USA > New York > Westchester County > Westchester county in history; manual and civil list, past and present. County history: towns, hamlets, villages and cities, Volume II > Part 9
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
93
MANUAL AND CIVIL LIST.
the recognized head of the Republican " State machine," as distinguished from " the Federal crowd," to which Conkling and Morgan were credited. In this year James W. Husted, of Peekskill, was serving his first year in the Assembly, and was numbered among the adherents of Governor Fenton. A Demo- crat was in the Senate from this district.
Fenton's friends succeeded in controlling the organization of the Legislature, electing Truman G. Younglove Speaker. The Senatorial contest proved to be as promised, very exciting. The Morgan money was reported to be plentiful to aid Morgan's re-election. The New York Times stated editorially: "It is conceded on all hands that money will decide the contest." Like Morgan, Fenton was a wealthy man. Another factor, however, eventually entered more largely into the situation ; Speaker Younglove, at Fenton's suggestion, basing his action on the belief that good committee appointments were of more potency than other arguments, held back the announcement of committees until he had exacted support for his candidate, Fenton. On January 16, 1869, the Republican caucus was held to decide on a candidate to support for United States Senator; it was a straight-cut fight between Fenton and Morgan, " the State machine " and " the Federal crowd." Fenton won on first ballot, receiving 52 votes, to 40 votes cast for Morgan.
DEPEW'S FIRST APPEARANCE AS A SENATORIAL CANDIDATE.
It was in the winter of 1881 when " our own Chauncey " M. Depew first loomed up quite prominently as a candidate for United States Senator. The fight over the Senatorship in the State Legislature that winter is, mildly speaking, referred to as "New York's historic Senatorship contest." > Thomas C. Platt had been elected Senator in January of that year. Platt had, in the year 1879, assured State Senator W. H. Robertson, of Westchester County, that he (Robertson) was his choice for Governor, while he was secretly favoring the nomination of Alonzo B. Cornell. Later, Mr. Conkling and he succeeded in having Cornell nominated for Governor. In return for this, Gov. Cornell advocated the election of Platt as United States Senator. Roscoe Conkling, then a United States Senator from this State, and the recognized Republican State leader, wanted State Senator Richard Crowley, of Niagara, to be elected as his colleague, but finally gave his support to Platt.
94
MANUAL AND CIVIL LIST.
Independent Republicans in the Legislature, to a consider- able number, decided to support Senator Chauncey M. Depew, of Peekskill. Enough of the Independents eventually voted for Platt to give him the caucus nomination by one vote.
After Platt had taken his seat as Conkling's colleague came the break with the Garfield administration, over the appoint- ment of William H. Robertson as Collector of the Port of New York. The resignations in May of both Conkling and Platt from the Senate followed as a rebuke to President Garfield. This was grand-stand play. Neither Conkling nor Platt had any serious doubt that the Legislature which had elected Platt in January would send them both back to Washington in May, as a vindication of their stand against Garfield. The Stalwart faction, to which they belonged, had a clear majority in the Republican caucus, and the two Senators took it for granted that its members would stand by them loyally. But they made the mistake common to many politicians who fail to take the people into their confidence; neither one counted on the change in sentiment which had taken place out of, if not in, the Legis- lature in the course of a few months. The attitude of oppo- sition maintained by Conkling and Platt had stirred the State to its depths. Legislators began to hear from their constituents about it. The result was that when a call was sent out for a Republican caucus, many of the " Half-breeds," supporters of the Garfield Administration, and even some of the " Stalwarts," refused to heed it. Balloting began on May 31, without any settlement having been reached by the Republicans. The first ballot resulted as follows: To succeed Platt (long term), Platt, 29; Depew, 21; Gov. A. B. Cornell, 12; Elbridge G. Lapham, 8; Warner Miller, 5; Richard Crowley, 3. Francis Kernan, of Utica, received 54, the full Democratic vote. To succeed Conk- ling (short term), Conkling, 39; William A. Wheeler, 19; Cor- nell, 9; Crowley, 5; Miller, 1. John C. Jacobs, of Brooklyn, received 54, the Democratic votes.
