USA > New York > History of the state of New York, political and governmental, Vol. IV 1896-1920 > Part 14
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
No State officers were chosen in 1911, but the Assembly elections showed that Murphy had again alienated the reform Democrats and that the Repub- licans who had set out to defeat Roosevelt were back in line. The reformers had a clear issue of Murphy's domination, for Tammany visited its punishment on the insurgent Assemblymen and, wherever it had power, refused to renominate them. The Repub- licans received material aid from the revelation that William Willett, one of the Democratic candidates for the Supreme Court in the Long Island district, nomi- nated by agreement between McCooey and Cassidy, had paid a large sum to Cassidy for the nomination. Willett was repudiated by his two Democratic associ- ates on the ticket, but all of them went down to defeat, and three Republican Justices were chosen. Willett
204
[1912
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
and Cassidy were subsequently convicted of bribery and served prison terms. Murphy elected his local ticket in New York county, but elsewhere the tide set strongly with the Republicans. They recovered the Assembly, which stood : Republicans, 101; Democrats, 48; Socialist, 1. Edwin A. Merritt, Jr., of St. Lawrence, was elected Speaker. The Socialists won a conspicuous victory for the first time in the history of the State in the election of the Rev. George R. Lunn as Mayor of Schenectady. Seven constitutional amendments were submitted and all were defeated by majorities ranging from 41,000 to 151,000. The proposals were: To increase the salaries of members of the Legislature, to take from the Appellate division the power to make assignments of Supreme Court Justices, to add two Judges to the County Court of Kings county, to permit condemnation of private property in excess of that actually needed for the public use, to increase the Governor's salary from $10,000 to $20,000, to impose additional restrictions on the sale of canal property, and to authorize the Supreme Court with or without a jury to fix compensation in condemnation proceedings. A proposal to bond the State for $19,800,000 for canal terminals was carried by 4,416 majority.
Notwithstanding the widespread feeling among Democrats that Murphy's management had been dis- astrous to the party and newspaper predictions that he, or at least his Brooklyn associate, John H. McCooey, who had been decisively beaten, would have to retire, the Tammany organization continued to dominate the Democracy. It controlled the Senate, and with the
205
1912]
THE DEMOCRATS TAKE CONTROL
Republican Assembly under Merritt as Speaker ren- dered the Governor largely impotent. In his message Dix called for more economy, for the repeal of the Frawley Boxing law, and for the elimination from the Primary law of the features that interfered with popular control of the party organizations, but Tam- many would neither repeal the Boxing law nor reform the primaries, except to make the choice of State committeemen direct. The Legislature continued the direct tax imposed in 1911 and, on the Governor's recommendation, passed for the first time a constitu- tional amendment for liberal employers' liability legis- lation to meet the objection of the Court of Appeals to the Wainwright Employers' Liability law of 1910. Dix was greatly interested in the development of the State's water power, but was unable to secure the acceptance of his plan to effect it. The Assembly voted to rescind the State's ratification of the income tax, but the Senate failed to concur in this action, which would probably have availed nothing, for, according to precedent, a State's ratification of an amendment cannot be with- drawn. The most important legislation of the session was an act that enabled New York City to extend its subways under the dual system.
CHAPTER XIII THE PROGRESSIVE SCHISM
1912
A S THE Presidential election approached, the latent hostility of Roosevelt toward Taft became open and active. The defeat of Roose- velt's ticket in 1910, instead of removing him from the political arena as his enemies hoped, had, as Root warned them it would, widened the breach in the party. Roosevelt espoused the policy of the radicals and com- mitted himself not only to the initiative and referendum but to a plan for overruling State courts on constitu- tional questions by popular vote.1 He became espe- cially critical of the New York Court of Appeals, which had set aside the Workmen's Compensation act,2 and argued that the people should have a right to declare such an act valid out of hand regardless of its specific constitutional defects, although a constitutional amendment was then pending that would in regular order open the way to the desired reform. Through this "recall of judicial decisions," the Bill of Rights, or any constitutional safeguard of person or property, might be overridden by a temporary majority enthusi-
1Speech at Columbus, Ohio, February 21, 1912.
2Ives vs. South Buffalo R. R. Co., 201 N. Y., p. 271.
