Chapter C: K. Foote to S. J. Tilden (2)

"Given under my hand and seal of office, at the city of Albany, the twenty-fifth day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six.

EDGAR K. APGAR,
"_Deputy Secretary of State_."

FRANK CROCKER TO TILDEN

WASHINGTON, D. C., _Jan. 15, '77_.

"HON. S. J. TILDEN.

"SIR,--I have in my possession a telegram sent to Z. Chandler, chrm. Repn. com., by O. C. Babcock, dated Chicago, Dec. 4/76.

"I consider it not only very valuable, but the _key_ to the editorials and political arguments on the 'electoral count' which has filled the columns of the _National Republican_, the administration organ, for the past month.

"Respectfully Yours,
"FRANK CROCKER,
"617 6th St., N. W."

O. C. BABCOCK TO Z. CHANDLER (TELEGRAM)

"Chicago, _Dec. 4th, 1876_.

"HON. Z. CHANDLER,

"_Chairmn. Repn. Com., Washington_.

"The Illinois electors here have agreed they will vote an open ballot. If any elector refuses so to vote, or refuses to throw a ballot for Hayes and Wheeler as he votes, they will immediately declare a vacancy in the district thus represented by such judge and elect another in his place; they claim that such action is not only perfectly justifiable, but that it cannot be reviewed by any tribunal, as the action of the electors is final. If this meets with your approbation I suggest you to telegraph this programme to every Republican State.

"O. C. BABCOCK."

* * * * *

The subscriber of the last preceding letter during the Civil War was on the staff of General Grant, and when the latter became President acted as his private secretary. He was indicted in 1876 by the Grand Jury of St. Louis for frauds upon the revenue and for the "safe-burglary conspiracy" referred to in the following testimony of one of the witnesses in the trial, Col. H. C. Whitley, who was one of the parties charged, but desired, before doing so, to place on the record a conditional pardon granted him.

"'Harrington took a letter from his pocket and asked me if the
signature was that of A. B. Cornell, and I said it was not. He
said that some of Pinkerton's detectives were here, and I should
send some of my men to work in with the memorialists and find
out what they were doing. I sent men out. Harrington gave me
some names on a paper whom he wished to be worked in with. I
don't remember the names. I told Harrington that I would send
men over, naming Mr. Nettleship. I went to New York on the same
night (15th) and sent Mr. Nettleship over, giving him the names,
and telling him that they were the parties to be worked. I don't
remember that I gave Nettleship any instructions to report to
Harrington at this particular time. I was again in this city
on the 29th of March, having previously sent over a man named
Oberworth with Nettleship. I found on my arrival that Oberworth
had been arrested for peddling cigars without a license, and I
told Harrington that he (Oberworth) was one of my men, and he
was released. Mr. Harrington complained that the men were good
for nothing, and he wanted men who would push matters along and
work to some purpose. Harrington said something must be done;
that he had a plan which would throw dirt and ridicule on the
memorialists. He said they thought that Evan's books were in his
office, and they were trying to get them, and he thought that
to have his office robbed was the best plan; he said he did not
care if his safe was knocked or blown to hell, as the damned
safe belonged to him. I said I did not wish the men to get into
trouble, and Harrington replied that there was no danger, as he
was district attorney, and they should not be hurt. I came from
New York on the 29th, and returned the same night. I came again
on the 8th of April, and saw Gen. Babcock at his office. I asked
how matters were about the investigation, and he said all right,
that Harrington kept him posted up.

"'I was again in Washington on the 27th, arriving in the
afternoon, four days after the safe was blown up. I went up to
Harrington's house, and he told me about what had transpired
during the blowing of the safe. He said that everything would
have worked all right except for the interference of Major
Richard, the superintendent of police, who would not co-operate
with him. After that I called upon Gen. Babcock at his office in
the White House. He spoke about the safe burglary, saying that
it was very badly managed; that he thought I was smarter than to
allow things to go on as they did. The next time I saw Babcock
was in New York, in the May following. I went up to the Fifth
Avenue Hotel in that city. After talking to him a while I said
that I expected that there would be some more trouble about the
case. Babcock said: "No; stand by your guns; I'll protect your
rear." I spoke to him about Bluford Wilson, then the Solicitor
of the Treasury, investigating my office in New York for the
purpose of ascertaining whether any of the secret-service men
were connected with the safe burglary, and then told him I would
do it, that is, stand by my guns if he protected the rear.

"'Soon afterward I had an interview with Harrington at the
Metropolitan Hotel, New York. I complained to him that the
whole matter of the safe burglary seemed to be falling upon
the secret service, and that we would likely get into trouble
about it. Harrington said: "No; I am the real district attorney
at Washington, and I will protect all of you." I told him that
Somerville wanted some money, and Harrington gave me $500 for
him. I paid it all to Somerville as part of his fee. Harrington
did not say what particular service Somerville rendered. During
the same month I had an interview with Babcock here. I called
to see him at his house. Harrington then lived a few doors from
him on the same row. I told Babcock I wanted to see Harrington,
and Babcock sent after him. Harrington came in by the alley gate
to Babcock's yard. I told Harrington that Somerville wanted
more money, but do not remember that Babcock heard me speak to
Harrington, or that he knew the money was to go to Somerville.
All I remember is that Harrington brought me the money, and
that I gave it to Somerville, who said he wanted to use it to
get Benton, the burglar who was arrested on the night of the
burglary, out.'

