USA > New York > History of the state of New York, political and governmental, Vol. IV 1896-1920 > Part 16
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
8Myers, History of Tammany Hall, p. 369.
235
THE TRAGEDY OF SULZER
1913]
made by Connolly when he sought to resume friendly relations to repay what was honestly due. Cohalan refused to appear before the grievance committee of the Bar Association, but took the case to the Legislature, where the Senate exonerated him, 31 to 8, and the Assembly 112 to 18.9 These annoyances did not change Murphy's plans.
The Legislature again voted down Sulzer's Primary bill, in the Assembly by a vote of 52 to 92 and in the Senate by 10 to 38, in each case a slightly smaller adverse majority than had been given at the regular ses- sion. Itneglected the Governor's other recommendations and marked time while the Frawley committee secured testimony to show that Sulzer had made affidavit to the Secretary of State that he had received campaign contributions aggregating $6,540 from 68 persons, though he had received $12,405.93 from 94 persons. It also showed that part of this money, instead of being expended for campaign purposes, had been turned into Sulzer's private account and had been used for the purchase of stocks. Sulzer explained that he had been away campaigning when the moneys came in, that they had been disposed of without his personal knowledge, and that he signed his expense statement on the assur- ance of his assistants that it was as accurate as it could be made. He also stated that some of the money was given to him to be used as he saw fit by persons who knew he was in debt. In a later defense he also charged that Murphy had urged upon him large sums of money to pay his debts and living expenses, which
9Myers, History of Tammany Hall, p. 373.
236
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1913
he had refused, and he sought to show that from the first Murphy had tried through spies or by gifts to secure a hold upon him by which he could be forced to subserviency.10 The committee, in its report on August 11, pointed out that in at least one case, that of Abram I. Elkus, Sulzer personally indorsed a check and acknowledged the letter of Elkus transmitting it as a campaign contribution. This report also charged that the Governor had sought to punish legislators who opposed him by vetoing their bills. The same day Assemblyman Aaron J. Levy introduced a resolution of impeachment, and, despite pleas for more delibera- tion, would permit delay only until the next morning.
Lack of Tammany votes necessary to pass the resolution prevented the Assembly being called to order until late on August 12, and shortly after five o'clock the next morning the impeachment was carried by a vote of 79 to 45, three more than necessary. The
impeachment comprised eight articles. The first charged Sulzer with making and filing with the Secre- tary of State a false statement of his campaign accounts ; the second charged perjury in verifying this statement; the third, bribery of witnesses before the Senate com- mittee; the fourth, suppression of evidence by threats ; the fifth, preventing a witness from testifying ; the sixth, larceny in using campaign contributions for personal uses; the seventh, threatening to use the power and influence of his office to influence the action of other public officials and threatening to veto bills unless Assemblymen interested in them supported legislation
10Forrest and Malcolm, Tammany's Treason, pp. 41, 194.
237
THE TRAGEDY OF SULZER
1913]
favored by him; the eighth, corruptly using his influ- ence to affect current prices of securities by urging legislation relating to the New York Stock Exchange and then attempting to withdraw the subject from the consideration of the Legislature, while concealing his interests in exchange transactions by subterfuge. Seven Republicans voted with the 72 Democrats in favor of impeachment; 26 Democrats, 16 Republicans, and 3 Progressives voted against it.
Sulzer disputed the right of the Assembly to impeach him at an extra session, and for some weeks refused to surrender the Executive authority to Glynn. The Lieutenant-Governor rejected his suggestion that they submit the question to the courts, and Sulzer continued to issue orders as Governor from the Executive chamber while in the Lieutenant-Governor's rooms Glynn per- formed Executive acts, which were recognized by other officials, until the meeting of the Court of Impeach- ment on September 18. Then Glynn was acknowl- edged as Acting-Governor and Sulzer retired to the Executive mansion, which he called the "People's House," where no attempt was made to disturb him. He gathered a strong array of counsel: D-Cady Her- rick, Irving G. Vann, Harvey D. Hinman, Austen G. Fox, Louis Marshall, Roger P. Clark, Elihu Root, Jr., and James G. Gordon. Counsel for the managers were: Alton B. Parker, John B. Stanchfield, Edgar T. Brackett, Eugene Lamb Richards, Hiram C. Todd, Isidor J. Kresel, and Henderson Peck. Chief-Judge Cullen presided over the Court of Impeachment. In the court were present 48 Senators-31 Democrats and
238
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1913
17 Republicans,-and 9 Judges of the Court of Appeals, five of whom were Democrats. Judge Gray being absent in Europe had no part in the trial. Ex-Judge Herrick objected to the eligibility of Senators who sat in the Frawley committee seeking evidence against the Governor. He also objected to Senator Wagner sitting in judgment, on the ground that, as a prospective suc- cessor to Glynn in case of conviction, he was personally interested in the result of the trial. Both objections were overruled. The court also, by a vote of 50 to 1, decided in favor of the power of impeachment at an extra session. The prosecution proved beyond serious dispute all the main facts relating to the falsification of the accounts and the use of campaign contributions for personal use. Moreover, it showed that Sulzer had attempted to persuade Duncan W. Peck, State Superin- tendent of Public Works, to conceal his contribution, and had, when asked by Peck what he should do if called before the Frawley committee, said: "Do as I shall ; deny it." No specification of the impeachment, however, covered this testimony, and it was only by construction that it was held to fall under Article IV.
