The Cabinet of Mr. Monroe contained at that time three able men, each ambitious for the Presidency--John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State; William H. Crawford, Secretary of the Treasury; John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War. As there was much opposition to the four-year law, the friends of Mr. Calhoun and of Mr. Adams united in imputing its authorship to Mr. Crawford, whose Department included far the largest share of Executive patronage. The accusation was openly made that Mr. Crawford intended to use the offices of the Treasury Department to promote his political fortunes; and the friends of Mr. Calhoun and of Mr. Adams, seeing that their chiefs had no corresponding number of offices to dispose of, found their resource in virtuous denunciation of the selfish schemes projected by Mr. Crawford. But there appears to have been no substantial ground for the imputation--the official registers of the United States showing that between the date of the Act and the year 1824 (when Mr. Crawford's candidacy was expected to ripen) only such changes were made in the offices of the Treasury Department as might well have been deemed necessary from causes of age and infirmity already referred to. Besides, Mr. Crawford during all this period was in ill-health, with ambition chastened, and strength constantly waning.

President John Quincy Adams, following Mr. Monroe, maintained the conservative habit already established as to removals,--depriving very few officers of their commissions during the four years of his term, and those only for adequate cause. With the inauguration of General Jackson in 1829, and the appointment of Mr. Van Buren as Secretary of State, the practice of the Government was reversed, and the system of partisan appointments and removals, familiar to the present generation, was formally adopted. It became an avowed political force in those States where the patronage of the Government was large. It had no doubt a special and potential influence in the political affairs of New York where the system had its chief inspiration, where the "science" of carrying elections was first devised and has since been continuously improved. The system of partisan removals was resisted by Mr. Clay, Mr. Calhoun, Mr. Webster, and all the opponents of the Democratic party as then organized; but it steadily grew, and became the recognized rule under the well-known maxim proclaimed by Mr.

Marcy in the Senate of the United States in 1832: "_To the victors belong the spoils_." In two years President Jackson had made ten times as many removals as all his predecessors had made in forty years.

When the Whigs came into power by the election of 1840, President Harrison discussed the question of patronage and its abuse, not merely as tending to strengthen one political party against the other, but as building up the power of the Executive against the Legislative Department. Nevertheless with all the denunciations of the leaders and the avowals of the new President, it is not to be denied that the Whigs as a party desired the dismissal of the office-holders appointed by Jackson and Van Buren. From that time onward, although there was much condemnation of the evil practice of removing good officers for opinion's sake, each party as it came into power practiced it; and prior to 1860 no movement was made with the distinct purpose of changing this feature off the civil service.

The Administration of Mr. Lincoln was prevented by the public exigencies from giving attention to any other measures than those necessary for the preservation of the Union, and during the war no change was made or suggested as to the manner of appointment or removal. The first step towards it was announced in Congress on the 20th day of December, 1865, when Mr. Thomas A. Jenckes of Rhode Island introduced a bill in the House "to regulate the civil service of the United States." A few months later, in the same session, B. Gratz Brown, then a senator from Missouri, submitted a resolution for "such change in the civil service as shall secure appointments to the same after previous examination by proper Boards, and as shall provide for promotions on the score to merit or seniority." While he remained in Congress Mr. Jenckes annually renewed his proposition for the regulation of the civil service, but never secured the enactment of any measure looking thereto.

Neither of the two great political parties recognized the subject as important enough to be incorporated in their platforms, until 1872, when the National convention of the Republican party declared that "any system of the civil service under which the subordinate positions of the Government are considered rewards for mere party zeal is fatally demoralizing, and we therefore demand a reform of the system by laws which shall abolish the evils of patronage and make honesty, efficiency, and fidelity essential qualifications for public positions, without practically creating a life tenure of office." Thenceforward the subject found a place in the creed of the party. But even prior to this declaration of a political convention, Congress had on the 3d of March, 1871, appended a section to an appropriation bill, authorizing the President "to prescribe such regulations for the admission of persons into the civil service of the United States as may best promote efficiency therein and ascertain the fitness of each candidate in respect to age, health, character, knowledge, and ability for the branch of service in which he seeks to enter; and for this purpose he may employ suitable persons to conduct such inquiries, prescribe their duties, and establish regulations for the conduct of persons who may receive appointments in the civil service."

Under this authority President Grant organized a Commission composed of Messrs. George William Curtis, Joseph H. Blackfan, and David C. c.o.x.