"In speaking of other interviews with Babcock, Whitley testified
as follows:

"'In the autumn of 1875 I called at Babcock's cottage at Long
Branch and had a talk with him. I told him that Albert Cunz
and Delome, two former secret-service men, had been thrown out
of employment in consequence of the safe burglary and their
connection with it. Babcock said he would try and get them in
the New York Custom-House. I told him that I would like for
myself a commission to go somewhere, and Babcock said he would
see the Secretary of the Treasury, and have me sent to Europe
with some bonds. I told him I did not want to go to Europe, but
wanted to go to Colorado. Babcock said: "If any trouble comes up
you can 'slide off,'" or words to that effect. I told him I had
had trouble enough in connection with the case, and did not want
any more.

"'I had a conversation with Harrington after we were indicted
in the fall of 1874 in the Metropolitan Hotel. I told him I
did not like the idea of being indicted in the matter. He
told me it would be all right, that he would pay counsel for
me. He directed me to write and employ Gen. S. S. Henkin, of
Washington, as my attorney, which I did. That case resulted
in a hung jury. This spring, previous to going before Proctor
Knott's committee, I called at the White House to see Gen.
Babcock, and requested him to do all he could to have Mr. Rice,
who was with me, appointed postmaster at Pueblo, Colorado. He
said he would assist all he could. As I was leaving the room, I
remarked to him: "Things look like we will have more trouble."
He answered: "Yes, things do look squally; but it will all blow
over again."'"[17]

[17] New York _Sun_, September 21, 1876.

Babcock was acquitted, with the aid of a deposition by General Grant, and only a few weeks before this trial was promoted to a colonelcy.

Only four months before the indictment and trial of Babcock, Secretary Belknap, a member of President Grant's Cabinet, was impeached and put on trial before the Senate at Washington. During the trial the late George F. Hoar, one of the Republican Senators from Massachusetts, addressed the Senate, and closed his discourse with the following fearful arraignment of the administration during the Presidency of Grant, and gave a transparent exposure of the reasons why the satellites of the President were determined to shrink from no crime necessary to prevent the inauguration at Washington of a President who had become famous by the havoc he had already made of the Tweed Ring plunderers in New York and the Canal Ring plunderers at Albany, and whose advent to Washington would put to flight the horde of miscreants who then infested both ends of the capitol:

"My own public life has been a very brief and insignificant
one, extending little beyond the duration of a single term of
Senatorial office, but in that brief period I have seen five
judges of a high court of the United States driven from office
by threats of impeachment for corruption or maladministration.
I have heard the taunt from friendliest lips, that when the
United States presented herself in the East to take part with
the civilized world in generous competition in the arts of life,
the only product of her institutions in which she surpassed all
others beyond question was her corruption. I have seen in the
State in the Union foremost in power and wealth four judges
of her courts impeached for corruption, and the political
administration of her chief city become a disgrace and a by-word
throughout the world. I have seen the chairman of the Committee
on Military Affairs in the House, now a distinguished member of
this court, rise in his place and demand the expulsion of four
of his associates for making sale of their official privilege
of selecting the youths to be educated at our great military
school. When the greatest railroad of the world, binding
together the continent and uniting the two great seas which
wash our shores, was finished, I have seen our national triumph
and exaltation turned to bitterness and shame by the unanimous
reports of three committees of Congress, two of the House, and
one here, that every step of that mighty enterprise had been
taken in fraud. I have heard in highest places the shameless
doctrine avowed by men grown old in public office that the
true way by which power should be gained in the republic is to
bribe the people with the offices created for their service,
and the true end for which it should be used when gained is
the promotion of selfish ambition and the gratification of
personal revenge. I have heard that suspicion haunts the
footsteps of the trusted companions of the President. These
things have passed into history. The Hallam, or the Tacitus,
or the Sismondi, or the Macaulay who writes the annals of our
time will record them with his inexorable pen; and now, when
a high Cabinet officer, the constitutional adviser of the
Executive, flees from office before charges of corruption, shall
the historian add that the Senate treated the demand of the
people for its judgment of condemnation as a farce, and laid
down its high functions before the sophistries and jeers of the
criminal lawyer? Shall he speculate about the petty political
calculations as to the effect of one party or the other which
induced his judges to connive at the escape of the great public
criminal; or, on the other hand, shall he close the chapter by
narrating how these things were detected, reformed, and punished
by constitutional processes which the wisdom of our fathers
devised for us, and the virtue and purity of the people found
their vindication in the justice of the Senate?"

CHARLES MASON TO TILDEN

"'ALTO,' NEAR EDGE HILL,
"KING GEORGE, VA., _Dec. 5, '76_.