20
207
THE PROGRESSIVE SCHISM
1912]
astic for some suggestion of social betterment or intent on penalizing some unpopular class and indifferent as to the form of the measure for the purpose and its ultimate effects. It aroused the deepest opposition in all quarters still attached to conservative governmental traditions and concerned for the constitutional safe- guarding of minorities.
Among the conservatives there was practically no opposition to the renomination of Taft. He and they realized the danger of defeat, but they had no choice unless they were prepared to accept doctrines that they considered contrary to Republican principles and sub- versive of constitutional law. Cummins of Iowa had a small following among the radicals, but their most promising candidate was LaFollette. Roosevelt for a time was said to favor LaFollette, and certainly the Wisconsin Senator thought he had assurances of that support. Gifford Pinchot, William Flinn of Pittsburgh, and other close friends of Roosevelt contributed liberally to his campaign fund. But LaFollette's can- didacy excited no enthusiasm, and he put himself out of the running at a publishers' dinner in Philadelphia on February 2, when he appeared beside Woodrow Wilson, who had made a tactful speech, and talked far into the night in a tone of fanaticism and of defiance to listeners whose weariness he seemed to interpret as wicked resistance to truth. When it became evident that he could not wrest the nomination from Taft, the radicals, seeking a stronger personality, turned to Roosevelt. On February 10 the Governors of Kansas, Wyoming, West Virginia, Nebraska, Michigan, New
208
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1912
Hampshire, and Missouri sent to him what was known as the "invitation of the seven Governors" asking him to run, and on February 24 he "threw his hat into the ring" and became a candidate for the Presidential nomi- nation.
In the New York primaries on March 26, Roosevelt was badly beaten. Some difficulty over the supply of ballots, due partly to delays in printing caused by the litigation of his followers, led him to complain of the result, but there could be no doubt that despite his great popularity the majority of the enrolled Repub- licans resented his attacks on the administration and feared his new doctrines.3 The Republican State con- vention at Rochester on April 9 was presided over by Nicholas Murray Butler. Roosevelt's opponents were in overwhelming force, but many of them, including Barnes, were not disposed to commit themselves unre- servedly to Taft. Barnes opposed instructions to the last, while Root favored them. Barnes won to the extent that there was no formal instruction for Taft, but the convention on the other hand disregarded the old theory that it had nothing to do with district delegates, by urging in the platform support of Taft by the whole delegation. Following the spirit of Butler's speech, the platform declared opposition to the initiative and referendum and the recall of Judges or of judicial decisions, and declared its devotion to "self-controlled representative democracy." It also called for a defini- tion of offenses under the Sherman law and for a national banking reserve association. This platform,
3New York Times, March 27, 1912.
JOHN ALDEN DIX
John Alden Dix, 41st governor (1911-1912) ; born, Glens Falls, N. Y., December 25, 1860; graduate of Glens Falls academy, 1879 and Cornell university, 1883; dealer in marble and lumber; delegate democratic national convention, 1904; democratic nominee for lieutenant governor, 1908; chairman state committee, 1910; governor of New York state, 1911-1912.
JAMES ALOYSIUS O'GORMAN
James Aloysius O'Gorman, senator; born in New York City, May 5, 1860; graduated, New York university, 1882; honorary degree from Villanova college, 1904 and Fordham university, 1908; admitted to the bar, 1882; justice district court of New York City, 1893-1900; justice supreme court, first district, 1900- 1911; United States senator from New York, 1911-1917.
209
THE PROGRESSIVE SCHISM
1912]
which summed up the conservative doctrines, was carried by a vast majority. The most strenuous voice in opposition to it was that of Comptroller Prendergast, one of the few Roosevelt men in the organization ranks. Elihu Root, William Barnes, Jr., Edwin A. Merritt, Jr., and William Berri were chosen delegates-at-large.4 The State delegation was reported to stand : Taft, 83; Roosevelt, 7. These seven men were the four West- chester delegates led by William L. Ward, the two from Roosevelt's own Congressional district, and Prendergast, who, although a declared Roosevelt man, met no opposition his own district.