Sulzer was expected to take the stand and answer his enemies, and his friends said he wanted to do so but was prevented by Herrick.11 Indeed, he probably would have taken the witness stand and denied every- thing had it not been for the appearance of Allan Ryan, son of Thomas F. Ryan, who was called as a witness on the trial and testified that he had been appealed to by Sulzer to save him. The result was an unrelieved pic-
11Forrest and Malcolm, Tammany's Treason, p. 163.
239
1913]
THE TRAGEDY OF SULZER
ture of petty dishonesty and futile intrigue, and the defense was driven to reliance on legal technicalities.
Sulzer's case was perhaps presented in its best light- more convincingly than in the pleas of counsel-in the opinion of Chief-Judge Cullen, the one member of the Court of Appeals who on all counts voted against con- viction. The president of the court, whose sterling integrity and benign impartiality commanded universal respect, said of Sulzer's acts : "They displayed such moral turpitude and delinquency that, if they had been committed during the respondent's incumbency of office, I think they would require his removal." But he held that the power of impeachment did not extend to acts committed before Sulzer took office, and that the false oath to the account was not perjury, as it was extra- judicial because the election law did not require a veri- fied statement and the penal law requirement of a veri- fied statement did not call for an accounting of contri- butions received by a candidate. So, though Sulzer's moral guilt remained the same, his oath did not concern anything that he was obliged by law to verify. Judge Cullen held that the conversion of campaign money was not larceny. He also held with regard to the Peck incident that it was not charged in the impeachment as a substantive offense and the court was without power to amend the impeachment articles. There was no evidence of any threat to remove Peck, and the transac- tion, whatever its nature, was not properly covered by the fourth article. Judge Cullen stated : "The point here urged may be criticised as technical, but if so I hope that technicality will always be respected to the
240
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1913
extent of preventing the trial of a man for one offense and convicting him of another." On the other hand, Judge Hiscock, a Republican, although he dismissed the Peck charge, held that the fair and reasonable inter- pretation of the Constitution did not arbitrarily prohibit the impeachment of an official for an act performed before entering into his office, and that Sulzer's conduct between his election and inauguration with respect to campaign contributions had such a relation to his office, his official tenure, and the discharge of his official duties that it reasonably came within the spirit of the Consti- tution.
On the first count Judges Collin, Cuddeback, and Hogan, Democrats, and Hiscock and Miller, Republi- cans, were for conviction, while Judges Cullen and Bartlett, Democrats, and Chase and Werner, Republi- cans, were for acquittal. Twenty-three Democratic and 11 Republican Senators were for conviction, and 8 Democratic and 6 Republican Senators for acquittal. On the second count, charging perjury, the Governor was found guilty by the same vote. The fourth count, inducing witness to withold true testimony from the Frawley committee, rested chiefly on two incidents. Henry Morgenthau testified that he had contributed $1,000 to the Governor without specifying its particular purpose, and that Sulzer had called him on the tele- phone and asked him to be as easy as he could on him if called as a witness. Duncan W. Peck testified that Sulzer had told him to deny his contribution, and that when he replied: "But I suppose I will be under oath," the Governor answered: "That's nothing, forget
WILLIAM SULZER
William Sulzer, 42nd governor Jan. 1-Oct. 17, 1913; born Elizabeth, N. J. March 18, 1863; educated public schools and Columbia law school; admitted to the bar 1884 and since in practice; member New York state assembly, 1890-1894; speaker 1893, minority leader, 1894; member of congress, 1895- 1913; elected governor of New York November 5, 1912; im- peached as governor and removed from office, October 17, 1913; member of assembly 1914 as independent; nominated 1916 by American party for president but declined.