But the Commissioners soon found that Congress was indisposed to clothe them with the requisite power, and that public opinion did not yet demand the reform. Their good intentions were therefore frustrated and the Commission was unable to move forward to practical results. When President Hayes came into power he sought to make reform in the Civil Service by directing compet.i.tive examinations for certain positions, and by forbidding the active partic.i.p.ation of office-holders in political campaigns. The defect of this course was that it rested upon an Executive order, and did not have the permanency of law. The next President might or might not continue the reform, and all that was gained in the four years could at once be abandoned.

The settled judgment of discreet men in both political parties is adverse to the custom of changing non-political officers on merely political grounds. They believe that it impairs the efficiency of the public service, lowers the standard of political contests, and brings reproach upon the Government and the people. So decided is this opinion among the great majority of Republicans and among a very considerable number of Democrats, that the former method of appointment will always meet with protest and cannot be permanently re-established.

The inauguration of a new system is hindered somewhat by an honest difference of opinion touching the best methods of selecting subordinate officers. Compet.i.tive examination is the methods most warmly advocated, and on its face appears the fairest; yet every observing man knows that it does not always secure the results most to be desired. Nothing is vouched for more frequently by chiefs of Government bureaus, than that certain clerks who upon compet.i.tive examination would stand at the head do in point of efficiency and usefulness stand at the foot.

Another point of difference is in regard to the power of instant removal, many of the most p.r.o.nounced reformers of the civil service holding that power to be essential, and believing that it will not be abused so long as the removing power cannot arbitrarily appoint the successor. The matured opinion of others is that a tenure of office definitely fixed for a term of years, during which the inc.u.mbent cannot be disturbed except upon substantial written charges, will secure a better cla.s.s of officials. They hold that a subordinate officer is stripped of his manhood by the consciousness that he may at any moment be removed at the whim or caprice of some one superior in station. It too often brings sycophants into the Government Departments, and excludes men of pride and character. On the question of a life tenure there is a similar division of opinion, which logically follows the two positions just stated. A life tenure cannot be adopted as a rule, unless pensions for a civil list shall follow.

There is also a belief with many who are most anxious to improve the civil service, that the political influence of Government patronage, as applied to the whole country, has been constantly misunderstood and therefore exaggerated. At certain places where the customs and postal services are large the appointing power can no doubt wield great influence. New-York City is the strongest ill.u.s.tration of this; and in less degree a similar influence is recognized at all the large cities of the country, especially the cities of the seaboard. But even at those points the political influence of the Federal patronage is far less than that of the munic.i.p.al patronage. During the many years that the patronage, both of National and State governments, has been in the hands of the Republicans in New York, the munic.i.p.al patronage, steadily wielded by the Democrats, has been far more potential in controlling elections. And throughout the United States to-day the patronage controlled by munic.i.p.al governments largely outweighs in the aggregate that of the General and State Governments at all points where they come into conflict.

Towards the close of President Hayes' Administration the total number of men connected with the Postal service of the United States was about 64,000. Excluding mail contractors and mail messengers (whose service is allotted to the lowest bidder), the number subject to political influence was nearly 49,000. Of these, 5,400 had salaries under $10 per annum each; 19,400 others had salaries under $100 per annum each; 11,500 others had salaries under $500 per annum each; 8,100 others had salaries under $1,000 per annum each; 3,300 other had salaries under $1,600 per annum each; 700 other had salaries under $2,000 per annum each; 400 others had salaries under $3,000 per annum each; 84 had salaries under $4,000 per annum each. Only 14 had salaries of $4,000, and 2 (the Postmaster-General and the postmaster at New York) had $8,000 per annum each. In a majority of the Congressional districts of the United States there is scarcely any patronage known except that of postmasters; and when more than one-half of the total number of Postmasters have salaries under $100 per annum each, the political influence derived therefrom cannot be great.

The remaining officers of the United States were at the same period about 21,000 in number. The ma.s.s of these were in the Customs and Internal Revenue, and in the various Executive Departments at Washington. They had a larger average of salary than those engaged in the Postal Service. But one-half of the whole number had less than $1,000 per annum each, and less than one-third had salaries in excess of $2,000 per annum. Large salaries under the Federal Government are extremely few in number. Excluding the Federal Judiciary, whose members are appointed for life, and excluding senators and representatives, who are elected in their respective States, there are not more than one hundred and fifty officials under the National Government whose respective salaries equal or exceed $5,000 per annum.