"DEAR SIR,--Although I am confident if any one in the U. S. has the ability to cope with the rogues who are bent on cheating the people out of the hard-earned victory they have achieved, in the Presidential contest, it is yourself; yet, at the risk of being thought highly presumptuous, I venture on a few suggestions I have not observed thrown out by any one.

"That the Constitution does not provide for the extraordinary condition of things in which we are placed by the Congress, nor that any of its annotators furnish an apt construction, is certain; and for the same reason, I suppose, as that given by Bishop Warburton, why no allusion was made in the Pentateuch to a future state. The patriots of the Revolution, like the Patriarchs after the creation, no doubt thought the proposition so self-evident and the provisions so ample for pious and honest men that they did not dream of the world's being peopled by such a race of sinners and corruptionists.

"If precedent is to be weighed in counting the votes, let the spirit of the first example be wholly and rigidly observed. There is doubt, in the first election of Gl. Washington, the president of the Senate did perform that ministerial duty. But the order of the Senate, prepared by a committee, and signed by John Langdon, the prest. 'elected for that purpose,' expressly says 'the underwritten, appointed president of the Senate for the sole purpose of receiving, opening, and counting the votes of electors, did, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives,' etc., leaving it to be inferred (and no other conclusion will hold water) that in doing this his functions ceased. Subsequently, as you know, there were some variations from this practice, but all going to the mere ministerial agency of that officer.

"The bald attempt of McDonald, present chief clerk of the Senate, to cite a different practice, in the case of Harrison, when James W. Watson was president of the Senate, by construing his action in his (McDonald's) own language, as to imply judicial authority, does great violence to the truth of history and the greatest injustice to that astute and cautious statesman, who struggled all his life against the exercise of doubtful powers and was never known to practise one. This little incident on the part of McDonald is only a part of the well-laid scheme to revolutionize the government by seizure in the count of either of the returning boards in the subjugated States, should be conscience-stricken and obey the mandates of the Decalogue, rather than the tyrant's order, and cast the electoral vote for you, to whom all justly belong.

"Going through the pageant of a public inauguration is by no means called for, as you are well aware; and I would suggest that instead of allowing Sunday to intervene, that Grant's term expires at 12 o'c. at night on the 3d of March, when his power as Commander-in-Chief will cease, and when Sherman will not dare use the army for their hellish purposes. I make this suggestion for the reason that there is a tradition in the family of Mr. Jefferson, to whom I am nearly allied by marriage, handed down by himself, that being informed commissions were to be made out by Mr. Adams for judges and other officers after midnight, he (Jefferson) entered the office of Secretary of State precisely at 12 o'c. on the 3d of Mar. and demanded it of the Secretary, John Marshall, I think, who, after some remonstrance, yielded and delivered the keys to Mr. Jefferson. Allusion is made to those midnight appointments in his correspondence, but no mention is made of those particular circumstances. I had them from Col. L. G. Randolph, his grandson, confidential friend, executor and sole custodian of his papers until sold to Congress.

"Some persons apprehend that if the election devolves upon the House (which I cannot conceive possible on any reasonable grounds) we shall lose the Vice-President, whose choice will have to be decided by the Senate; but this cannot be, as the contingency will not arise for such a resort. For the Constitution expressly provides that 'the person having the greatest number of electors shall be President, if such number be the whole number of electors _appointed_.' Now, how can they be appointed unless lawfully done, and who is to judge of such legality? Certainly the House, or it may be both Houses. So if the electoral vote of a State be rejected by either, because of fraud, it is a nullity--no vote at all--and therefore not _appointed_, and cannot be estimated in the count, leaving you with 84, an undisputed majority of the electors actually _appointed_. For, mark! The Constitution does not require a majority of the whole Electoral College, but of those _appointed_.

"If there should be any discussion about the authority of the 'great seal of a State,' you are aware that it has been nowhere so fully ventilated as in the famous New Jersey contest for Congressional seats, when, if my memory serves me, the Govr's. certificate was only respected when there was no suspicion of fraud.

"I am, with great respect & haste,

"Your humble servt.,
"CHARLES MASON."

CHARLES A. DANA TO TILDEN

"_Dec. 15, 1876._

"DEAR SIR,--Here is a note from my regular Washington correspondent, which I send to you for your information.

Yours sincerely,
"C. A. DANA."

A. M. GIBSON TO DANA

"WASHINGTON, D. C., _Dec. 13, 1876_.

"MY DEAR SIR,--There is undoubtedly danger of defection among Southern Democrats. The friends of Hayes are certainly bidding high in that direction, and I _know_ that their propositions are being entertained--listened to, considered. The combination between Jay Gould, C. P. Huntington, and Tom Scott, spoke of ten days since in my despatches, is now openly admitted here. Central Pacific gets all west of Ft. Worth and one-half of T. P. east of Fort Worth. The subsidy for T. P. is part of programme, as well as counting in of Hayes. Packard and Chamberlain are to be abandoned, and a new departure in Republican party policy is to date from Hayes' inauguration. I know what I am talking about. Can't you give Tilden a hint? His managers here don't get below the surface of things.

"Very truly,
"A. M. GIBSON."

