Chapter XXX: Section 3: That nothing in this act shall be so construed as to (2)

“_First._ We recognize a public sentiment which demands that in the selection of a United States Senator we have regard to that dignity of the office to be filled, its important duties and functions, and the qualifications of the individual with reference thereto. This sentiment is, we understand, that there are other and higher qualifications for this distinguished position than business experience and success, and reckons among these the accomplishments of the scholar, the acquirements of the student, the mature wisdom of experience and a reasonable familiarity with public affairs. It desires that Pennsylvania shall be distinguished among her sister Commonwealths, not only by her populous cities, her prosperous communities, her vast material wealth and diversified industries and resources, but that in the wisdom, sagacity and statesmanship of her representative she shall occupy a corresponding rank and influence. To meet this public expectation and demand we are and have at all times been willing to subordinate our personal preferences, all local considerations and factional differences, and unite with our colleagues in the selection of a candidate in whom are combined at least some of these important and essential qualifications. It was only when it became apparent that the party caucus was to be used to defeat this popular desire and to coerce a nomination which is conspicuously lacking in the very essentials which were demanded, that we determined to absent ourselves from it. * * *

“_Second_, Having declined to enter the caucus, we adhere to our determination to defeat, if possible, its nominee, but only by the election of a citizen of unquestioned fidelity to the principles of the Republican party. In declaring our independency from the caucus domination we do not forget our allegiance to the party whose chosen representatives we are. The only result of our policy is the transfer of the contest from the caucus to the joint convention of the two houses. There will be afforded an opportunity for the expression of individual preferences and honorable rivalry for an honorable distinction. If the choice shall fall upon one not of approved loyalty and merit, the fault will not be ours.”

After a long contest both of the leading candidates withdrew, and quickly the Regulars substituted General James A. Beaver, the Independent Congressman, Thomas M. Bayne. On these names the dead-lock remained unbroken. Without material change the balloting continued till February 17th, when both Republican factions agreed to appoint conference committees of twelve each, with a view to selecting by a three-fourths vote a compromise candidate. The following were the respective committees: For the Independents: Senators Davis, Bradford; Lee, Venango; Stewart, Franklin; Lawrence, Washington; Representatives Wolfe, Union; Silverthorne, Erie; Mapes, Venango; McKee, Philadelphia; Slack, Allegheny; Stubs, Chester; Niles, Tioga; and Derickson, Crawford. For the Regulars: Senators Greer, Butler; Herr, Dauphin; Smith, Philadelphia; Keefer, Schuylkill; Cooper, Delaware; Representatives Pollock, Philadelphia; Moore, Allegheny; Marshall, Huntingdon; Hill, Indiana; Eshleman. Lancaster; Thomson, Armstrong; and Billingsley, Washington.

The joint convention held daily sessions and balloted without result until February 22d, when John I. Mitchell, of Tioga, Congressman from the 16th district, was unanimously agreed upon as a compromise candidate. He was nominated by a full Republican caucus on the morning of February 23d, and elected on the first ballot in joint convention on that day, the vote standing: Mitchell, 150; Wallace, 92; MacVeagh, 1; Brewster, 1.

The spirit of this contest continued until fall. Senator Davies, a friend of Mr. Grow, was a prominent candidate for the Republican nomination for State Treasurer. He was beaten by General Silas M. Baily, and Davies and his friends cordially made Baily’s nomination unanimous. Charles S. Wolfe, himself the winter before a candidate for United States Senator, was dissatisfied. He suddenly raised the Independent flag, in a telegram to the Philadelphia _Press_, and as he announced was “the nominee of a convention of one” for State Treasurer. After a canvass of remarkable energy on the part of Mr. Wolfe, General Baily was elected, without suffering materially from the division. Mr. Wolfe obtained nearly 50,000 votes, but as almost half of them were Democratic, the result was, as stated, not seriously affected.

The Independents in Pennsylvania, however, were subdivided into two wings, known as the Continental and the Wolfe men—the former having met since the election last fall, (State Senator John Stewart, chairman) and proclaimed themselves willing and determined to abide all Republican nominations fairly made, and to advocate “reform within the party lines.” These gentlemen supported Gen. Baily and largely contributed to his success, and as a rule they regard with disfavor equal to that of the Regulars, what is known as the Wolfe movement. These divisions have not extended to other States, nor have they yet assumed the shape of third parties unless Mr. Wolfe’s individual canvass can be thus classed. Up to this writing (March 10, 1882,) neither wing has taken issue with President Arthur or his appointments, though there were some temporary indications of this when Attorney General MacVeagh, of Pennsylvania, persisted in having his resignation accepted. President Arthur refused to accept, on the ground that he desired MacVeagh’s services in the prosecution of the Star Route cases, and Mr. MacVeagh withdrew for personal and other reasons not yet fully explained. In this game of political fence the position of the President was greatly strengthened.

Singularly enough, in the only two States where factious divisions have been recently manifested in the Republican ranks, they effected almost if not quite as seriously the Democratic party. There can be but one deduction drawn from this, to wit:—That a number in both of the great parties, were for the time at least, weary of their allegiance. It is possible that nothing short of some great issue will restore the old partisan unity, and partisan unity in a Republic, where there are but two great parties, is not to be deplored if relieved of other than mere political differences. The existence of but two great parties, comparatively free from factions, denotes government health; where divisions are numerous and manifest increasing growth and stubbornness, there is grave danger to Republican institutions. We need not, however, philosophize when Mexico and the South American Republics are so near.