Roosevelt was more successful in capturing other important States in an extended speaking campaign, in which the President was forced to compete. Taft's declaration of belief in representative as opposed to direct government was interpreted by Roosevelt to mean a desire for rule by the few, and Roosevelt pre- sented himself as the champion in a new battle for human rights against political and business privilege and archaic laws.5 He won the majority of the dele- gates from California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New Jersey. This left him still in a considerable minority, but his campaign managers adopted a policy of bringing forward contesting delegates from State after State that had been won by Taft, especially in the south, where charges of corruption and Federal domination are always rife. Before the national com- mittee had finished its work of making up a temporary
4New York Times, April 9, 10, 11, 1912.
5Speech in New York City, March 20, 1912.
210
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1912
roll, Roosevelt began to charge that he was being robbed. On many of the cases his own representatives voted for the Taft contestants. On the other hand, many fair-minded men felt that in some cases, notably Texas and Washington, the Roosevelt delegates had been the victims of the "steam-roller." So bitter did the contest become that Roosevelt, disregarding custom, himself went to take command of his forces at Chicago, where the national convention met on June 18. He first directed his fire against Elihu Root, who had been selected for temporary chairman by the national committee. Seeking a union with La Follette, he picked Governor Francis McGovern of Wisconsin for the opposition candidate, but La Follette resented
Roosevelt's entrance into the campaign and charged that Roosevelt, after urging him to make the run, had insidiously and secretly undermined his organization. He repudiated McGovern and took from him one-half of the Wisconsin vote. Root received 558 votes to 501 for McGovern. New York stood : Root, 76; McGovern, 13. To the seven original Roosevelt men were added Timothy L. Woodruff, James E. March, Charles H. Murray, Perry G. Williams of Lowville, and George W. Aldridge and James W. Hotchkiss of Rochester.6
An attempt to exclude contesting delegations from any voice in the committee on credentials brought a second test vote, in which Roosevelt was beaten, 564 to 510, despite the solid support of Wisconsin and Iowa and 15 votes from New York. The struggle was then
6New York Times, June 19, 1912.
211
THE PROGRESSIVE SCHISM
1912]
transferred to the committee on credentials, with Roosevelt already beginning to talk of a bolt but restrained by Senator Borah and Governors Hadley and Deneen, who, with his more conservative followers, did not approve of the extent to which the making of contests for merely strategic reasons had been carried. To the national committee 254 contests had been pre- sented, only 20 of which had been decided in Roose- velt's favor. When it came to presenting the cases again to the committee on credentials, Roosevelt's managers sifted down the contests that they cared to present to 78. These were enough, however, to carry the conven- tion, and, when it was evident the seats would be given to Taft, Roosevelt determined to take no further part in the proceedings. He left LaFollette's friends to lead an unsuccessful fight for the radical doctrines, and under his instructions the great majority of his friends sat silent while the nominations were being made. Nicholas Murray Butler seconded Taft on behalf of New York, after his name was presented by Warren G. Harding, and the vote on the first and only ballot stood: Taft, 561; Roosevelt, 107; Cummins, 17; LaFollette, 41; Hughes 2; not voting, 355. The New York delegation divided 76 for Taft, 8 for Roosevelt, and 6 not voting.7 Vice-President Sherman had not been an active candidate for renomination, and Taft would have been glad to take for a running-mate a western radical, but it was already clear that hope of reconciliation with the Roosevelt forces was vain. The
7New York Times, June 20, 23, 1912; Official Proceedings, p. 403.
212
[1912
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
New York delegation had been the backbone of the Taft strength, and its friendship for Sherman prevailed over the objection to a ticket of unrelieved conservatism.
In the eyes of Taft the issue presented was whether the Republican party had changed its attitude as a conservator of constitutional republican government and had abandoned the principle of absolute independ- ence of the judiciary. He and his managers answered the outcry over the methods by which the convention was controlled with the statement that practices that Roosevelt had approved himself when in power had been followed. On the other hand, their critics pro- nounced this a legalistic rather than moral defense, and they had the sentimental advantage that Roosevelt had carried the great States where popular primaries were held and that Taft depended for his majority on southern delegates, who represented no considerable Republican vote.