MARTIN HENRY GLYNN
Martin Henry Glynn, 43rd governor (1913-14) ; born Kinderhook, N. Y., September 27, 1871; representative in con- gress, 1899-1900; state comptroller 1906-1908; elected lieuten- ant governor, 1912; became governor, October 17, 1913 upon the impeachment and removal of William Sulzer; democratic candidate for governor, 1914; defeated by Charles Seymour Whitman; publisher of Albany Times Union.
241
THE TRAGEDY OF SULZER
1913]
it." On this charge the Governor was convicted, 43 to 14. Two Judges, Hiscock and Miller, who found him guilty on the first two charges, voted "not guilty" on this, but Werner, Chase, and Bartlett, together with three Senators, changed to the other side. The court unanimously dismissed all the other charges. By a vote of 43 to 12 it removed Sulzer from the Executive office, but unanimously refused to disqualify him from holding office in the future.12
So Murphy's threat to punish Sulzer's disobedience was fulfilled. With the facts before it, even a friendly court could hardly have failed to condemn him on the merits, and this court was not friendly. The Judges of the Court of Appeals were divided on the technical legal aspects of the case, the most grave of which was the doubtful and difficult question of impeachment for acts not committed in office, though related to his posi- tion as Governor. Yet none of them questioned the seriousness of his delinquency. While there existed among Murphy's critics a feeling that Sulzer had in fact been punished not for his vices but for his virtues, nevertheless he had so discredited himself that his re- moval was approved by most thoughtful men.
Sulzer himself declared: "The three things that led up to my removal were my fight for honest primaries, the graft investigations, and, not the least by any means, my signing of the Full Crew bill, which gave me the enmity of the great railroad corporations." "13 Whatever
12For a detailed account of the trial see Proceedings of the Court for the Trial of Impeachments, 2 vols., Albany, 1913.
13Forrest and Malcolm, Tammany's Treason, p. 183.
242
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1912
may have been the influence of the Full Crew bill, which Murphy himself put through the Legislature, without doubt Sulzer's investigations and disobedience to orders were the cause of his downfall. He was a dreamer, erratic and egotistical, inspired by a desire to serve the public, but also by an overwhelming ambition for leadership and distinction. He had studied the examples of Roosevelt and Hughes as champions of moral issues, and he sought to follow in their footsteps, but he had neither the ability, equipment, nor char- acter for such a part. He failed to realize that the Galahad of politics must be beyond reproach. With incredible levity for one dreaming of the high mission that he had set for himself, he gave hostages to his enemies and put himself in their power by acts that any circumspect politician would have avoided from policy if not from principle.
On his return to New York, Sulzer was received as a martyr by enthusiastic crowds in his old constituency. The Progressive candidate for the Assembly in his district retired to make way for him, and he was triumphantly elected, receiving more votes than the Republican candidate and the Democratic Assembly- man who had voted for his impeachment. The party alignment of the Assembly of 1914 was: Republicans, 79; Democrats, 48; Progressives, 19; Independent- Democrats, 2; Independent, 1; Progressive-Democrat, 1. The only offices to be filled by the general electorate were a Chief-Judge and Associate-Judge of the Court of Appeals. The Republicans nominated William E. Werner and Frank H. Hiscock. The Democrats named
243
THE TRAGEDY OF SULZER
1913]
Willard Bartlett and Abram I. Elkus. The Pro- gressives nominated Learned Hand and Samuel Sea- bury. Werner, who had written an opinion declaring in sweeping terms the Workmens' Compensation act unconstitutional, was especially attacked by the Pro- gressives. The Independence League indorsed Bart- lett and Hiscock. As a consequence Bartlett was chosen Chief-Judge by 3,018 plurality in a contest that was not determined until the official count, although Hiscock was elected associate by 71,167 plurality.