The emolument cannot be regarded as large in a country that opens so many avenues to fortune, and the places of this highest grade cannot be regarded as numerous when (in 1879-81) there were not more than three of them to every million inhabitants of the Republic.

While these figures demonstrate that the civil service of the United States is moderately paid, they also demonstrate that it can be more easily modified than if the emoluments were greater. A correct apprehension of an evil is the first step towards its remedy, and it is a serious mistake to apply to the interior States and the rural districts the imputations and accusations which justly lie against the service where of necessity a large number of officers are brought together. If lack of zeal is found in many sections of the country on this subject, it is because the people are never brought in contact with the evils, the abuses, and the corruptions which are well known to exist at points where the patronage is large, and where consequently many citizens are struggling for place.

No reform in the civil service will be valuable that does not release members of Congress from the care and the embarra.s.sment of appointments; and no boon so great could be conferred upon senators and representatives as to relive them from the worry, the annoyance, and the responsibility which time and habit have fixed upon them in connection with the dispensing of patronage, all of which belong under the Const.i.tution to the Executive. On the other hand the evil of which President Harrison spoke--the employment of the patronage by the Executive to influence legislation--is far the greatest abuse to which the civil service has ever been perverted. To separate the two great Departments of the Government, to keep each within its own sphere, will be an immeasurable advantage and will enhance the character and dignity of both. A non-political service will be secured when Congress shall be left to its legitimate functions, when the President shall not interfere therewith by the use of patronage, and when the responsibility of appointments shall rest solely with the Department to which the Organic Law of the Republic a.s.signs it.

The rapid settlement of California, stimulated as it was by the discovery of gold, attracted a considerable immigration from China.

Industrious and patient laborers, the Chinese were found useful to the pioneers; and they received for their work a degree of compensation many fold greater than they had ever realized in their native land, yet far below the average wages of an American laborer. The treaty relations between China and the United States, negotiated originally by Caleb Cushing in 1844 and afterwards by William B. Reed in 1858, did not contemplate the immigration into either country of citizens or subjects of the other. But in 1868 the treaty negotiated by Mr.

Seward as Secretary of State and Mr. Burlingame, acting as Minister Plenipotentiary for China, recognized the right of the citizens of either country to visit or reside in the other, specially excluding in both, however, the right of naturalization.

Upon Mr. Seward's urgent request the following stipulation was inserted in the Fifth Article of the Treaty: "_The high contracting parties join in reprobating any other than an entirely voluntary emigration_.

. . . They consequently agree to pa.s.s laws making it a penal offense for citizens of the United States or Chinese subjects to take Chinese subjects either to the United States or to any foreign country, or for a Chinese subject or citizen of the United States to take citizens of the United States to China or to any foreign country _without their free and voluntary consent respectively_."

The treaty was negotiated in Washington on the 28th of July, 1868, but the ratifications were not exchanged until November, 1869. Fear of the evils that might result from it followed so closely upon its conclusion that General Grant, in his first annual message (December, 1869), gave this warning: "I advise such legislation as will forever preclude the enslavement of Chinese upon our soil under the name of coolies, and also to prevent American vessels from engaging in the transportation of coolies to any country tolerating the system." In his message of December, 1874, the President recurred to the subject, informing Congress that "the great proportion of the Chinese emigrants who come to our sh.o.r.es _do not come voluntarily_ to make their homes with us or to make their labor productive of general prosperity, but _come under contracts_ with head men who own them almost absolutely. _In a still worse form does this apply to Chinese women_. Hardily a perceptible percentage of them perform any honorable labor, but they are brought here for shameful purposes, to the disgrace of the communities where they are settled and to the great demoralization of the youth of those localities. If this evil practice can be legislated against, it will be my pleasure as well as duty to enforce and regulation to secure so desirable an end." In his message of December, 1875, he again invited the attention of Congress to "the evil arising from the importation of Chinese women, but few of whom are brought to our sh.o.r.es to pursue honorable or useful occupations."

These repeated communications to Congress by the President were based upon accurate information furnished from California, where the condition of Chinese immigrants had created grave solicitude in the minds of leading citizens. So serious, indeed, had it become in the view of the people of California, that the Legislature of that State, in January, 1876, memorialized Congress in favor of a modification of the treaty with China, for the purpose of averting the grave evils threatened from immigration--carried on against the letter and spirit of the treaty. Before appealing to Congress California had attempted the accomplishment of this end through laws of her own; but the Supreme Court of the United States had decided that the subject was one within the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, and hence the State could do nothing to protect itself against what a large majority of its citizens regarded as a great danger. On the 20th of April, 1876, Mr.