The first ballot marked the highest point in the balloting reached by Conkling and Platt in the struggle which proceeded through 56 ballots, lasting from May 31 to July 22. On July 1, Platt, to the surprise of his friends, withdrew from the strife. The assassination of President Garfield on the following day had a marked effect on the balloting, and a few days later, at a Republican conference, in the interest of harmony, Mr. Depew, who had led the balloting almost since the start, for the long
95
MANUAL AND CIVIL LIST.
term, withdrew his name. A caucus was then held, in which Senator William H. Robertson, of Westchester County, proved an important factor, and at this caucus Warner Miller was nominated for the long term. Gov. Cornell was slated for the short term, but he refused to accept, as he would not oppose Conkling's re-election, and the nomination went to Elbridge G. Lapham.
Conkling never again held office, and his defeat for re-election as Senator terminated his political leadership, and, it is said, he never ceased to deplore his mistake in resigning the Senator- ship. Platt later admitted that he suggested their resigning.
Platt returned to active politics, assumed State leadership, was again a United States Senator, and, in 1898, materially aided " Westchester's favorite son," Chauncey M. Depew to be elected as his associate in the Senate.
In 1911 the Legislature of the State of New York elected the forty-first Senator to represent this State in the United States Senate since the ratification of the Constitution.
The term of office of Senator Chauncey M. Depew terminated on March 4, 1911, after serving two terms of six years each. It was hoped by his friends that he would be permitted to serve yet another term in a position for which he is well adapted.
The general election of November, 1910, decided against him, inasmuch as it returned a Democratic majority in both branches of the State Legislature. By a unanimous vote, Mr. Depew received the Republican caucus nomination to succeed himself, and in the joint ballots received every Republican vote, includ- ing the last ballot at the time a choice was made. The Demo- cratic majority experienced difficulty in concentrating their votes upon one member of their party. William F. Sheehan, of New York, received the Democratic caucus nomination, but thirty Democrats, who became styled as " Insurgents," refused to enter a caucus or to be bound by the actions of a caucus, and persisted in voting for others than for Mr. Sheehan ; numer- ous ballots, one cast every week day from Jan. 17 to March 30, 1911, failed to elect. On the evening of March 31, the nominee of a new Democratic caucus succeeded in getting the full Demo- cratic vote and in being elected; this man was James Aloysius O'Gorman, at the time a Justice of the Supreme Court, of the First Department, New York city.
It is no reflection upon the gentleman elected, to mention that before his selection was decided upon, a tender of the
96
MANUAL AND CIVIL LIST.
Senatorship was made to a resident of Westchester County ; and at one juncture it looked as if a son of Westchester would be succeeded in the United States Senate, from New York, by another hailing from the same county. Supreme Court Justice Martin J. Keogh, of New Rochelle, this county, felt compelled to decline the high honor, which he fully appreciated, as he preferred to remain on the bench and fill out the new term for which he had just been elected.
The Governor of the State of New York has no power to appoint a United States Senator to fill vacancy while the Legis- lature is in session and able to act. For this reason during the Legislative deadlock of 1911, from March 4, the date Senator Depew's term ended, to one month later, New York State had but one representative in the upper branch of Congress.
Of the total number serving as United States Senators, elected from this State, Westchester County is credited with two, Governeur Morris, of Morrisania, from 1800 to 1803, and Chauncey M. Depew, of Peekskill, from 1899 to 1911.
Eleven, one-fourth, of the Senators have come from New York city. The homes of the rest are widely scattered through the upper section of the State.
Statistics teach us that in the earlier period this office of high honor was not sought after so persistently as it is now. To be a United States Senator in 1789 and for several years later was an honor held in comparatively light esteem. In 1789 the State went unrepresented some months because the State Senate and Assembly could not agree on a method of choice.
The same situation occurred again in 1803, when both Sena- tors having resigned, one to become Mayor and the other Post- master of New York city, the State was left without a repre- sentative in the upper house of Congress. There were nine resignations in the first fifteen years of the Senatorship; since 1844 there have been only two, and those occurring under unusual circumstances.