The Caucus.

Both the “Independents” of Pennsylvania and the “Half-Breeds” of New York at first proclaimed their opposition to the caucus system of nominating candidates for U. S. Senators, and the newspapers in their interest wrote as warmly for a time against “King Caucus” as did the dissatisfied Democratic journals in the days of De Witt Clinton. The situation, however, was totally different, and mere declamation could not long withstand the inevitable. In Pennsylvania almost nightly “conferences” were held by the Independents, as indeed they were in New York, though in both States a show of hostility was kept up to nominating in party caucus men who were to be elected by representative, more plainly legislative votes. It was at first claimed that in the Legislature each man ought to act for himself or his constituents, but very shortly it was found that the caucuses of the separate wings were as binding upon the respective wings as they could have been upon the whole. Dead-locks were interminable as long as this condition of affairs obtained, and hostility to the caucus system was before very long quietly discouraged and finally flatly abandoned, for each struggle was ended by the ratification of a general caucus, and none of them could have been ended without it. The several attempts to find other means to reach a result, only led the participants farther away from the true principle, under republican forms at least, of the right of the majority to rule. In Pennsylvania, when Mr. Oliver withdrew, fifty of his friends assembled and informally named General Beaver, and by this action sought to bind the original 95 friends of Oliver. Their conduct was excused by the plea that they represented a majority of their faction. It failed to bind all of the original number, though some of the Independents were won. The Independents, rather the original 44, bound themselves in writing not to change their course of action unless there was secured the previous concurrence of two-thirds, and this principle was extended to the 56 who supported Mr. Bayne. Then when the joint committee of 24 was agreed upon, it was bound by a rule requiring three-fourths to recommend a candidate. All of these were plain departures from a great principle, and the deeper the contest became, the greater the departure. True, these were but voluntary forms, but they were indefensible, and are only referred to now to show the danger of mad assaults upon great principles when personal and factious aims are at stake. Opposition to the early Congressional caucus was plainly right, since one department of the Government was by voluntary agencies actually controlling another, while the law gave legal forms which could be more properly initiated through voluntary action. The writer believes, and past contests all confirm the view that the voluntary action can only be safely employed by the power by the law with the right of selection. Thus the people elect township, county and State officers, and it is their right and duty by the best attainable voluntary action to indicate their choice. This is done through the caucus or convention, the latter not differing from the former save in extent and possibly breadth of representation. The same rule applies to all offices elective by the people. It cannot properly apply to appointive offices, and while the attempt to apply it to the election of U. S. Senators shows a strong desire on the part, frequently of the more public-spirited citizens, to exercise a greater share in the selection of these officers than the law directly gives them, yet their representatives can very properly be called upon to act as they would act if they had direct power in the premises, and such action leads them into a party caucus, where the will of the majority of their respective parties can be fairly ascertained, and when ascertained respected. The State Legislatures _appoint_ U. S. Senators, and the Representatives and Senators of the States are bound to consider in their selection the good of the entire State. If this comports with the wish of their respective districts, very well; if it does not, their duty is not less plain. Probably the time will never come when the people will elect United States Senators; to do that is to radically change the Federal system, and to practically destroy one of the most important branches of the Government; yet he is not a careful observer who does not note a growing disposition on the part of the people, and largely the people of certain localities, and imaginary political sub-divisions, to control these selections. The same is true of Presidential nominations, where masses of people deny the right of State Conventions to instruct their delegates-at-large. In many States the people composing either of the great parties now select their own representative delegates to National Conventions, and where their selections are not respected, grave party danger is sure to follow. There is nothing wrong in this, since it points to, and is but paving the way for a more popular selection of Presidents and Vice-Presidents—to an eventual selection of Presidential electors probably by Congressional districts. Yet those to be selected at large must through practical voluntary forms be nominated in that way, and the partisan State Convention is the best method yet devised for this work, and its instructions should be as binding as those of the people upon their representatives. In this government of ours there is voluntary and legal work delegated to the people directly; there is legal work delegated to appointing powers, and an intelligent discrimination should ever be exercised between the two. “Render unto Cæsar those things which are Cæsar’s,” unless there be a plain desire, backed by a good reason, to promote popular reforms as enduring as the practices and principles which they are intended to support.