GENERAL WINFIELD SCOTT HANCOCK TO GENERAL SHERMAN

"CARONDELET P. O.,

"ST. LOUIS CO., MO., _December 28th, 1876_.

"MY DEAR GENERAL,--Your favor of the 4th inst. reached me in New York on the 5th, the day before I left for the West. I intended to reply to it before leaving, but cares incident to departure interfered. Then, again, since my arrival here, I have been so occupied with personal affairs of a business nature that I have deferred writing from day to day until this moment, and now I find myself in debt to you for another letter in acknowledgment of your favor of the 17th, received a few days since.

"I have concluded to leave here on the 29th (to-morrow), p.m., so that I may be expected in New York on the 31st inst. It has been cold and dreary since my arrival here. I have worked 'like a Turk' (I presume that means hard work) in the country, in making fences, cutting down trees, repairing buildings, etc., etc., and am at least able to say that St. Louis is the coldest place in the winter, as it is the hottest in summer, of any that I have encountered in a temperate zone. I have known St. Louis in December to have genial weather throughout the month; this December has been frigid, and the river has been frozen more solid than I have even known it.

"When I heard the rumor that I was ordered to the Pacific coast I thought it probably true, considering the past discussion on that subject. The _possibilities_ seemed to me to point that way. Had it been true I should, of course, have presented no complaint, nor made resistance of any kind. I would have gone quietly if not prepared to go promptly. I certainly would have been relieved from the responsibilities and anxieties concerning Presidential matters which may fall to those near the throne or in authority within the next four months, as well as from other incidents or matters which I could not control, and the action concerning which I might not approve. I was not exactly prepared to go to the Pacific, however, and I therefore felt relieved when I received your note informing me that there was no truth in the rumors.

"Then, I did not wish to appear to be escaping from responsibilities and possible dangers which may cluster around military commanders in the East, especially in the critical period fast approaching. 'All's well that ends well.' The whole matter of the Presidency seems to me to be simple and to admit of a peaceful solution. The machinery for such a contingency as threatens to present itself has been all carefully prepared. It only requires lubrication, owing to disuse. The army should have nothing to do with the selection or inauguration of Presidents. The people elect the President. The Congress declares in a joint session who he is; we of the army have only to obey his mandates, and are protected in so doing only so far as they may be lawful. Our commissions express that! I like Jefferson's way of inauguration. It suits our system. He rode alone on horseback to the capitol (I fear it was the 'old capitol'), tied his horse to a rail-fence, entered, and was duly sworn; then rode to the Executive Mansion, and took possession. He inaugurated himself simply by taking the oath of office. There is no other legal inauguration in our system. The people or politicians may institute parades in honor of the event, and public officials may add to the pageant by assembling troops and banners; but all that only comes properly after the inauguration, not before, and it is not a part of it. Our system does not provide that one President should inaugurate another. There might be danger in that, and it was studiously left out of the Charter. But you are placed in an exceptionally important position in connection with coming events. The capitol is in my jurisdiction also, but I am a subordinate, and not on the spot, and if I were, so also would be my superior in authority, for there is the station of the General-in-Chief.

"On the principle that a regularly elected President's term of office expires with the 3rd of March (of which I have not the slightest doubt), and which the laws bearing on the subject uniformly recognize, and in consideration of the possibility that the lawfully elected President may not appear until the 5th of March, a great deal of responsibility may necessarily fall upon you. You hold over! You will have power and prestige to support you. The Secretary of War is the mouthpiece of a President; you are not. If neither candidate has a constitutional majority of the Electoral College, or the Senate and House, on the occasion of the count, do not unite in declaring some person legally elected by the people, there is a lawful machinery already provided to meet that contingency and decide the question peacefully. It has not been recently used, no occasion presenting itself, but our forefathers provided it.

"It has been exercised, and has been recognized and submitted to as lawful, on every hand. That machinery would probably elect Mr. Tilden President and Mr. Wheeler Vice-President. That would be right enough, for the law provides that in a failure to elect duly by the people, the House shall immediately elect the President, and the Senate the Vice-President. Some tribunal must decide whether the people have duly elected a President. I presume, of course, that it is in the joint affirmative action of the Senate and House, or why are they present to witness the count if not to see that it is fair and just? If a failure to agree arises between the two bodies there can be no lawful affirmative decision that the people have elected a President, and the House must then proceed to act, not the Senate. The Senate elects Vice-Presidents, not Presidents. Doubtless, in case of a failure by the House to elect a President by the 4th of March the President of the Senate (if there be one) would be the legitimate person to exercise Presidential authority for the time being, or until the appearance of a lawful President, or for the time laid down in the Constitution. Such course would be peaceful, and, I have a firm belief, lawful.

"I have no doubt Governor Hayes would make an excellent President. I have met him, know of him. For a brief period he served under my command, but as the matter stands I can't see any likelihood of his being duly declared elected by the people unless the Senate and House come to be in accord as to the fact; and the House would, of course, not _otherwise_ elect him. What the people want is a peaceful determination of this matter, as fair a determination as possible, and a lawful one. No other administration could stand the test. The country, if not plunged into revolution, would become poorer day by day, business would languish, and our bonds would come home to find a depreciated market.