Stranger than the number of resignations, in the earlier days, were the offices for which aspirants quitted the National Senate. Senator Bailey, who hailed from Poughkeepsie, and who suc- ceeded Gouverneur Morris of this county in the Senate, pre- ferred to be postmaster in New York city rather than Senator. James Watson, of New York, Senator Morris' predecessor, served two years and then resigned to become Naval Agent at New York. Others resigned to accept small judicial offices and
97
MANUAL AND CIVIL LIST.
other political positions that would not be thought of by men who to-day measure up to a Senatorship. Those Senators of old were good, able men, but they were, apparently, given to doing queer things.
De Witt Clinton, an able statesman, in 1802 resigned the Senatorship to become Mayor of New York city, by appoint- ment from his uncle, Gov. Clinton. He, it is said, lived to recog- nize that he had made a mistake and ruined his political pros- pects, though he got to be Governor. Certainly his Presidential aspirations were set back when he removed himself from the National eye. The same may be said of Nathaniel P. Tallmadge who, in 1844, resigned the Senatorship to accept the Governor- ship of the Territory of Wisconsin, which he lost within two years.
Contests for the United States Senatorship in this State have generally been settled before the party caucus met, by an agree- ment among the political leaders; but there have been some interesting contests settled in caucus. One contest, that of 1881, the Conkling-Platt, was carried to the floor of the Legislature. The Senatorial contest of 1911, made famous by a fight started by certain Democratic members of the Legislature against what they termed " an outside controlled caucus," is an event that promises to become historical.
The Campaign Publicity Act, which passed Congress and became a law in August, 1911, prohibits candidates for the Senatorship spending over $10,000 to aid their election.
As early as 1895 State Legislatures began to pass resolutions asking Congress to afford them the opportunity to ratify an amendment to the Constitution which shall provide for the direct election of United States Senators. Other States adopted the more practical expedient of reforming their primary laws, so as to name the man at the primary and to insure the choice of the popular vote being made the choice of the Legislature.
According to the best authority in Congress the only way in which the demand for popular election of United States Senators may be placed before the States as a Federal propo- sition is in accordance with Article 5 of the Constitution of the United States.
For a long time the definite action of the various State Legis- latures on the election of United States Senators failed to make a marked impression upon Congress. Prior to 1911, the House of Representatives passed the necessary Constitutional amend-
98
MANUAL AND CIVIL LIST.
ment several times, but the Senate refused to concur, the Sen- ators acting in opposition for various political reasons.
Nevertheless, public sentiment in favor of direct election of United States Senators was never so strong as in this year 1911. In the vote cast in the House of Representatives in March, 1911, only 16 votes were recorded in opposition; the opposition, apparently, related to the extent of the authority which Con- gress is to retain over the manner of elections and the quali- fications of voters.
A change in the mode of selecting United States Senators is sure to come, and soon.
State governments will probably gain more than the United States Government from the election of Senators by popular vote; for Senatorial contests are a persistent source of legis- lative demoralization.
THE PRESIDENT'S SALARY.
The question of salary of the President of the United States was the cause of much discussion in the First Congress, in view of the fact that the Constitution declared that the President should receive compensation for his services. Washington had notified his fellow-citizens that he desired no salary. The limits suggested in Congress ranged from $15,000 to $70,000. The salary was finally placed at $25,000, and this remained the salary until President Grant's second term (March 3, 1873), when it was increased to $50,000, and an extra allowance allowed for expenses of the Executive Mansion. During the discussion relative to increase of salary and extra allowance, it was held that with time the expenses of the President in maintaining the dignity of the office increased and unless due provision was made by the government to meet these expenses, none but very wealthy men would be able to hold the office of President.
Congress, by act approved March 4, 1907, appropriated, in addition to the $50,000 per annum salary, $25,000 per annum " for traveling expenses of the President of the United States, to be expended at his discretion and accounted for by his cer- tificate solely." Later in the year 1907, the question of increas- ing the President's salary again came up, and it was finally decided to fix the same at $75,000 per year, and at the follow- ing session the additional appropriation of $25,000 per annum for traveling expenses was made.
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.
(Continued from page 16, Vol. 1.)
The government of the United States is divided into three branches-legislative, executive and judicial.
In the American scheme of government, comprising three co-ordinate branches, Congress is an important one. It prom- ises to have a total membership of five hundred and twenty- nine.