Fredrick W. Whitridge, in an able review of the caucus system published[39] in Lalor’s _Encyclopædia of Political Science_, says:

“A caucus, in the political vocabulary of the United States, is primarily a private meeting of voters holding similar views, held prior to an election for the purpose of furthering such views at the election. With the development of parties, and the rule of majorities, the caucus or some equivalent has become an indispensable adjunct to party government, and it may now be defined as a meeting of the majority of the electors belonging to the same party in any political or legislative body held preliminary to a meeting thereof, for the purpose of selecting candidates to be voted for, or for the purpose of determining the course of the party at the meeting of the whole body. The candidates of each party are universally selected by caucus, either directly or indirectly through delegates to conventions chosen in caucuses. In legislative bodies the course of each party is often predetermined with certainty in caucus, and often discussion between parties has been, in consequence, in some degree superseded. The caucus system is, in short, the basis of a complete electoral system which has grown up within each party, side by side with that which is alone contemplated by the laws. This condition has in recent years attracted much attention, and has been bitterly announced as an evil. It was, however, early foreseen. John Adams, in 1814, wrote in the “Tenth Letter on Government:” “They have invented a balance to all balance in their caucuses. We have congressional caucuses, state caucuses, county caucuses, city caucuses, district caucuses, town caucuses, parish caucuses, and Sunday caucuses at church doors, and in these aristocratical caucuses _elections have been decided_.” The caucus is a necessary consequence of majority rule. If the majority is to define the policy of a party, there must be some method within each party of ascertaining the mind of the majority, and settling the party programme, before it meets the opposing party at the polls. The Carlton and Reform clubs discharge for the Tories and Liberals many of the functions of a congressional caucus. Meetings of the members of the parties in the _reichstag_, the _corps legislatif_ and the chamber of deputies are not unusual, although they have generally merely been for consultation, and neither in England, France, Germany or Italy, has any such authority been conceded to the wish of the majority of a party as we have rested in the decision of a caucus. What has been called a caucus has been established by the Liberals of Birmingham, England, as to which, see a paper by W. Fraser Rae, in the “International Review” for August, 1880. The origin of the term caucus is obscure. It has been derived from the Algonquin word _Kaw-kaw-wus_—to consult, to speak—but the more probable derivation makes it a corruption of caulkers. In the early politics of Boston, and particularly during the early difficulties between the townsmen and the British troops, the seafaring men and those employed about the ship yards were prominent among the town-people, and there were numerous gatherings which may have very easily come to be called by way of reproach a meeting of caulkers, after the least influential class who attended them, or from the caulking house or caulk house in which they were held. What was at first a derisive description, came to be an appellation, and the gatherings of so-called caulkers became a caucus. John Pickering, in a vocabulary of words and phrases peculiar to the United States (Boston, 1816), gives this derivation of the word, and says several gentlemen mentioned to him that they had heard this derivation. Gordon, writing in 1774, says: “More than fifty years ago Mr. Samuel Adams’ father and twenty others, one or two from the north end of the town where all the ship business is carried on, used to meet, make a caucus and lay their plan for introducing certain persons into places of trust and power. When they had settled it they separated, and each used their particular influence within his own circle. He and his friends would furnish themselves with ballots, including the names of the parties fixed upon, which they distributed on the days of election. By acting in concert, together with a careful and extensive distribution of ballots, they generally carried their elections to their own mind. In like manner it was that Mr. Samuel Adams first became a representative for Boston.” (_History of the American Revolution_, vol. i., p. 365.) February, 1763, Adams writes in his diary: “This day I learned that the caucus club meets at certain times in the garret of Tom Dawes, the adjutant of the Boston regiment. He has a large house and he has a movable partition in his garret which he takes down and the whole club meets in his room. There they smoke tobacco until they cannot see one end of the room from another. There they drink flip, I suppose, and there they choose a moderator who puts questions to the vote regularly; and selectmen, assessors, collectors, wardens, fire wards and representatives are regularly chosen in the town. Uncle Fairfield, Story, Ruddock, Adams, Cooper, and a _rudis indigestaques moles_ of others, are members. They send committees to wait on the merchants’ club, and to propose in the choice of men and measures. Captain Cunningham says, they have often solicited him to go to the caucuses; they have assured him their benefit in his business, etc.” (_Adams’ Works_, vol. ii., p. 144.) Under the title caucus should be considered the congressional nominating caucus; the caucuses of legislative assemblies; primary elections, still known outside the larger cities as caucuses; the evils which have been attributed to the latter, and the remedies which have been proposed. These will accordingly be mentioned in the order given.

“The democratic system is the result of the reorganization of the various anti-Tammany democratic factions, brought about, in 1881, by a practically self-appointed committee of 100. Under this system primary elections are to be held annually in each of 678 election districts, at which all democratic electors resident in the respective districts may participate, provided they were registered at the last general election. The persons voting at any primary shall be members of the election district association for the ensuing year, which is to be organized in January of each year. The associations may admit democratic residents in their respective districts, who are not members, to membership, and they have general supervision of the interests of the party within their districts. Primaries are held on not less than four days’ public notice, through the newspapers, of the time and place, and at the appointed time the meeting is called to order by the chairman of the election district association, provided twenty persons be present; if that number shall not be present, the meeting may be called to order with a less number, at the end of fifteen minutes. The first business of the meeting is to select a chairman, and all elections of delegates or committeemen shall take place in open meeting. Each person, as he offers to vote, states his name and residence, which may be compared with the registration list at the last election, and each person shall state for whom he votes, or he may hand to the judges an open ballot, having designated thereon the persons for whom he votes, and for what positions. Nominations are all made by conventions of delegates from the districts within which the candidate to be chosen is to be voted for. There is an assembly district committee in each assembly district, composed of one delegate for each 100 votes or fraction thereof, from each election district within the assembly district. There is also a county committee composed of delegates from each of the assembly district committees. The function of these committees is generally to look after the interests of the parties within their respective spheres. This system is too new for its workings to be as yet fairly criticised. It may prove a really popular system, or it may prove only an inchoate form of the other systems. At present it can only be said that the first primaries under it were participated in by 27,000 electors.