Sargent of California submitted a resolution, asking the Senate to "recommend to the President to cause negotiations to be entered upon with the Chinese Government to effect such change in the existing treaty between the United States and China as will lawfully permit the application of restrictions upon the great influx of Chinese subjects to this country." A few days later Mr. Sargent addressed the Senate at length on the whole subject of Chinese immigration in California, and presented in full detail the grievances of which the people on the Pacific Coast complained.

The Senate, reluctant to take at once so decisive a step as was involved in Mr. Sargent's resolution, adopted a subst.i.tute, moved by Mr. Morton of Indiana, directing that "a committee of three senators be appointed to investigate the character, extent, and effect of Chinese immigration to this country." It was afterwards enlarged by being changed into a joint committee with the addition of two members from the House. Mr. Morton of Indiana, Mr. Sargent of California, and Mr. Cooper of Tennessee were the senatorial members; Mr. Piper of California and Mr. Meade of New York were the Representatives on the joint committee. The Committee made a thorough examination of the question, visiting California and devoting a large part of the Congressional recess to the duty. Their report embraced a vast amount of information touching the Chinese immigrants in California, their religion, their superst.i.tions, their habits, their relations to the industrial questions, to trade and to commerce. A large number of the reports were printed but nothing further was done for the session.

In the succeeding Congress, the first under President Hayes, the subject was kept alive in both branches, in the first and second sessions, by the introduction of bills and resolutions; but no conclusions were reached until the last session. Early in December (1878) a bill was introduced by Mr. Wren of Nevada, "to restrict the immigration of Chinese into the United States," and was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. It was reported to the House by Mr. Willis of Kentucky on the 14th of January, and on the 28th, after brief debate (maintained in the affirmative by the California members and in the negative princ.i.p.ally by Mr. Dwight Townsend of New York), the bill was pa.s.sed by _ayes_ 156, _noes_ 72, considerably more than two-thirds voting in the affirmative.

The bill called forth prolonged debate in the Senate. The senators from California (Mr. Booth and Mr. Sargent), Mr. Thurman, Mr. Mitch.e.l.l of Oregon, and Mr. Blaine, took the leading part in favor of the bill; while Mr. Hamlin, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Mr.

Conkling, Mr. h.o.a.r, and Mr. Stanley Matthews, led in opposition. The bill pa.s.sed the Senate by _ayes_ 39, _noes_ 27. The princ.i.p.al feature of the measure was the prohibiting of any vessel from bringing more than fifteen Chinese pa.s.sengers to any port of the United States, unless the vessel should be driven to seek a harbor from stress of weather. The bill further required the President to give notice to the Emperor of China of the abrogation of Articles V.

and VI. of the Burlingame treaty of 1868. A large portion of the debate was devoted to this feature of the bill,--the contention on one side being that fair notice, with an opportunity for negotiation, should be given to the Chinese Government, and on the other, that as the treaty itself contained no provision for its amendment or termination, it left the aggrieved party thereto its own choice of the mode of procedure.

The argument against permitting Mongolian immigration to continue rested upon facts that were indisputable. The Chinese had been steadily arriving in California for more than a quarter of a century, and they had not in the least degree become a component part of the body politic. On the contrary, they were as far from any a.s.similation with the people at the end of that long period as they were on the first day they appeared on the Pacific Coast. They did not come with the intention of remaining. They sought no permanent abiding-place.

They did not wish to own the soil. They built no houses. They adhered to all their peculiar customs of dress and manner and religious rite, took no cognizance of the life and growth of the United States, and felt themselves to be strangers and sojourners in a country which they wished to leave as soon as they could acquire the pitiful sum necessary for the needs of old age in their native land. They were simply a changing, ever renewing, foreign element in an American State.