The legislative powers of the government are vested in a Congress, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives, the Senate being designated sometimes as the " upper house " and the House of Representatives as the " lower house " of Congress.
Congress must assemble at least once a year, and the session commences on the first Monday in December, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia.
The House of Representatives is known as the " popular body," as it is nearer to the people, reflecting the sentiment of the people, and its members being elected more frequently than members of the " upper house." The term of office of a Representative is two years, that of a Senator six years; the first being chosen by direct vote of the people, the second by votes of members of Legislatures in the several States.
Representatives are elected every second, or even, year by the people of the different States. Any male person at least twenty-five years of age, who has been for seven years a citizen of the United States, is eligible for the office of Representative in Congress; he must, further, be an inhabitant of the State from which he is chosen. The number of Representatives to which any particular State is entitled depends upon the popu- lation of the State, the only persons excluded in determining the number of Representatives in most States being Indians. In Oklahoma State Indians may be counted and vote, on con- dition that they have severed tribal relations.
The Constitution makes no provision for the appointment of any officers of the House of Representatives, except the presid-
99
100
MANUAL AND CIVIL LIST.
ing officer, who is called the Speaker; this officer has usually been a member of the House, but it is held that, under the Constitution, the House may choose a Speaker who is not a member. Frequently of late there has been much talk in Con- gress of electing as Speaker a parliamentarian who is not a member of that body. Advocates of this idea claim that the English plan of having an expert parliamentarian, instead of a politician, as a presiding officer is the only correct one. They maintain that as long as the House selects a party leader as Speaker just so long will the House have partisan and unfair rulings from the chair.
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, each State was allowed one Representative for every 30,000 of popula- tion, but every State having a population of less than 30,000 was entitled to one Representative.
Under the apportionment made in accordance with the last census; this State is allowed one Representative for approxi- mately every 212,000 of inhabitants.
The United States census taken in the year 1910 may change materially the apportionment of Representatives in Congress.
The Senate of the United States is composed of two Senators from each State, chosen, as a general rule, by the State Legis- lature for a term of six years. In many States the Senators are chosen by a popular vote; names of candidates for the office are placed before the people assembled at political primary meetings and a vote taken to express preference, the person receiving the highest number of votes is thus recommended to the Legislature, and the Legislature in turn confirm the action of the people by electing their choice. An " election by the people " mode of choosing United States Senators.
The qualifications of a Senator are that he must be at least thirty years of age and must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years, and must be an inhabitant of the State from which he is chosen.
In case the office of Senator from any State becomes vacant while the Legislature of the State is not in session, the Governor has power to make a temporary appointment until the Legis- lature meets. It has generally been held that the Governor does not have power to make a temporary appointment in case of vacancies occasioned by a failure of the Legislature to elect, although in recent years several such appointments have been attempted to be made.
101
MANUAL AND CIVIL LIST.
The Vice-President of the United States is the presiding officer of the Senate, but he has no vote unless the Senate is equally divided. All other officers of the Senate are chosen by the Senators, and among them is a President pro tempore, who presides in the absence of the Vice-President and performs all the duties of the Vice-President in case the Vice-President is required to exercise the duties of the President, as was the case in several instances, by reason of the death of Presidents of the United States.
UNITED STATES SENATORS FROM THIS COUNTY.
Gouverneur Morris, of Westchester, from April 3, 1800, to February 1, 1803.
Chauncey M. Depew, of Peekskill, two terms. Elected Janu- ary 18, 1899, re-elected January 18, 1905; term expired 1911.
The election of a United States Senator is controlled by Federal law, not by State law. The act of 1866 carefully defines the procedure.
On the second Tuesday after its meeting and organization the Legislature is to convene for the purpose of electing a Senator. " Each house shall openly, by a viva-voce vote of each member present, name one person for Senator in Congress from such State." The following day the two houses con- vene in joint session at noon, and if the same person has received a majority of all votes in each house he shall be declared Senator. Otherwise the joint Assembly shall proceed to choose, " by a viva-voce vote of each member present, a person for Senator, and the person who receives a majority of all the votes of the joint assembly, a majority of all the members elected to both houses being present and voting, shall be declared duly elected." If there is no majority the joint Assembly is required to meet each succeeding day during the session and take at least one vote until a Senator is elected.