“The evils of the caucus and primary election systems lie in the stringent obligation which is attached to the will of a formal majority; in the fact that the process of ascertaining what the will of the majority is, has been surrounded with so many restrictions that the actual majority of votes are disfranchised, and take no part in that process, so that the formal majority is in consequence no longer the majority in fact, although it continues to demand recognition of its decisions as such.

“The separation between the organization and the party, between those who nominate and those who elect, is the sum of the evils of the too highly organized caucus system. It has its roots in the notion that the majority is right, because it is the majority, which is the popular view thus expressed by Hammond: ‘I think that when political friends consent to go into caucus for the nomination of officers, every member of such caucus is bound in honor to support and carry into effect its determination. If you suspect that determination will be so preposterous that you cannot in conscience support it, then you ought on no account to become one of its members. To try your chance in a caucus, and then, because your wishes are not gratified, to attempt to defeat the result of the deliberation of your friends, strikes me as a palpable violation of honor and good faith. You caucus for no other possible purpose than under the implied argument that the opinion and wishes of the minority shall be yielded to the opinions of the majority, and the sole object of caucusing is to ascertain what is the will of the majority. I repeat that unless you intend to carry into effect the wishes of the majority, however contrary to your own, you have no business at a caucus.’ (_Political History of New York_, vol. i., p. 192).—In accordance with this theory, the will of the majority becomes obligatory as soon as it is made known, and one cannot assist at a caucus in order to ascertain the will of the majority, without thereby being bound to follow it; and the theory is so deeply rooted that, under the caucus and primary election system, it has been extended to cases in which the majorities are such only in form.

“The remedies as well as the evils of the caucus and nominating system have been made the subject of general discussion in connection with civil service reform. It is claimed that that reform, by giving to public officers the same tenure of their positions which is enjoyed by the employes of a corporation or a private business house, or during the continuance of efficiency or good behaviour, would abolish or greatly diminish the evils of the caucus system by depriving public officers of the illegitimate incentive to maintain it under which they now act. Other more speculative remedies have been suggested. It is proposed, on the one hand, to very greatly diminish the number of elective officers, and, in order to do away with the predetermination of elections, to restrict the political action of the people in their own persons to districts so small that they can meet together and act as one body, and that in all other affairs than those of these small districts the people should act by delegates. The theory here seems to be to get rid of the necessity for election and nominating machinery. (See ‘_A True Republic_,’ by Albert Strickney, New York, 1879; and a series of articles in _Scribner’s Monthly_ for 1881, by the same writer). On the other hand, it is proposed to greatly increase the number of elections, by taking the whole primary system under the protection of the law.[40] This plan proposes: 1. The direct nomination of candidates by the members of the respective political parties in place of nominations by delegates in conventions. 2. To apply the election laws to primary elections. 3. To provide that both political parties shall participate in the same primary election instead of having a different caucus for each party. 4. To provide for a final election to be held between two candidates, each representative of a party who have been selected by means of the primary election. This plan would undoubtedly do away with the evils of the present caucus system, but it contains no guarantee that a new caucus system would not be erected for the purpose of influencing ‘the primary election’ in the same manner in which the present primary system now influences the final election. (See however ‘_The Elective Franchise in the United States_,’ New York, 1880, by D. C. McClellan.)—The effective remedy for the evils of the caucus system will probably be found in the sanction of primary elections by law. * * * Bills for this purpose were introduced by the Hon. Erastus Brooks in the New York Legislature in 1881, which provided substantially for the system proposed by Mr. McClellan, but they were left unacted upon, and no legislative attempt to regulate primaries, except by providing for their being called, and for their procedure, has been made elsewhere. In Ohio what is known as the Baber law provides that where any voluntary political association orders a primary, it must be by a majority vote of the central or controlling committee of such party or association; that the call must be published for at least five days in the newspapers, and state the time and place of the meeting, the authority by which it was called, and the name of the person who is to represent that authority at each poll. The law also provides for challenging voters, for punishment of illegal voting, and for the bribery or intervention of electors or judges. (_Rev. Stat. Ohio_, secs. 2916–2921.) A similar law in Missouri is made applicable to counties only of over 100,000 inhabitants, but by this law it is made optional with the voluntary political association whether it will or not hold its primaries under the law, and if it does, it is provided that the county shall incur no expense in the conduct of such elections. (_Laws of Missouri_, 1815, p. 54.) A similar law also exists in California. (_Laws of California_, 1865–1866, p. 438.) These laws comprise all the existing legislation on the subject, except what is known as the Landis Bill of 1881, which requires primary officers to take an oath, and which punishes fraud.”

Assassination of President Garfield.