"I was not in favor of the military action in South Carolina recently, and if Genl. Ruger had telegraphed to me or asked for advice, I would have advised him not under any circumstances to allow himself or his troops to determine who were the lawful members of a State Legislature. I could not have given him better advice than to refer him to the special message of the President in the case of Louisiana some time before.

"But in South Carolina he had had the question settled by a decision of the Supreme Court of the State--the highest tribunal which had acted on the question--so that his line of duty seemed even to be clearer than the action in the Louisiana case. If the Federal court had interfered and overruled the decision of the State court there might have been a doubt certainly, but the Federal court only interfered to complicate, not to decide or overrule.

"Anyhow, it is no business of the army to enter upon such questions, and even if it might be so in any other event, if the civil authority is supreme, as the Constitution declares it to be, the South Carolina case was one in which the army had a plain duty.

"Had General Ruger asked me for advice, and if I had given it, I should, of course, have notified you of my action immediately, so that it could have been promptly overruled if it should have been deemed advisable by you or other superior in authority. General Ruger did not ask for my advice, and I inferred from that and other facts that he did not desire it, or that, being in direct communication with my military superiors at the seat of government, who were nearer to him in time and distance than I was, he deemed it unnecessary. As Genl. Ruger had the ultimate responsibility of action, and had really the greater danger to confront in the final action in the matter, I did not venture to embarrass him by suggestions. He was a department commander and the lawful head of the military administration within the limits of the department; but, besides, I knew that he had been called to Washington for consultation before taking command, and was probably aware of the views of the administration as to civil affairs in his command. I knew that he was in direct communication with my superiors in authority in reference to the delicate subjects presented for his consideration, or had ideas of his own which he believed to be sufficiently in accord with the views of our common superiors to enable him to act intelligently according to his judgment and without suggestions from those not on the spot, and not as fully acquainted with the facts as himself. He desired, too, to be free to act, as he had the eventual greater responsibility, and so the matter was governed as between him and myself.

"As I have been writing thus freely to you, I may still further unbosom myself by stating that I have not thought it lawful or wise to use Federal troops in such matters as have transpired east of the Mississippi within the last few months, save so far as they may be brought into action under the article of the Constitution which contemplated meeting armed resistance or invasion of a State more powerful than the State authorities can subdue by the ordinary processes, and then only when requested by the Legislature, or, if it could not be convened in season, by the Governor; and when the President of the United States intervenes in that manner it is a state of _war_, not peace.

"The army is laboring under disadvantages, and has been used unlawfully at times, in the judgment of the people (in mine, certainly), and we have lost a great deal of the kindly feeling which the community at large once felt for us. 'It is time to stop and unload.'

"Officers in command of troops often find it difficult to act wisely and safely when superiors in authority have different views of the law from theirs, and when legislation has sanctioned action seemingly in conflict with the fundamental law, and thus generally defer to the known judgment of their superiors. Yet the superior officers of the army are so regarded in such great crises, and are held to such responsibility, especially those at or near the head of it, that it is necessary on such momentous occasions to dare to determine for themselves what is lawful and what is not lawful under our system if the military authorities should be invoked, as might possibly be the case, in such exceptional times when there existed such divergent views as to the correct result. The army will suffer from its past action if it has acted wrongfully. Our regular army has little hold upon the affections of the people of to-day, and the superior officers should certainly, as far as lies in their power, legally and with righteous intent, act to defend the right--to us--the _law_ and the institutions we represent. It is a well-meaning Constitution, and it would be well if it should have an opportunity to be recognized as a bulwark in support of the people and _the law_.

"I am, Truly Yours, (Signed) "WINFD. S. HANCOCK.

"_To General W. T. Sherman_, "_Com'd'g Army of the U. S.,
Washington, D. C._"

HON. GEORGE HOADLEY TO THE "EVENING POST," JULY, 1901

(MRS. SPRAGUE AND THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF 1876)

"To the Editor of the 'Evening Post.'

"SIR,--My attention has been called to an article which appeared in the _Evening Post_ of Saturday, June 30, giving an account of the various Democratic national conventions, in the course of which there is, I think, a cruel and untrue attack upon the memory of a lady who had hard luck enough in this world, without being followed into her grave, the late Mrs. Katherine Chase (Sprague). The statement is directly made that a bolt from the decision of the electoral tribunal which counted in Hayes in 1877 had been organized by Mr. Conkling, but that he was deterred from executing it by Mrs. Sprague's interference, based on revenge for Mr. Tilden's opposition to her father's nomination by the Democratic convention in 1868.

"I do not believe there is one word of truth in this story, so far as it relates to Mrs. Sprague. It is perfectly true that Mr. Conkling organized such a bolt, and that he secured the adhesion of Senators enough to have reversed the decision of the electoral tribunal in the matter of the Louisiana electoral vote, and would in this way have made Mr. Tilden President had circumstances not happened to break up the scheme, in consequence of which he went to Baltimore, and was not in the Senate and did not vote on the subject that day.