They were ready to work at a rate of wages upon which a white man could not subsist and support a family. Theirs was in all its aspects a servile labor,--one which would inevitably degrade every workman subjected to its compet.i.tion. To encourage or even to permit such an immigration, would be to dedicate the rich Pacific slope to them alone and to their employers--in short, to create a worse evil in the remote West than that which led to b.l.o.o.d.y war in the South. The number at home was great. The cost of landing a Chinaman at San Francisco was less than the cost of carrying a white man from New York to the same port. The question stripped of all disguises and exaggerations on both sides, was simply whether the labor element of the vast territory on the Pacific should be Mongolian or American. Patriotic instinct, the American sentiment dominant on the borders and outposts of the Republic, all demanded that the Pacific coast should be preserved as a field for the American laborer.

President Hayes vetoed the bill rather upon the ground of the abrogation of a treaty without notice, than upon any discussion as to the effects of Chinese labor. He did not doubt that the legislation of Congress would effectually supersede the terms of the treaty, but he saw no need for a summary disturbance of our relations with China.

Upon the communication of the veto to the House a vote was taken thereon without debate; and upon the question of pa.s.sing the bill despite the objections of the President, the _ayes_ were 110, the _noes_ 96. A considerable number of gentlemen who voted for the bill on its pa.s.sage had meanwhile changed their views, and they now voted to sustain the veto. Among the most conspicuous of these were Mr.

Aldrich of Rhode Island, Mr. Abram S. Hewitt of New York, Mr. Blair of New Hampshire, Mr. Landers of Indiana, and Mr. Townsend of Ohio.

Finding his veto sustained by Congress, President Hayes opened negotiations with the Chinese Empire for a modification of the treaty.

To that end he dispatched three commissioners to China, gentlemen of the highest intelligence, adapted in every way to the important duties entrusted to them,--James B. Angell, President of Michigan University, also appointed Minister Plenipotentiary to China, John F. Swift of California, and William Henry Trescot of South Carolina. They negotiated two treaties: one relating to the introduction of Chinese into the United States, and one relating to general commercial relations. Both treaties were ratified by the Senate, and laws restricting the immigration of Chinese were subsequently enacted.

Some of the objections to the importation of Chinese on the Pacific coast apply to certain types of laborers that have been introduced in the Atlantic States from Hungary and other European countries. Where the labor is contracted for in Europe at a low price and brought to the United States to produce fabrics that are protected by customs duties, a grave injustice is done to the American laborer, and an illegitimate advantage is sought by the manufacturer. Protective duties should help both labor and capital, and the capitalist who is not willing to share the advantage with the laborer is doing much to break down the protective system. That system would indeed receive a fatal blow if it should be demonstrated that it does not secure to the American laborer a better remuneration than the same amount of toil brings in Europe. Happily the cases of abuse referred to are few in number and have perhaps proved beneficial in the lesson they have taught and the warning they have evoked. The allegation that the exclusion of the Chinese is inhuman and unchristian need not be considered in presence of the fact that their admission to the country already provokes conflicts which the laws are unable to restrain. The bitterest of all antagonisms are those which spring from race. Such antagonisms can be prevented by wise foresight more easily than they can be cured after their development is either intentionally or carelessly permitted.

President Johnson made no appointments to the Supreme Bench during his Administration. In 1870 President Grant appointed William Strong of Pennsylvania and Joseph P. Bradley of New Jersey a.s.sociate Justices.

The former was an addition to the court; the latter succeeded Robert C. Grier. In 1872 he appointed Ward Hunt of New York to succeed Samuel Nelson. In 1873 he appointed Morrison R. Waite Chief Justice to succeed Salmon P. Chase, who died in May of that year. In 1877 President Hayes appointed John M. Harlan of Kentucky to succeed David Davis, and in 1880 William Woods of Georgia to succeed William Strong (retired). President Hayes nominated Stanley Matthews to succeed Noah Swayne, but the Senate not acting on the nomination, it was renewed by President Garfield, and Mr. Matthews was confirmed in 1881.

CHAPTER XXIX.

During the latter years of General Grant's Presidency there had been some suggestion of his election for a third term. The proposition, however, did not meet with favor. Several State Conventions pa.s.sed resolutions declaring as a matter of principle that two terms should be the limit for any President. General Grant himself discountenanced the movement and eventually ended it for the canva.s.s of 1876 by writing a public letter announcing that he was not and would not be a candidate.