At 9 o’clock on the morning of Saturday, July 2d, 1881, President Garfield, accompanied by Secretary Blaine, left the Executive Mansion to take a special train from the Baltimore and Potomac depot for New England, where he intended to visit the college from which he had graduated. Arriving at the depot, he was walking arm-in-arm through the main waiting-room, when Charles J. Guiteau, a persistent applicant for an office, who had some time previously entered through the main door, advanced to the centre of the room, and having reached within a few feet of his victim, fired two shots, one of which took fatal effect. The bullet was of forty-four calibre, and striking the President about four inches to the right of the spinal column, struck the tenth and badly shattered the eleventh rib. The President sank to the floor, and was conveyed to a room where temporary conveniences were attainable, and a couch was improvised. Dr. Bliss made an unsuccessful effort to find the ball. The shock to the President’s system was very severe, and at first apprehensions were felt that death would ensue speedily. Two hours after the shooting, the physicians decided to remove him to the Executive Mansion. An army ambulance was procured, and the removal effected. Soon after, vomiting set in, and the patient exhibited a dangerous degree of prostration, which threatened to end speedily in dissolution. This hopeless condition of affairs continued until past midnight, when more favorable symptoms were exhibited. Dr. Bliss was on this Sunday morning designated to take charge of the case, and he called Surgeon-General Barnes, Assistant Surgeon-General Woodward, and Dr. Reyburn as consulting physician. To satisfy the demand of the country, Drs. Agnew, of Philadelphia, and Hamilton, of New York, were also summoned by telegraph, and arrived on a special train over the Pennsylvania Railroad, Sunday afternoon. For several days immediately succeeding the shooting, the patient suffered great inconvenience and pain in the lower limbs. This created an apprehension that the spinal nerves had been injured, and death was momentarily expected. On the night of July 4th a favorable turn was observed, and the morning of the 5th brought with it a vague but undefined hope that a favorable issue might ensue. Under this comforting conviction, Drs. Agnew and Hamilton, after consultation with the resident medical attendants, returned to their homes; first having published to the country an endorsement of the treatment inaugurated. During July 5th and 6th the patient continued to improve, the pulse and respiration showing a marked approach to the condition of healthfulness, the former being reported on the morning of the 6th at 98, and in the evening it only increased to 104. On the 7th Dr. Bliss became very confident of ultimate triumph over the malady. In previous bulletins meagre hope was given, and the chances for recovery estimated at one in a hundred.

From July 7th to the 16th there was a slight but uninterrupted improvement, and the country began to entertain a confident hope that the patient would recover.

Hope and fear alternated from day to day, amid the most painful excitement. On the 8th of August Drs. Agnew and Hamilton had to perform their second operation to allow a free flow of pus from the wound. This resulted in an important discovery. It was ascertained that the track of the bullet had turned from its downward deflection to a forward course. The operation lasted an hour, and ether was administered, the effect of which was very unfortunate. Nausea succeeded, and vomiting followed every effort to administer nourishment for some time. However, he soon rallied, and the operation was pronounced successful, and, on the following day, the President, for the first time, wrote his name. On the 10th he signed an important extradition paper, and on the 11th wrote a letter of hopefulness to his aged mother. On the 12th Dr. Hamilton expressed the opinion that the further attendance of himself and Dr. Agnew was unnecessary. The stomach continued weak, however, and on the 15th nausea returned, and the most menacing physical prostration followed the frequent vomiting, and the evening bulletin announced that “the President’s condition, on the whole, is less satisfactory.”

Next a new complication forced itself upon the attention of the physicians. This was described as “inflammation of the right parotid gland.” On August 24th it was decided to make an incision below and forward of the right ear, in order to prevent suppuration. Though this operation was pronounced satisfactory, the patient gradually sank, until August 25th, when all hope seemed to have left those in attendance.

Two days of a dreary watch ensued; on the 27th an improvement inspired new hope. This continued throughout the week, but failed to build up the system. Then it was determined to remove the patient to a more favorable atmosphere. On the 6th of September this design was executed, he having been conveyed in a car arranged for the purpose to Long Branch, where, in a cottage at Elberon, it was hoped vigor would return. At first, indications justified the most sanguine expectations. On the 9th, however, fever returned, and a cough came to harass the wasted sufferer. It was attended with purulent expectoration, and became so troublesome as to entitle it to be regarded as the leading feature of the case. The surgeons attributed it to the septic condition of the blood. The trouble increased until Saturday, September 10th, when it was thought the end was reached. He rallied, however, and improved rapidly, during the succeeding few days, and on Tuesday, the 13th, was lifted from the bed and placed in a chair at the window. The improvement was not enduring, however, and on Saturday, September 17th, the rigor returned. During the nights and days succeeding, until the final moment, hope rose and fell alternately, and though the patient’s spirits fluctuated to justify this change of feeling, the improvement failed to bring with it the strength necessary to meet the strain.

President Garfield died at 10.35 on the night of Sept. 19th, 1881, and our nation mourned, as it had only done once before, when Abraham Lincoln also fell by the hand of an assassin. The assassin Guiteau was tried and convicted, the jury rejecting his plea of insanity.

President Arthur.