The revulsion of public sentiment against the Democ- racy as dominated by Murphy not only reversed the complexion of the Legislature but drove Tammany from power in New York City. Early in the summer it was clear that Tammany would not renominate Mayor Gaynor. His friends formed an organization that planned to run him as an independent candidate, but early in September he sailed to Europe for a vacation ; he died suddenly at sea on September 10. For Mayor, Murphy picked Edward E. McCall, who had a few months before left the Supreme Court bench for the Public Service commission and who, Sulzer charged, had been instrumental in trying to force him into harmony with Murphy's plans. The task of bring- ing the Republicans and Independents together for a fusion campaign was entrusted to a Committee of Sev- enty. The leading candidates were: Charles S. Whit- man, whose work as District Attorney in prosecuting Charles Becker, the police lieutenant, and his tools, for the murder of Herman Rosenthal, a gambler who threatened to reveal police blackmail, gave him great
244
[1913
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
prominence; George McAneny, whose enlightened administration of the Borough Presidency of Manhat- tan made him the favorite of students of scientific city management, and John Purroy Mitchel, who had recently been transferred from the Presidency of the Board of Aldermen to the Collectorship of the Port of New York by President Wilson and who enjoyed the favor of Hearst because he had opposed the dual sub- way system. The choice of the Committee of Seventy finally settled on Mitchel, with McAneny for President of the Board of Aldermen and William A. Prendergast for Comptroller to succeed himself. Whitman was renominated for District Attorney by both the Fusion- ists and Tammany. The Sulzer issue was prominent in the campaign that followed, especially through the speeches and articles of John A. Hennessy, who made telling use of his investigations of corruption and gen- erally bad conditions in the State government as admin- istered by Murphy's friends. Mitchel was elected by 124,262 plurality. Prendergast and McAneny, who were opposed to Hearst, received pluralities of 44,994 and 72,111, respectively.
Four constitutional amendments were submitted to the people and were ratified by large majorities. The first, known as the Excess Condemnation amendment, permitting the taking for public use of more property than is needed for a particular improvement and allow- ing its lease or resale, was carried by 154,561, though it had been defeated in 1911. The second, removing the constitutional obstacles to sweeping Workmen's Compensation laws, had 316,417 majority. The third,
245
THE TRAGEDY OF SULZER
1913-14]
creating two new County Judges in Kings county, though voted down in 1911, had 134,432 majority. The fourth, permitting the setting aside of land in the Forest Preserve for reservoirs to prevent floods in the Hudson valley and to furnish power, was adopted by 298,974 majority.
The reason for the Democratic defeat was not lost on Governor Glynn, who called the Legislature in special session on December 8, and the same men who had contemptuously thrown out Sulzer's suggestions passed unanimously an act abolishing State conveations and establishing direct nominations for local, State, and judicial offices. They also passed a Ballot law based on the Massachusetts plan, ratified the constitutional amendment for the direct election of United States Senators, voted to submit to the people in 1914 the question of holding a Constitutional convention, and provided that, if this was ordered, the delegates should be chosen at the general election in 1914 and meet in April, 1915.
The Republican recovery of the Assembly led to a sharp contest between the progressive elements in the party and the supporters of the Barnes leadership. The Barnes candidate for Speaker was Harold J. Hinman of Albany. Clinton T. Horton of Erie was the favorite of the Progressive Republicans, and Thaddeus C. Sweet of Oswego had a considerable following among organization Republicans. A. W. Hoff of Kings was put forward by his own delegation. On the first ballot in the caucus of January 6, Hinman had 26, Sweet 14, Hoff 14, Horton 13, Alexander MacDonald of
246
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1914
Franklin 8, John Leo Sullivan of Chautauqua 1, and Morell E. Tallett of Madison 1. On the twentieth ballot, after MacDonald and Hinman had retired in favor of Sweet, he was nominated, receiving 47 votes to 16 for Hoff, 8 for Horton, 2 for Tallett, and 2 for Sullivan. The Democrats nominated Alfred E. Smith and the Progressives Michael Schaap of New York. Hinman became the Republican floor leader, and the Republicans by a vote of 83 to 63 defeated the Demo- cratic and Progressive plan to take from the Speaker the naming of the committees, but the organization consented to a liberalization of the rules.14
Graft revelations continued to keep before the public the picture that Sulzer had painted of his predecessor's rule. District Attorney Whitman undertook a grand jury investigation into Highway department frauds, but was hampered by his inability to proceed in rural counties. The Governor would not designate him as a Deputy-Attorney-General to overcome this difficulty, nor would the Senate agree to an appropriation for a thorough investigation. Nevertheless, enough was dis- covered to lead to a large number of indictments and some convictions of inconspicuous persons, but all attempts to reach "higher up" failed. State Engineer Bensel was subjected to persistent attack, but cleared himself of complicity in the frauds. State Treasurer Kennedy committed suicide on February 15, after having vainly sought to avoid the witness stand. His own accounts were found to be correct, but he was
14New York World, January 8, 1914.