As the election of 1880 approached, the project was revived with every evidence of a more deliberate design and a more determined and persistent effort on the part of its chief promoters. General Grant had just finished a memorable tour around the world, and had everywhere been received with signal tributes of respect and admiration from the rulers and people of foreign lands. The honors of all countries had stimulated the pride of his own country. He returned to the Pacific sh.o.r.e and traversed the whole continent with the welcome and acclaim of the people whom he had so greatly served in war and peace. In the flush of this popular enthusiasm some of the foremost men of the Republican party united in a movement to make General Grant the Republican candidate for President. A combination which included Senators Conkling, Cameron and Logan, with their dominant personal influence and political force, and which aimed at the consolidation of the three great States of New York, Pennsylvania and Illinois, presented a formidable front.

The leaders of the movement had to a certain extent misapprehended public opinion. With all the respect and affection for the ill.u.s.trious commander of the Union armies, there was a deep and earnest feeling against a third term. This sentiment was not personal to General Grant. The contentions which had marked his Presidential career had died away. The errors charged against him had been well-nigh forgotten, and the real merits and achievements of his Administration were better appreciated than at an earlier period. His absence from the country for three years had softened whatever asperities had grown out of political of factional differences, and had quickened anew the grateful sense of his inestimable services in the war. There was no fear that General Grant would abuse a trust, however frequently or however long he might be invested with it. But the limit of two terms had become an unwritten part of the code of the Republic, and the people felt that to disregard the principle might entail dangers which they would not care to risk. They believed that the example of Washington if now reinforced by the example of Grant would determine the question for the future, and a.s.sure a regular and orderly change of rulers, which is the strongest guarantee against the approach of tyranny.

While it was altogether probable that the feeling among the people against a third term would be stimulated by other aspirants to the Presidency, it was altogether impossible that they could cause the feeling. The interesting question at issue was whether the precedents of the Government should be discredited. The National Convention was to meet in June, but as early as February State Conventions were called in Pennsylvania and New York to choose delegates, with the intention of securing unanimity in favor of General Grant's nomination. The rights of Congressional districts to select their own delegates had been indirectly affirmed in the National Convention of 1876, when the Unit Rule was overridden and the right of each individual delegate to cast his own vote was established. But against this authoritative monition the design now was to have the States vote as a unit, and accordingly the Conventions in both the great States adopted instructions to that effect. The opposition to this course was very strong, the resolutions being carried in Pennsylvania by a majority of only twenty, while in New York, in a total vote of three hundred and ninety-seven, the majority was but thirty-eight. The delegations of both States included men who were known to be opposed to General Grant's nomination and who represented districts avowedly in accord with that view, but it was hoped by the leaders that the a.s.sumption of the State Conventions to pa.s.s instructions might control individual judgment.

The action of the Pennsylvania and New York Conventions increased the public agitation. A strong conviction that their proceedings had been precipitated and did not reflect the true judgment of the Republican ma.s.ses was rapidly developed in both States. In New York the _Tribune_, the _Albany Journal_, the _Utica Herald_ and other influential papers led an earnest protest and opposition. In Pennsylvania the _Philadelphia Press_, through the zeal of its chief proprietor, Mr. Calvin Wells, a leading iron-manufacturer of Pittsburg, seconded by other strong journals, gave voice to the decided and growing public feeling against acquiescing in any attempt to prevent a perfectly free representation. In the North-West the _Chicago Tribune_, and in the middle West the _Cincinnati Commercial_, not only resisted the mode of electing delegates in the large States but directly and vigorously a.s.sailed the policy of presenting General Grant for a third term. In the midst of this popular discussion came explicit declarations from individual delegates in both States that they would not be bound by any unit rule and should represent the will of their immediate const.i.tuencies. William H. Roberson was the first in New York to make public announcement of this purpose, and James McManes of Philadelphia led the movement in Pennsylvania. The opposition spread to other States that had not yet held their conventions, in many of which the prevailing methods of party action permitted more freedom.

One of the last States to act was Illinois, and her Convention became the arena of a stormy contest. The majority in that body a.s.sumed authority to elect all the National delegates without regard to the voice or vote of Congressional districts; and after a long and stubborn struggle it named a complete delegation, overriding in nine of the districts the duly accredited choice of a clear majority of the undisputed local representatives in each district. This proceeding was justified on the one hand as only the exercise of the supreme power of the State Convention, and condemned on the other as trampling on the right of district representation; and thus the issue in its most distinct form was brought before the National Tribunal for settlement.

A large concourse of delegates and other active Republicans gathered in Chicago in advance of the time appointed for the National Convention.

The a.s.semblage is memorable in political annals for its large number of able men, for its brilliant displays of oratory, for its long duration, and for its arduous struggle. From the United States Senate came Mr.