Vice-President Arthur, during the long illness of the President, and at the time of his death, deported himself so well that he won the good opinion of nearly all classes of the people, and happily for weeks and months all factious or partisan spirit was hushed by the nation’s great calamity. At midnight on the 19th of September the Cabinet telegraphed him from Long Branch to take the oath of office, and this he very properly did before a local judge. The Government cannot wisely be left without a head for a single day. He was soon afterwards again sworn in at Washington, with the usual ceremonies, and took occasion to make a speech which improved the growing better feeling. The new President requested the Cabinet to hold on until Congress met, and it would have remained intact had Secretary Windom not found it necessary to resume his place in the Senate. The vacancy was offered to ex-Governor Morgan, of New York, who was actually nominated and confirmed before he made up his mind to decline it. Judge Folger now fills the place. The several changes since made will be found in the Tabulated History, Book VII.

It has thus far been the effort of President Arthur to allay whatever of factious bitterness remains in the Republican party. In his own State of New York the terms “Half-Breed” and “Stalwart” are passing into comparative disuse, as are the terms “Regulars” and “Independents” in Pennsylvania.

“Boss Rule.”

The complaint of “Boss Rule” in these States—by which is meant the control of certain leaders—still obtains to some extent. Wayne MacVeagh was the author of this very telling political epithet, and he used it with rare force in his street speeches at Chicago when opposing the nomination of Grant. It was still further cultivated by Rufus E. Shapley, Esq., of Philadelphia, the author of “Solid for Mulhooly,” a most admirable political satire, which had an immense sale. Its many hits were freely quoted by the Reformers of Philadelphia, who organized under the Committee of One Hundred, a body of merchants who first banded themselves together to promote reforms in the municipal government. This organization, aided by the Democrats, defeated Mayor Wm. S. Stokley for his third term, electing Mr. King, theretofore a very popular Democratic councilman. In return for this support, the Democrats accepted John Hunter, Committee’s nominee for Tax Receiver, and the combination succeeded. In the fall of 1881 it failed on the city ticket, but in the spring of 1882 secured material successes in the election of Councilmen, who were nominees of both parties, but aided by the endorsement of the Committee of One Hundred. A similar combination failed as between Brown (Rep.) and Eisenbrown (Dem.) for Magistrate. On this part of the ticket the entire city voted, and the regular Republicans won by about 500 majority.

The following is the declaration of principles of the Citizens’ Republican Association of Philadelphia, which, under the banner of Mr. Wolfe, extended its organization to several counties:

I. We adhere to the platform of the National Convention of the Republican party, adopted at Chicago, June 2d, 1880, and we proclaim our unswerving allegiance to the great principles upon which that party was founded, to wit: national supremacy, universal liberty, and governmental probity.

II. The Republican party, during its glorious career, having virtually established its principles of national supremacy and universal liberty as the law of the land, we shall, while keeping a vigilant watch over the maintenance of those principles, regard the third one, viz.: governmental probity, as the living issue to be struggled for in the future; and as the pure administration of government is essential to the permanence of Republican institutions, we consider this issue as in no way inferior in importance to any other.

III. The only practical method of restoring purity to administration is through the adoption of a system of civil service, under which public officials shall not be the tools of any man or of any clique, subject to dismissal at their behest, or to assessment in their service; nor appointment to office be “patronage” at the disposal of any man to consolidate his power within the party.

IV. It is the abuse of this appointing power which has led to the formation of the “machine,” and the subjection of the party to “bosses.” Our chosen leader, the late President Garfield, fell a martyr in his contest with the “bosses.” We take up the struggle where he left it, and we hereby declare that we will own no allegiance to any “boss,” nor be subservient to any “machine;” but that we will do our utmost to liberate the party from the “boss” domination under which it has fallen.

V. Recognizing that political parties are simply instrumentalities for the enforcement of certain recognized principles, we shall endeavor to promote the principles of the Republican party by means of that party, disenthralled and released from the domination of its “bosses.” But should we fail in this, we shall have no hesitation in seeking to advance the principles of the party through movements and organizations outside of the party lines.

The idea of the Committee of One Hundred is to war against “boss rule” in municipal affairs. James McManes has long enjoyed the leadership of the Republican party in Philadelphia, and the reform element has directed its force against his power as a leader, though he joined at Chicago in the MacVeagh war against the form of “boss rule,” which was then directed against Grant, Conkling, Logan and Cameron. This episode has really little, if anything, to do with Federal politics, but the facts are briefly recited with a view to explain to the reader the leading force which supported Mr. Wolfe in his independent race in Pennsylvania. Summed up, it is simply one of those local wars against leadership which precede and follow factions.

The factious battles in the Republican party, as we have stated, seem to have spent their force. The assassination of President Garfield gave them a most serious check, for men were then compelled to look back and acknowledge that his plain purpose was to check divisions and heal wounds. Only haste and anger assailed, and doubtless as quickly regretted the assault. President Arthur, with commendable reticence and discretion, is believed to be seeking the same end. He has made few changes, and these reluctantly. His nomination of ex-Senator Conkling to a seat in the Supreme Bench, which, though declined, is generally accepted as an assurance to New Yorkers that the leader hated by one side and loved by the other, should be removed from partisan politics peculiar to his own State, but removed with the dignity and honor becoming his high abilities. It has ever been the policy of wise administrations, as with wise generals, to care for the wounded, and Conkling was surely and sorely wounded in his battle against the confirmation of Robertson and his attempted re-election to the Senate. He accepted the situation with quiet composure, and saw his friend Arthur unite the ranks which his resignation had sundered. After this there remained little if any cause for further quarrel, and while in writing history it is dangerous to attempt a prophecy, the writer believes that President Arthur will succeed in keeping his party, if not fully united, at least as compact as the opposing Democratic forces.

