districts had been over-represented and that the Republicans when in authority had never been dispassionately atten- tive to apportionment inequalities. The Legislature also passed an act for the election in February, 1893, of a Constitutional convention to meet in May, 1893. It was to be composed of one delegate from each Assembly district, thirty-two delegates-at-large to be equally divided between the major parties, and five represen- tatives of labor interests and three of Prohibitionists, to be appointed by the Governor.
The practice of electing delegates to national con- ventions in the middle of the spring was well settled in New York, but Hill determined to steal a march on
2New York Tribune, April 29, 1892.
376
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1892
Cleveland and get the delegates before his opponents could have a chance to organize. He had a firm grasp on the party machinery and on short notice could carry the caucuses. So he caused the Democratic State con- vention to be called to meet at Albany on February 22. Cleveland Democrats were loud in protest and imme- diately set to work to organize what was known as the "Anti -- snapper" movement, the master spirit of which was William R. Grace, aided by such men as E. Ellery Anderson, Edward M. Shepard, George Foster Pea- body, Daniel Magone, Charles S. Fairchild, Franklin D. Locke, Robert A. Maxwell, and Oscar S. Straus. These men held a preliminary meeting in Albany at the same time as the State convention, and after protesting against the snap convention adjourned to meet at Syracuse on May 31, where with John D. Kernan in the chair they adopted a platform declaring that Cleveland was the choice of the overwhelming majority of the Democrats of New York and that the rest of the country could rely on his ability to carry the State. They also chose delegates to the national convention, those at-large being Frederic R. Coudert, Alexander E. Orr, Mayor Charles F. Bishop of Buffalo, and Edmund Fitzgerald of Troy.3 The regular convention was presided over by George M. Beebe and Daniel E. Sickles, both of whom found it desirable to defend Hill's course in getting control of the Senate. The con- vention declared for sound money and against the Sher-
3New York Tribune, June 1, 1892. See also Everett P. Wheeler, Sixty Years of American Life, p. 203 et seq., and George F. Parker, Recollections of Grover Cleveland, ch. ix.
CHARLES ANDREWS
Charles Andrews, jurist; born, New York Mills, N. Y., May 27, 1827; educated at Cazenovia seminary; admitted to the bar, 1849 and practiced in Syracuse; district attorney of Onon- daga county, 1853-1856; mayor of Syracuse, 1861 and 1868; delegate to the constitutional convention, 1867; associate judge court of appeals, 1870-1880; in 1881 he was appointed by Gov- ernor Cornell as chief judge of the court of appeals to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Charles J. Folger but in 1882 was defeated for the office by his democratic friend and neighbor, William C. Ruger; elected judge of the court of appeals in 1884 and chief judge, 1892, serving until he retired at the age limit; died at Syracuse, N. Y., October 22, 1918.
1
JOSEPH HODGES CHOATE
Joseph Hodges Choate, lawyer; born in Salem, Mass., Jan- uary 24, 1832; graduated at Harvard, 1852, and law school, 1854; admitted to the bar in Massachusetts, 1855, in New York, 1856; counsel for Gen. Fitz John Porter in West Point investi- gation before the board of officers appointed by President Hayes which resulted in the reversal of the original court martial ; took part in the municipal campaign in New York City in 1871 which resulted in the overthrow of the Tweed ring; president of state constitutional convention of 1895; died, New York City, May 14, 1917.
377
THE RETURN OF CLEVELAND
1892]
man Silver Purchase act, instructed the delegation to support Hill as a unit, presenting him as a "Democrat who has led his party from victory to victory for seven successive years and who has never known defeat." The delegates-at-large were Roswell P. Flower, Edward Murphy, Jr., Daniel E. Sickles, and Henry W. Slocum. Among the alternates it is curious to find the names of Tilden's friend, Manton Marble, and more especially his other friend, John Bigelow, a life-long devotee of scrupulous politics.4 Their presence in the Hill camp gave some indication of the break between Cleveland and the old Tilden interests.
The Republicans held their State convention in Albany on April 28. William A. Sutherland was temporary chairman, and Whitelaw Reid, who had just returned from the French mission, permanent chair- man. Theodore B. Willis wanted to instruct for Harrison, but was persuaded not to offer a resolution to that effect. The convention commended the adminis- tration of Harrison and Blaine's course as Secretary of State and denounced the Democratic theft of the Legislature and its partisan legislation. Platt, Depew, Hiscock, and Miller were chosen delegates-at-large to the national convention, which met in Minneapolis on June 7. Harrison's nomination was a foregone conclusion, but he was not popular with the politicians of his own party. In New York Hiscock, Depew, and Reid gave him earnest support. Hiscock was, indeed, one of his most influential advisers. Platt considered that broken pledges had deprived him of the Treasury
4New York Tribune, February 23, 1892.