Immediately upon the adjournment of the Repub- lican convention, Roosevelt's friends held a meeting in Chicago, marked by great enthusiasm and elements of almost religious zeal. They decided to nominate Roosevelt and to organize a new party to support him. For a name they turned to the LaFollette camp, which in 1911 had founded the National Progressive Repub- lican League, and assumed the title of the Progressive party. They held their national convention in Chicago on August 5, with Senator Beveridge as temporary chairman. Roosevelt himself was present and shaped the party's policy. He excluded the southern negroes
213
THE PROGRESSIVE SCHISM
1912]
from the convention and planned with a white man's party to venture upon a contest in the southern States with the Democrats. Prendergast presented Roosevelt, who was nominated by acclamation for the Presidency, as was Hiram W. Johnson of California for the Vice- Presidency.
The difference between conservatives and progres- sives was scarcely less marked in the Democratic than in the Republican party. The four leading candidates were Governor Judson Harmon of Ohio and Oscar W. Underwood of Alabama, conservatives; Speaker Champ Clark of Missouri, a follower of Bryan, and Governor Woodrow Wilson of New Jersey, whose position was somewhat enigmatic. Governor Wilson was a student of political science and a leader in pro- gressive economic and social legislation, but he opposed Bryan's financial theories. He had entered into politics from the presidency of Princeton University, and by his great ability as a speaker and his independent forcefulness as Governor had won a commanding position before the country. One of his most ardent advocates was George Harvey, editor of Harper's Weekly, who was in close sympathy with the conserva- tive Democrats and the business interests of the east. Wilson, however, saw the necessity of disassociating himself from these friends, and in January asked Harvey to cease an advocacy that was embarrassing. This repudiation of a zealous friend strengthened his hold on the radicals, and, in spite of the publication of a letter written to Adrian H. Joline in 1905 in which he had prayed for someone "to knock Mr. Bryan into a
214
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1912
cocked hat," an increasingly favorable attitude toward him was shown by Bryan.
The New York Democrats were in general conserva- tive, though many of the reform elements were attracted to Wilson by his independence and intellec- tual power, and inclined to consider him a representa- tive of the Cleveland school of political thought rather. than of the new theories that were revolutionizing traditional Democratic doctrine. Murphy completely controlled the Democratic State convention, which was held in New York City on April 11 with Seymour Van Santvoord as temporary and John J. Fitzgerald as permanent chairman. The platform was devoted chiefly to the tariff and declared that the Republicans had grossly deceived the public with promises of fair revision. Dix, O'Gorman, Parker, and Murphy were chosen delegates-at-large to the national convention and the delegation was left without instructions but bound by the unit rule.8
The first trial of strength between Bryan and the conservatives came on June 20, when a sub-committee of the national committee recommended Parker for temporary chairman. Sullivan and Taggart, the anti- Bryan leaders of Illinois and Indiana, joined Mack in support of Parker and obtained for him eight votes against eight scattered. Clark's friends voted for Ollie M. James, while Wilson's divided.9 Bryan made his issue "the people against the interests," and called on the candidates to define their positions. Clark refused
8New York Times, April 12, 1912.
9New York Times, June 21, 1912.
215
THE PROGRESSIVE SCHISM
1912]
to be drawn into the fight against Parker, but Wilson commended Bryan's attitude. On June 24 the whole national committee indorsed the action of its sub- committee by a vote of 31 for Parker to 30 for James and 2 for O'Gorman. Then Bryan carried the fight to the floor of the convention, which met in Baltimore on June 25. There Parker won, by a vote of 579 to 508 for Bryan, who had himself become a candidate. The majority of the New Jersey delegation went to Bryan, while the majority from Clark's State, Missouri, voted for Parker. The permanent chairmanship went to James without opposition. Clark was charged with making a deal to get the 90 votes of New York, but he denied that there was any understanding. The next day, by a vote of 5651/2 to 4921/3, the convention modi- fied the unit rule, a time-honored institution of Demo- cratic national conventions-an action that was consid- ered favorable to Wilson. Bryan next threw the conven- tion into a turmoil by declaring opposition to any candi- date representative of or under obligations to J. P. Morgan, Thomas F. Ryan, August Belmont, "or any other member of the privilege-hunting and favor-seek- ing class," and by calling for the withdrawal of any delegates constituting or representing such interests. He declared that there was a conspiracy to sell the Demo- cratic party to the "interests." The Virginia delegation, of which Ryan was a member, protested that Virginia knew her own business in choosing her representatives, and Bryan withdrew the part of his resolution calling for the withdrawal of objectionable delegates. Under Murphy's direction, New York, instead of making an
216
[1912
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
issue, threw its 90 votes for the resolution, though Belmont was in the delegation, and it was overwhelm- ingly carried. The balloting began on Friday, June 28. The first vote showed Clark, 4401/2; Wilson, 324; Harmon, 148; Underwood, 1171/2 ; Simeon E. Baldwin, 22; Thomas R. Marshall, 31; William J. Bryan, 1; William Sulzer, 2. Bryan supported Clark, while New York's 90 votes went to Harmon for the first nine ballots. On the tenth they were thrown to Clark, giving him 556 to 3501/2 for Wilson.