As the New York Legislature consists of 201 members, 51 being Senators and 150 Assemblymen, it requires 101 votes to elect a United States Senator in this State.
The Governor of a State has no power to appoint a United States Senator to fill vacancy while the Legislature is in ses- sion, and able to act to elect.
The proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States, now being submitted to the several States, providing
102
MANUAL AND CIVIL LIST.
for popular election of United States Senators, will, it is believed, be adopted.
Twenty-seven States petitioned Congress to call a conven- tion to submit to the States a constitutional amendment pro- viding for popular election of Senators. Most of these States already select Senators by vote cast at primary elections.
REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS FROM THIS COUNTY.
By act of the Legislature, passed April 13, 1892, Westchester County was combined with a small section of New York City, of what was known as the " annexed district," to make the 16th Congressional District.
Under that apportionment the following named gentlemen have represented the district, in the years given :
William Ryan, of Port Chester, 1893-4 .*
Ben L. Fairchild, of Pelham, 1895-6.
William L. Ward, of Port Chester, 1897-8.
John Quincy Underhill, of New Rochelle, 1899, 1900. (Died May 21, 1907; aged 59 years.)
Cornelius A. Pugsley, of Peekskill, 1901-2.
Changes in boundary line, in 1901, under new apportionment, effected also a change in the political complexion of local Con- gressmen, the Westchester County Congressional district now being as strongly Republican as it was before Democratic.
Norton P. Otis (a former Mayor), 1903-4. (Died February 20, 1905.)
John E. Andrus (a former Mayor), 1905-6-7-8-9-10-11, present incumbent.
The vote cast for Congressman in the Nineteenth (West- chester) District, 1910, was divided as follows:
John E. Andrus, Republican and Ind. Labor. . 23,140
Cornelius A. Pugsley, Democrat 22,247
Alfred E. Dixon, Socialist. 929
Charles A. Brady, Prohibition. 286
A new apportionment of Congressional districts in the State has been made under the Federal census of 1910. The State is given 43 instead of 37 Congressmen.
* For names of previous Congressmen see page 17, Vol. 1.
103
MANUAL AND CIVIL LIST.
Jared V. Peck, of Rye, who served during the years 1853 and 1854, preferred to be considered as a business man, pos- sessing good common sense. He was not a man for show or self aggrandizement, as was proven when he later presented a free library to Port Chester, giving building and books, valued at $30,000, on the expressed condition that his name be not connected with the gift in any way, not even as a trustee. He also served as a Presidential elector in 1856.
John B. Haskin, of West Farms, was a forcible speaker, strong in " stump campaigning." He was often heard of in Congress. He frequently stated that he came from " fighting stock," and as a political fighter he proved himself worthy of his sires. He served four years in Congress.
William Radford, of Yonkers, who was not an orator and never spent time in attempts to make speeches, served two terms in Congress, 1863-4-5-6, as a Democrat; was again a candidate for re-election in 1866. He was at this time opposed by a considerable number of influential members of his own party, who took issue with him on account of certain actions of his in Congress; it being charged that he knowingly and inten- tionally deserted his party and arrayed himself on the opposite side and supported political measures advocated by his party's opponents, the consideration offered him being political pat- ronage. The district at that time was strongly Democratic, and Congressman Radford believed that if he was successful enough to get the party nomination his election would certainly follow, regardless of the disaffection among his old supporters. He secured the nomination; in fact he was permitted to secure the nomination by those who had a purpose to serve. Seeing an opportunity not to be disregarded, the Republican party pre- vailed upon County Judge William H. Robertson to become the party candidate for Congress. The campaign that fol- lowed was one of the most spirited for that period. The dis- affected Democrats voted for Robertson or remained away from the polls; Robertson was elected. Congressman Radford retired to private life. Thus Judge Robertson was enabled to break into a long line of Democratic Congressmen from the local district. But he expressed no desire to return to Washington ; in fact, he stated that he did not feel at home in Congress, would prefer to legislate for the county in Albany.
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.