"I was in Washington at the time, and possessed the confidence of the Democratic leaders, and argued, as you know, the Florida and Oregon cases. My information was, in one sense, second hand. I possessed Mr. Conkling's confidence with regard to the general subject. I knew perfectly what his views were. He did not hesitate to express them fully, even going so far as to state them at length in conversation with myself and my wife and Senator John W. Stevenson, of Kentucky, on the street in front of the Arlington, a few days before the decision of the electoral tribunal. He put the case as it stood in his mind in the most vivid terms. He was a master of vituperative language, as you know, and he did not spare anybody; but more especially he put the matter as a question of law, and with more ability than I have ever heard it done by any one else, but I have not time within the confines of a letter to repeat what he said. Whether Mrs. Sprague was in Washington at this time I do not know.

"The only person on the Democratic side who communicated with Mr. Conkling was Senator William H. Barnum, of Connecticut, chairman of the Democratic National Executive Committee. Mr. Barnum talked to others, as he deemed it discreet, but we all thought it unwise that any one on our side should approach any one on the opposite side of politics, except Senator Barnum. During the afternoon of the day before the final vote was given in the Senate on the Louisiana case, Senator Stevenson, whose daughter was the wife of one of my partners, and who was until he died my very dear and honored friend, communicated to me, as having come to him from Senator Barnum, all the details of what I may call, for brevity's sake, 'this plot' to arrest the high-handed dealings of the Republicans, and I went to bed that night in full confidence that Mr. Tilden would be placed on a legal basis for inauguration to the Presidency in the morning. Eight (or nine) Senators had agreed with each other to cast their votes in the Senate so as to reverse the judgment of the electoral tribunal in the Louisiana case.

"When I came down to breakfast in the morning, William R. Pelton, Gov. Tilden's nephew, told me that 'the fat is all in the fire'; that at two o'clock in the morning _one of the Senators_, whose name, for reasons personal to myself and to him, I do not feel at liberty to use, had come to Senator Conkling and told him that he did not dare to go any further with the enterprise; that his political and perhaps his personal future would be ruined if he did not vote for Hayes. Conkling thereupon made up his mind that the game was lost, and took the earliest train to Baltimore, where he would, as Pelton said, spend the day, and where he did, as I afterwards learned, spend the day. Although I possessed Mr. Conkling's confidence and regard (I have a letter from him somewhere, couched in more earnest terms of gratitude than I ever received from any other human being), I never spoke with him on this subject. My information was derived entirely from Senator Stevenson and William T. Pelton, with the latter of whom I was, as I have already explained I was with the former, on terms of confidence.

"During this period I never heard Mrs. Sprague's name mentioned. I do not know whether she was in Washington or not. I was her father's friend, as you probably know, and I was her friend, and in the matter of the divorce from Gov. Sprague I was (with Winchester Britton, of Brooklyn) her counsel, and procured her divorce. I have had many consultations with both Pelton and his uncle upon various political and personal matters, but never heard this matter alluded to by either of them, or by Mrs. Sprague, and I do not believe that the story has any foundation in truth whatever. She knew perfectly well, for many years before she died, that I was a friend of Gov. Tilden's; that my wife and I both had enjoyed his personal hospitality, and knowing, as she did, my feelings towards her father, and having been her legal agent and representative, as I was, in association with the late Richard T. Merrick, in an attempt, which never came to daylight, to kill Judge Warden's grotesque biography of S. P. Chase, this is the first time I ever heard any interference of hers in the matter of the electoral tribunal even referred to. Mrs. Sprague has left children and friends who mourn over her sad fate and grieve at her death, and, among others,

"GEO. HOADLEY.

"[Judge Hoadley's means of information are certainly
unsurpassed. We accept his statement as conclusive on the point
at issue.--ED. _Evening Post_.]"

It was currently rumored in the clubs, and even found expression in the public prints, that Mrs. Sprague, a daughter of Chief-Justice Chase, was influential in preventing Mr. Conkling from taking a stand in the Senate against the findings and decision of the electoral tribunal in favor of Mr. Hayes. As the report savored of scandal, it was, of course, rapidly circulated and heedlessly credited, though out of respect to all parties interested, the stories slumbered for many years until the means by which Mr. Hayes was inaugurated as President could be more dispassionately discussed than on the eve of the distribution of the patronage of a new administration. Fourteen years after Hayes' inauguration the scandal was revived for partisan purposes in part, and in part, presumably, in the interest of historic justice. A phase of the discussion at that time in the New York _Evening Post_ provoked the foregoing letter from Hon. George Hoadley, ex-Governor of Ohio, which probably gives the most authentic information the country can ever expect to have of the mysterious and vacillating conduct of Mr. Conkling. My attention was called to it by the Hon. Smith Ely, formerly Mayor of New York, to whom I sent the following acknowledgment:

JOHN BIGELOW TO HON. SMITH ELY

"HIGHLAND-FALLS-ON-HUDSON, _June 19, 1904_.

"MY DEAR MR. ELY,--I am extremely obliged to you for the clipping you sent me from the _Evening Post_. Though familiar with rumors of that nature, it is the first statement with any semblance of authenticity I have met with of the reasons why Conkling did not keep faith with our friends. I am not sure that Conkling himself did not weaken at the pinch as much as the recalcitrant Senator. Had he stood up on that occasion, as he should have done, he would have established for himself a reputation for virtues which no biographer can now claim for him.