247
THE TRAGEDY OF SULZER
1914]
apparently unnerved at the prospect of being hectored about the transactions that had gone on under his eyes. Governor Glynn sought to enforce economies upon the administration and to rescue the departments from the demoralization into which they had fallen. Political differences between the two houses made partisan legis- lation impossible, but a considerable number of non- political measures were passed, including a Workmen's Compensation law. Over the protests of William Church Osborn, the Democratic State chairman, Glynn appointed Patrick E. McCabe Conservation Commis- sioner.15. This was an expression of the Governor's faith in and loyalty to McCabe, although some of the Tammany leaders doubted its wisdom, as McCabe was considered Murphy's representative in Albany county politics. But this and other appointments confirmed the popular impression that Glynn was in close alliance with Tammany. The regular session ended on March 27 in a deadlock between the two houses over the Sup- ply bill. The Assembly refused appropriations to con- tinue the Department of Efficiency and Economy and work of the Fire Marshal. At an extra session, called for May 4, a compromise was reached that continued these departments in operation until the next February and shaped the general Appropriation bills in substan- tial accord to the Governor's demands.
On April 7 the people voted by a small majority to hold the proposed Constitutional convention in 1915.
The new Primary law and the constitutional amend- ments for the popular election of Senators revolution-
15New York Times, March 28, 1914.
248
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1914
ized the outward aspects of politics and gave New York its first experience of nominating State officers and United States Senators at a direct primary. Glynn was a candidate for reelection and had the support of Tam- many, which also picked James W. Gerard, Ambassador to Germany, for Senator. William G. McAdoo, Secre- tary of the Treasury, attempted to construct an inde- pendent organization through the candidacy of Frank- lin D. Roosevelt, Assistant-Secretary of the Navy, for Senator, and John A. Hennessy for Governor.16 Some independent Democrats urged George McAneny as a candidate who would have a better chance of election than Glynn, but Tammany determined to stand by the Governor. In the primaries of September 28 he won, receiving 175,813 votes and Hennessy 68,346. The vote for Senator was: Gerard, 133,815; Roosevelt, 63,879; J. S. McDonough, 17,862. Samuel Seabury, who had run for the Court of Appeals the year before as a Progressive, was a candidate in the Democratic primary and defeated John N. Carlisle.17
The Republican situation was complicated by the desire of the more liberal elements of the party to har- monize with the Progressives. This harmony ex-Presi- dent Roosevelt sought to promote, despite opposition by his more irreconcilable followers. The would-be
16New York World, October 1, 1914.
17The ticket was: Governor, Martin H. Glynn, Albany; Lieutenant- Governor, Thomas B. Lockwood, Erie; Secretary of State, Mitchell May, Kings; Comptroller, William Sohmer, New York; Treasurer, Albert C. Carp, Onondaga; Attorney-General, James A. Parsons, Steuben; State Engi- neer, John A. Bensel, New York; Judge of the Court of Appeals, Samuel Seabury, New York; United States Senator, James W. Gerard, New York.
249
THE TRAGEDY OF SULZER
1914]
fusionists among the Republicans put forward Harvey D. Hinman, and Roosevelt, whom District Attorney Whitman had vainly sought to conciliate in personal conference and in a letter to Charles H. Duell, declared for his nomination by the Progressives.18 But the friends of the other two Republican candidates, Whit- man and Hedges, inquired what Hinman would do, if nominated, in relation to his fellow-Republican candi- dates who might be opposed by the Progressives, and what he would do as a Republican if defeated in a Republican primary but nominated by the Progressives. Hinman could meet this challenge in only one way if he hoped for the votes of strict party men, without which his nomination was impossible. But this answer was sure to dampen the enthusiasm of all Progressives who hoped to keep their party from becoming a mere faction on the road to re-absorption into the Republican party. He was forced to say that he was running as a Republican with the sole purpose of destroying the Barnes control and that he would not oppose Repub- lican candidates. The Ballot law did not permit the retirement of a candidate who had run in the primaries and had been nominated. So, if rejected by the Repub- licans and accepted by the Progressives, his name would have to remain on the ballot; but he declared he would not make any fight as an exclusively Progressive candi- date.19 This announcement of course cut the ground from under the feet of his friends among the Progres-
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.