The Readjusters.

This party was founded in 1878 by Gen’l William Mahone, a noted Brigadier in the rebel army. He is of Scotch-Irish descent, a man of very small stature but most remarkable energy, and acquired wealth in the construction and development of Southern railroads. He sounded the first note of revolt against what he styled the Bourbon rule of Virginia, and being classed as a Democrat, rapidly divided that party on the question of the Virginia debt. His enemies charge that he sought the repudiation of this debt, but in return he not only denied the charge, but said the Bourbons were actually repudiating it by making no provision for its payment, either in appropriations or the levying of taxes needed for the purpose. Doubtless his views on this question have undergone some modification, and that earlier in the struggle the uglier criticisms were partially correct. Certain it is that he and his friends now advocate full payment less the proportion equitably assigned to West Virginia, which separated from the parent State during the war, and in her constitution evaded her responsibility by declaring that the State should never contract a debt except one created to resist invasion or in a war for the government. This fact shows how keenly alive the West Virginians were to a claim which could very justly be pressed in the event of Virginia being restored to the Union, and this claim Gen’l Mahone has persistently pressed, and latterly urged a funding of the debt of his State at a 3 per cent. rate, on the ground that the State is unable to pay more and that this is in accord with proper rates of interest on the bonds of State governments—a view not altogether fair or sound, since it leaves the creditors powerless to do otherwise than accept. The regular or Bourbon Democrats proclaimed in favor of full payment, and in this respect differed from their party associates as to ante-war debts in most other Southern States.

Gen. Mahone rapidly organized his revolt, and as the Republican party was then in a hopeless minority in Virginia, publicly invited an alliance by the passage of a platform which advocated free schools for the blacks and a full enforcement of the National laws touching their civil rights. The Legislature was won, and on the 16th of December, 1880, Gen’l Mahone was elected to the U. S. Senate to succeed Senator Withers, whose term expired March 4, 1881.

In the Presidential campaign of 1880, the Readjusters supported Gen’l Hancock, but on a separate electoral ticket, while the Republicans supported Garfield on an electoral ticket of their own selection. This division was pursuant to an understanding, and at the time thought advisable by Mahone, who, if his electors won, could go for Hancock or not, as circumstances might suggest; while if he failed the Republicans might profit by the separation. There was, however, a third horn to this dilemma, for the regular Democratic electors were chosen, but the political complexion of the Legislature was not changed. Prior to the Presidential nominations Mahone’s Readjuster Convention had signified their willingness to support Gen’l Grant if he should be nominated at Chicago, and this fact was widely quoted by his friends in their advocacy of Grant’s nomination, and in descanting upon his ability to carry Southern States.

The Readjuster movement at first had no other than local designs, but about the time of its organization there was a great desire on the part of the leading Republicans to break the “Solid South,” and every possible expedient to that end was suggested. It was solid for the Democratic party, and standing thus could with the aid of New York, Indiana and New Jersey (them all Democratic States) assure the election of a Democratic President.

One of the favorite objects of President Hayes was to break the “Solid South.” He first obtained it by conciliatory speeches, which were so conciliatory in fact that they angered radical Republicans, and there were thus threatened division in unexpected quarters. He next tried it through Gen’l Key, whom he made Postmaster-General in the hope that he could resurrect and reorganize the old Whig elements of the South. Key was to attend to Southern postal patronage with this end in view, while Mr. Tener, his able First Assistant, was to distribute Northern or Republican patronage. So far as dividing the South was concerned, the scheme was a flat failure.

The next and most quiet and effectual effort was made by Gen’l Simon Cameron, Ex-Senator from Pennsylvania. He started on a brief Southern tour, ostensibly for health and enjoyment, but really to meet Gen’l Mahone, his leading Readjuster friends, and the leading Republicans. Conferences were held, and the union of the two forces was made to embrace National objects. This was in the Fall of 1879. Not long thereafter Gen’l Mahone consulted with Senator J. Don. Cameron, who was of course familiar with his father’s movements, and he actively devised and carried out schemes to aid the new combination by which the “Solid South” was to be broken. In the great State campaign of 1881, when the Bourbon and anti-Bourbon candidates for Governor, were stumping the State, Gen’l Mahone found that a large portion of his colored friends were handicapped by their inability to pay the taxes imposed upon them by the laws of Virginia, and this threatened defeat. He sought aid from the National administration. President Garfield favored the combination, as did Secretary Windom, but Secretary Blaine withheld his support for several months, finally, however, acceding to the wishes of the President and most of the Cabinet. Administration influences caused the abandonment of a straight-out Republican movement organized by Congressman Jorgensen and others, and a movement which at one time threatened a disastrous division was overcome. The tax question remained, and this was first met by Senator J. Don. Cameron, who while summering at Manhattan Island, was really daily engaged in New York City raising funds for Mahone, with which to pay their taxes. Still, this aid was insufficient, and in the heat of the battle the revenue officers throughout the United States, were asked to contribute. Many of them did so, and on the eve of election all taxes were paid and the result was the election of William E. Cameron (Readjuster) as Governor by about 20,000 majority, with other State officers divided between the old Readjusters and Republicans. The combination also carried the Legislature.