"I do not remember the name of the Senator alluded to, because I never knew the fact. Was it Kernan?

"Yours truly.

"P. S.--Cannot you give us a candidate for the Presidency without making prostitutes of the judiciary?[18] When we made judges elective we went as far in that direction as was safe, and farther than was prudent. It was a perversion of the representative system when we submitted the choice of experts, like judges and district attorneys, to the popular vote. If we encourage judges to aspire to the Presidency the suitors for justice will have to take their check-books to court, and their cases will be argued, as they are said to be, before Turkish cadis.

"Yours Truly,
"JOHN BIGELOW."

[18] At the date of this note a judge of the Court of Appeals of
the State of New York had been nominated and was running for the
Presidency.

* * * * *

About the middle of January, 1877, and before the Electoral Commission had given its decision, I received a telegram from Washington that a friend of the Honorable S. S. Cox, then a representative in Congress from New York city, wished to confer with me in reference to the Presidential contest pending in Washington. Cox's friend proved to be Mr. Corbin, a brother-in-law of President Grant. I replied to my correspondent that he might arrange for an interview with me anywhere in New York city except in Mr. Corbin's house, Corbin at that time having a residence in New York city.

It was arranged that we should meet at the Westminster Hotel, about noon, on the 27th of January. I had known something of Corbin through my relations with Colonel Benton many years before, and had become slightly acquainted with him. What I did know of him disinclined me to give him my confidence. I had no idea of the motive which led him to invite this interview. He had intimated to Mr. Cox that he would talk with me, but with no other of Mr. Tilden's friends. The grounds for his taking me into his confidence exclusively was equally unintelligible, beyond the fact that we had been political friends of long standing as common friends of Senator Thomas Benton, of Missouri.

He opened the interview by giving at considerable length what he regarded as evidence of Senator Sherman's expectation that his brother the general would have been nominated at Cincinnati in 1876 instead of President Hayes, and of the intrigues already making for the general's nomination of 1880. At length he proceeded to speak for and in the name of his brother-in-law, the President. He said Grant wished to retire with grace and honorably from his office, and had no special interest in the success of either of the candidates whose fate was depending upon the action of the Electoral Commission. He said that for himself he preferred Tilden forty times to Hayes, and that all the ladies of Grant's family were champions of Tilden. He wound up by saying that if he could be useful in letting the President's views be known to Governor Tilden, when they might serve a useful purpose, he would be glad to do so, and that that was the special purpose of his inviting this interview.

I said to him that in a contingency not difficult to imagine there might be two persons claiming a title to the White House on the 4th of March, one by the choice of the Senate, another by the choice of the House of Representatives, and that it would interest Governor Tilden very much to know whether General Grant would think it his duty to solve that problem with the sword, or leave it to the solution of time and events. Corbin replied that he would tell me what must not go beyond me and Governor Tilden. Some time ago, he said, Grant sent a number of boxes to his house at Elizabeth for safe-keeping, and in stating his intention to do so, he observed that as the inauguration would occur on Sunday at 12 M. he proposed to vacate the White House Saturday night; whoever, therefore, said Corbin, gets into it first will have a very substantial advantage. The President might perhaps stay in until the following day if sufficient reason were shown for so doing. But, said I, suppose our candidate gets the White House and the other gets the Capitol, what then? Corbin paused a little, and then said: "The keeper of the Capitol is under the control of the Commissioner of Public Buildings. The Commissioner of Public Buildings is an engineer officer, under the orders of Chief-Engineer Humphreys. The present Commissioner of Public Buildings is Babcock; like St. Paul, he is generally believed to have an eye 'to the recompense of reward.' Then, those Irish doorkeepers may be worth looking to." Such was the substance of an interview which occupied about two hours.

What may have prompted Corbin to take the trouble to come all the way from Washington to give me this hint, beyond a desire to give himself importance in the eyes of Mr. Tilden, and how far President Grant countenanced his mission, if he knew anything about it, are questions which I never troubled myself to solve. There is no doubt that President Grant thought Tilden had been elected, and found no satisfaction in the prospect of having Hayes for his successor; but if he had wished to convey to Mr. Tilden any intimation that he would find the White House vacant and ready for his occupation on the night of the 3d of March, I find it difficult to believe that he would have selected Corbin for his emissary. However that may be, neither Mr. Tilden nor myself thought his communication worthy of serious consideration.

On the second day of March the House of Representatives, by a vote of 137 to 88, adopted the preamble and resolutions which follow, declaring that Samuel J. Tilden had been duly elected President, and Thomas A. Hendricks duly elected Vice-President of the United States. If these 137 votes in favor of Tilden and Hendricks represented the requisite constitutional number of States in the Union, it is not easy to see what more was necessary to make the one President and the other Vice-President two days later than simply to take the oaths of office prescribed by the Constitution.

RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DECLARING TILDEN THE PRESIDENT ELECTED

The following is the text of the declaration of the House of Representatives that Samuel J. Tilden has been duly elected President of the United States, and Thos. A. Hendricks Vice-President of the United States:

"WHEREAS, It is not disputed that the electoral votes
of the following-named States, to wit., Alabama, Arkansas,
Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland,
Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia, amounting in all
to 184, were in conformity to the Constitution and laws of the
United States cast for Samuel J. Tilden, of the State of New
York, for President, and for Thos. A. Hendricks, of the State
of Indiana, for Vice-President of the United States, by legally
qualified electors appointed by said States, and severally in
the manner directed by the Legislatures of said States, lists of
which said votes were duly signed, certified, and transmitted
sealed by said electors respectively to the seat of government,
directed to the president of the Senate and by him opened in the
presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, as required
by the Constitution of the United States; and

"WHEREAS, The evidence taken and reported to this
House in pursuance of the orders thereof, shows conclusively
that on the 7th day of November, in the year of our Lord 1876,
the following-named persons, to wit., Wilkinson Call, J. E.
Yonge, R. B. Hilton, and Robt. Bullock, each of whom was in
all respects legally eligible and qualified to be appointed
elector for President and Vice-President of the United States,
were duly appointed electors by the State of Florida, in the
manner directed by the Legislature of said State; and, whereas,
the said Wilkinson Call, J. E. Yonge, R. B. Hilton, and Robert
Bullock, after having been so appointed electors for President
and Vice-President of the United States by said State of
Florida, in the manner directed by the Legislature thereof,
did, on the 6th day of December, in the year of our Lord 1876,
meet in the city of Tallahassee, in the said State of Florida,
that being the time and place fixed by the Constitution and
laws of the United States, and of the State of Florida, at
which the electors appointed by said State should meet; and
having so met, as the electors duly appointed by the State of
Florida as aforesaid, did then and there, in pursuance of the
Constitution and laws of the United States, cast by ballot
four votes for Samuel J. Tilden, of the State of New York, for
President of the United States, and in like manner cast four
votes for said Thomas A. Hendricks, of the State of Indiana,
for Vice-President of the United States, naming in separate and
distinct ballots the person voted for by them for President
and the person voted for by them for Vice-President, and then
and there made distinct lists of the persons voted for by them
for President and Vice-President of the United States, and of
the number of votes cast for each, which lists were by said
electors signed, certified, and transmitted by them sealed to
the seat of government, directed to the president of the Senate,
and by him opened in the presence of the Senate and House of
Representatives, as required by the Constitution of the United
States; and

"WHEREAS, The evidence taken and reported to this
House, in pursuance of the order thereof, conclusively shows
that on the 7th day of November, in the year of our Lord 1876,
the following-named persons, to wit., John McEnery, R. C.
Wickliffe, L. St. Martin, E. P. Poche, A. De Blanc, W. Seay, R.
G. Cobb, K. A. Cross, each of whom was in all respects legally
eligible and qualified to be appointed electors for President
and Vice-President of the United States, were duly appointed
electors by the State of Louisiana, in the manner provided by
the Legislature of said State; and

"WHEREAS, The said John McEnery, R. C. Wickliffe,
L. St. Martin, E. P. Poche, A. De Blanc, W. A. Seay, R. G.
Cobb, K. A. Cross, after having been so appointed electors for
President and Vice-President of the United States for the State
of Louisiana, in the manner directed by the Legislature thereof,
did, on the 6th day of December, in the year of our Lord 1876,
meet in the city of New Orleans, in the said State of Louisiana,
it being the time and place fixed by the Constitution and laws
of the United States, and of the said State of Louisiana, at
which the electors appointed by the said State should meet,
and having so met, did, then and there, as the electors duly
appointed for the State of Louisiana, as aforesaid, in pursuance
of the laws and Constitution of the United States, cast by
ballot eight votes for Samuel J. Tilden, of New York, for
President of the United States, and in like manner cast eight
votes for Thomas A. Hendricks, of the State of Indiana, for
Vice-President of the United States, naming in separate and
distinct ballots the persons voted for by them for President,
and the person voted for by them for Vice-President of the
United States, and then and there made distinct lists of the
persons voted for by them for President and Vice-President of
the United States, and the number of votes cast for each, which
lists were by said electors signed, certified, and transmitted
by said electors sealed to the seat of government, directed to
the president of the Senate, and by him opened in the presence
of the Senate and House of Representatives, as required by the
Constitution of the United States; and

"WHEREAS, The evidence taken and reported to the House
in pursuance of the orders thereof, shows conclusively that
certain persons who pretended to have been appointed electors
by the State of Florida, and who pretended as such to cast four
votes for Rutherford B. Hayes, of Ohio, for President of the
United States, and four votes for William A. Wheeler, of New
York, for Vice-President of the United States, to wit., F. C.
Humphreys, C. H. Pearce, W. H. Holden, and T. W. Long, who were
not appointed by the State of Florida, but were falsely and
fraudulently declared elected, when in truth they had each and
every one of them been defeated by a clear majority, as was well
known by the then Governor of Florida and the other canvassing
officers of that State, who falsely and fraudulently made such
declaration; and