New York's switch to Clark caused Bryan to with- draw from support of the Missourian. He declared opposition to any candidate whose nomination should be made with the aid of New York's votes, and on the four- teenth ballot voted for Wilson. The balloting continued all day Saturday, and when adjournment was taken until Monday after the twenty-sixth ballot, Clark's support was dwindling while Wilson's vote had crept up to 4071/2. Though Bryan had turned to Wilson, he could not be counted on to stand by him. On Sunday he declared that no candidate dependent on New York's vote would be acceptable, and he suggested a com- promise on Kern, James, Culberson, Rayner, or O'Gorman. On Monday fifteen more indecisive ballots were taken, though Wilson gained and took first place. A call for a poll of the New York delegation gave Stanchfield a chance to reply to Bryan. In a bitter speech he charged him with unfair dealing and a desire to deadlock the convention in his own interests. He said : "We have heard for months gone by that Colonel Bryan by his voice and influence was supporting
217
THE PROGRESSIVE SCHISM
1912]
Woodrow Wilson in one place, that he was supporting Champ Clark in another, that he was combating Har- mon here and Underwood there, all of the time desiring and intending, in pursuit of his own selfish ends, to produce a deadlock in this convention in order that he might be the recipient of the fruits of this controversy."10 Stanchfield then cast his vote for Wilson. The New York poll stood : Clark, 78; Wilson, 9; Underwood, 2; but under the instructions of the State convention the whole 90 went to Clark despite the national convention's repudiation of the unit rule.
Before the next session a whisper went around, spread by Bryan himself, that no nomination was pos- sible, and that the convention would have to take a recess of some weeks. If he hoped this would result in the recognition of himself as the unifying figure in the party he was doomed to disappointment. After the forty-fifth ballot, on July 2, which stood : Wilson, 633; Clark, 306; Underwood, 97; Foss, 27; Harmon, 25, Underwood withdrew, and on the next ballot New York went for Wilson, who received 990 votes to 84 for Clark and 12 for Harmon. Clark bitterly denounced Bryan as the cause of his defeat and refused to take the nomination for Vice-President, which went unanimous- ly to Thomas R. Marshall of Indiana.11 -
Three other Presidential tickets were put in the field. The Prohibitionists named Eugene W. Chafin of Arizona for President and Aaron S. Watkins of Ohio for Vice-President. The Socialists put up Eugene V.
10Official Proceedings, p. 282.
11 New International Year Book, 1912; New York Times, June 27, July 3, 1912.
218
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1912
Debs and Emil Seidel of Wisconsin. The candidates of the Socialist Labor party were Arthur E. Reimer of Massachusetts and August Gillhaus of New York.
The Progressive party was the first to put its State ticket in the field. Among conspicuous Republican organization leaders in New York, Woodruff was almost alone in following Roosevelt out of the party, upon the plea that the contests had not been fairly decided, and he accepted Roosevelt's policies of direct government though he had fought Hughes over so short a step in that direction as direct control of party machinery. Prendergast had been for Roosevelt from the start, and his continued adhesion naturally followed. George W. Perkins and Frank A. Munsey gave the movement the backing of large wealth, and Henry L. Stoddard, proprietor of the New York Evening Mail, brought to it effective newspaper support. A group of reformers who had followed Hughes, such as Frederick M. Davenport and William H. Hotchkiss, entered the movement, as did Oscar S. Straus, who had been a member of Roosevelt's cabinet. The new party made little headway with Democrats, but it drew heavily from the rank and file of the Republicans, partly owing to the personal hold that Roosevelt had upon them and partly to the desire for a new political atmosphere, dislike of the bosses, and enthusiasm over Roosevelt's promises of social betterment, which brought the great body of social reformers and settlement workers in a spirit of devotion to his support.
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.