In that great struggle the Readjusters became known as the anti-Bourbon movement, and efforts are now being made to extend it to other Southern States. It has taken root in South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, and more recently in Kentucky, where the Union War Democrats in State Convention as late as March 1, 1882, separated from the Bourbon wing of the party. For a better idea of these two elements in the South, the reader is referred to the recent speeches of Hill and Mahone in the memorable Senate scene directly after the latter took the oath of office, and cast his vote with the Republicans. These speeches will be found in Book III of this volume.

Suppressing Mormonism.

Polygamy, justly denounced as “the true relic of barbarism” while slavery existed, has ever since the settlement of the Mormons in Utah, been one of the vexed questions in American politics. Laws passed for its suppression have proved, thus far, unavailing; troops could not crush it out, or did not at a time when battles were fought and won; United States Courts were powerless where juries could not be found to convict. Latterly a new and promising effort has been made for its suppression. This was begun in the Senate in the session of 1882. On the 16th of February a vote was taken by sections on Senator Edmunds’ bill, which like the law of 1862 is penal in its provisions, but directly aimed against the crime of polygamy.

President Arthur signed the Edmunds anti-polygamy bill on the 23d of March, 1882.

Delegate Cannon of Utah, was on the floor of the Senate electioneering against the bill, and he pled with some success, for several Democratic Senators made speeches against it. The Republicans were unanimously for the bill, and the Democrats were not solidly against it, though the general tenor of the debate on this side was against it.

Senator Vest (Democrat) of Missouri, said that never in the darkest days of the rule of the Tudors and Stuarts had any measure been advocated which came so near a bill of attainder as this one. It was monstrous to contend that the people of the United States were at the mercy of Congress without any appeal. If this bill passed it would establish a precedent that would come home to plague us for all time to come. The pressure against polygamy to-day might exist to-morrow against any church, institution or class in this broad land, and when the crested waves of prejudice and passion mounted high they would be told that the Congress of the United States had trampled upon the Constitution. In conclusion, he said: “I am prepared for the abuse and calumny that will follow any man who dares to criticise any bill against polygamy, and yet, if my official life had to terminate to-morrow, I would not give my vote for the unconstitutional principles contained in this bill.” Other speeches were made by Messrs. Morgan, Brown, Jones, of Florida, Saulsbury, Call, Pendleton, Sherman, and Lamar, and the debate was closed by Mr. Edmunds in an eloquent fifteen-minutes’ speech, in which he carefully reviewed and controverted the objections urged against the bill of the committee.

He showed great anxiety to have the measure disposed of at once and met a request from the Democratic side for a postponement till other features should be embodied in the bills with the remark that this was the policy that had hitherto proven a hindrance to legislation on this subject and that he was tired of it. In the bill as amended the following section provoked more opposition than any other, although the Senators refrained from making any particular mention of it: “That if any male person in a Territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction hereafter cohabits with more than one woman he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof he shall be punished by a fine of not more than $300 or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both said punishments in the discretion of the court.” The bill passed viva voce vote after a re-arrangement of its sections, one of the changes being that not more than three of the commissioners shall be members of the same party. The fact that the yeas and nays were not called, shows that there is no general desire on either side to make the bill a partisan measure.

The Edmunds Bill passed the House March 14, 1882, without material amendment, the Republican majority, refusing to allow the time asked by the Democrats for discussion. The vote was 193 for to only 45 against, all of the negative votes being Democratic save one, that of Jones, Greenbacker from Texas.

The only question was whether the bill, as passed by the Senate, would accomplish that object, and whether certain provisions of this bill did not provide a remedy which was worse than the disease. Many Democrats thought that the precedent of interfering with the right of suffrage at the polls, when the voter had not been tried and convicted of any crime, was so dangerous that they could not bring themselves to vote for the measure. Among these democrats were Belmont and Hewitt, of New York, and a number of others equally prominent. But they all professed their readiness to vote for any measure which would affect the abolition of polygamy without impairing the fundamental rights of citizens in other parts of the country.

THE TEXT OF THE BILL.

_Be it enacted, &c._, That section 5,352 of the Revised Statutes of the United States be, and the same is hereby amended so as to read as follows, namely:

“Every person who has a husband or wife living who, in a Territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, hereafter marries another, whether married or single, and any man who hereafter simultaneously, or on the same day, marries more than one woman; in a Territory or other place over which the United States has exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of polygamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500 and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; but this section shall not extend to any person by reason of any former marriage whose husband or wife by such marriage shall have been absent for five successive years, and is not known to such person to be living, and is believed by such person to be dead, nor to any person by reason of any former marriage which shall have been dissolved by a valid decree of a competent court, nor to any person by reason of any former marriage which shall have been pronounced void by a valid decree of a competent court, on the ground of nullity of the marriage contract.”