378
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1892
department and was implacable, although he had been made the chief fountain of patronage in New York and Erhardt had been displaced to please him. Miller also opposed Harrison. Working in harmony with Platt and Miller against Harrison were Matthew S. Quay of Pennsylvania and James S. Clarkson of Iowa. Although Blaine had written a letter declining to be a candidate,5 his name was used in an effort to elect anti- Harrison delegates. Three days before the convention, Blaine suddenly resigned from the cabinet without giving any public explanation. This course was variously interpreted as a bid for the nomination, as an effort to free himself from the embarrassment of remaining in the President's official family while despite himself his name was being used against the President, or as a mere evidence of ill-health and weariness. But he himself would say nothing about the Presidency. Harrison appointed John W. Foster to succeed him after Depew had declined with an under- standing that he would take the State department in the next administration if the Republicans were successful.6
At Minneapolis, J. Sloat Fassett was temporary chairman and New York took a prominent part in both the Harrison and Blaine interests. Hiscock and Depew made speeches seconding Harrison, who was nominated by R. W. Thompson of Indiana. Senator Wolcott of Colorado nominated Blaine, and Miller seconded him. The opposition to Harrison made extravagant claims, and sought by delay for some chance to make them
5New York Tribune, February 8, 1892.
6Statement of Mr. Depew to the writer, June 15, 1917.
379
THE RETURN OF CLEVELAND
1892]
good, but on the first ballot, taken on June 10, Harrison was nominated, receiving 535 1/6 votes to 182 1/6 for Blaine, 182 for William McKinley, 4 for Thomas B. Reed, and 1 for Robert T. Lincoln. Platt and Miller were able to carry 35 of New York's 72 votes to Blaine, while Harrison had only 27. Ten went to McKinley, on whom, though not a candidate, many who wanted neither Blaine nor Harrison centered their votes.7 By common consent New York was asked to name the can- didate for Vice-President. Whitelaw Reid was sug- gested and Depew supported him, although some feared that he would be unacceptable to the labor unions because his newspaper printing office had until a short time before been a non-union shop. When Depew proposed Reid to Platt, who had for some time been fostering a growing dislike for the editor and later became his bitter enemy, Platt replied: "I'm for it, it beats this damned ticket, and that's what I want."8 Edmund O'Connor presented Reid. After the name of Thomas B. Reed had been suggested and withdrawn, the New Yorker was nominated by acclamation.
The Democratic national convention met in Chicago on June 21. The southerners and westerners were in control, and the positive anti-protectionist elements by a vote of 564 to 342 rejected a tariff straddle and incorpo- rated in the platform an outright declaration that the imposition of duties, except for revenue, was unconsti- tutional. The New York "Anti-snappers" were present
7Curtis, The Republican Party, II, 239 et seq .; New York Tribune, June 8, 9, 10, 11, 1892; Official Proceedings of the convention, p. 113. 8Statement of Mr. Depew to the writer, June 15, 1917.
380
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1892
in force, but under the advice of William C. Whitney and other Cleveland leaders they did not contest the seats of the Hill delegates. Whitney, who had become the generalissimo of the Cleveland forces, saw more difficulty in electing than in nominating Cleveland, and did not mean to give any excuse for a factional bolt in New York. Hill's name was presented to the convention by William C. DeWitt, and before the vote was taken W. Bourke Cockran made a frank and dignified speech describing Tammany's attitude toward Cleveland. Tammany supported Hill, but Croker displayed no bitterness and rumors were rife that he would be glad, if the contest was prolonged, to turn to Flower as a dark horse. But the persistence of the Hill vote was never tested, for Cleveland was nominated on the first ballot, receiving 617 1/3 votes. Hill had 114, Governor Horace Boies of Iowa 103, Gorman 3612, Adlai E. Stevenson of Illinois 16 2/3, John G. Carlisle 14, William R. Morrison 3, James E. Campbell 2, and Robert E. Pattison, William E. Russell, and William C. Whitney each 1. Beyond the 72 votes from New York and 11 from Virginia, Hill received only scat- tering votes, 5 from Georgia, 4 from Massachusetts, 3 from Mississippi, 3 from South Carolina, 2 from Alabama, and 1 each from Louisiana, Maine, New Mexico, Texas, and West Virginia. The Hill people had expected much from Indiana, and after its swing to Cleveland under the leadership of Governor Isaac E. Gray, who was a candidate for Vice-President, they had the small comfort of revenging themselves by
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.