Conkling, General Logan, George F. h.o.a.r, J. Donald Cameron, Preston B.

Plumb, William Pitt Kellogg, and Blanche K. Bruce. Of the men soon to enter the Senate were Benjamin H. Harrison of Indiana, Eugene Hale and William P. Frye of Maine, William J. Sewall of New Jersey, Omar D.

Conger of Michigan, Dwight M. Sabin of Minnesota, and Philetus Sawyer of Wisconsin. General Garfield, who already held his commission as senator-elect, led the Ohio delegation, with Governor Foster and Ex-Governor Dennison among his colleagues. Five of General Grant's Cabinet Ministers were on the roll of the Convention,--Mr. Boutwell of Ma.s.sachusetts, Mr. Creswell of Maryland, Mr. George H. Williams of Oregon, Mr. Edwards Pierrepont of New York, and Mr. Cameron (already named with the senators). Among other delegates of distinction were Chester A. Arthur of New York, Henry C. Robinson of Connecticut, Governor Martin of Kansas, General Beaver and Colonel Quay of Pennsylvania, William Walter Phelps of New Jersey, William E. Chandler of New Hampshire, Emory A. Storrs of Illinois, Governor Warmoth of Louisiana, Governor Henderson and J. S. Clarkson of Iowa, President Seelye and Henry Cabot Lodge of Ma.s.sachusetts. Probably no other Convention since that which nominated Mr. Clay in 1844 has contained a larger number of eminent public men.

The two men who from the first especially attracted observation were Mr. Conkling and General Garfield. By intellectual force, by ardent zeal and earnest advocacy, and by common recognition, Mr. Conkling was the master spirit and became the acknowledged leader of those who desired the nomination of General Grant. General Garfield bore little part in the management, and was not there to represent the main body of those who opposed General Grant's candidacy. But the anti-Grant delegates, though divided as to candidates, naturally made common cause, and in the parliamentary contests of the Convention the personal and intellectual ascendency of General Garfield made him, though in a less active and aggressive sense, the recognized leader of the opposition. Around the two chiefs cl.u.s.tered the loyalty and the expectations which are always a.s.sociated with leadership, and the appearance of each, day by day towering above his fellows, was the signal for an outburst of applause from friends and followers.

The preliminary meeting of the National Committee portended serious trouble. The organization was adverse to the sentiment of the majority, and there was some fear that in the heat of contest the just bounds of authority might be overstepped. Happily the points in dispute were satisfactorily adjusted through frank conference and a common understanding. Senator h.o.a.r of Ma.s.sachusetts, in whose fairness and ability both sides had full confidence, was accepted by common consent for temporary chairman, and the Convention was organized without any conflict. In calling the vast a.s.sembly to order as chairman of the National Committee, Senator Cameron bespoke a friendly spirit; and the speech of Senator h.o.a.r, on taking the chair, was a compact and forcible contrast of the career and record of the two great parties of the country. With the appointment of the committees necessary to complete the organization, the first day of the Convention closed.

The delegations from the respective States named their own members of the several committees, and their composition and votes upon these questions indicated the division of the States upon the main issue.

In the Committee on Credentials Mr. Conger, supported by the anti-Grant members, was chosen chairman by a vote of 29 to 11 for Mr. Tracy of New York. In the Committee on Permanent Organization, Senator h.o.a.r had 31 votes for permanent President, against 9 for Mr. Creswell of Maryland. The Committee on Rules made General Garfield chairman. It was known that apart from the balloting for President, the great struggle would come in the Committee on Credentials, and upon its report when made to the Convention. The Committee had several contests to deal with besides the important Illinois case. The examination of these cases consumed two days, and meanwhile the Convention could do little beyond completing the formalities. It converted the temporary into the permanent organization, and on the evening of the second day, the Committee on Credentials being still at work, Mr. Henderson of Iowa moved that the Committee on Rules be requested to report. An extended and spirited debate ensued, the one side contending for immediate action and the other for delay. General Sharpe of New York offered a subst.i.tute that the Committee on Credentials be ordered to report. The subst.i.tute was lost by 318 _ayes_ to 406 _noes_, and the vote was regarded as a measurably fair test of the relative strength of the Grant and anti-Grant forces. On the call of the roll the full vote of Alabama was announced for the subst.i.tute. One of the delegates protested that he desired his vote recorded against it, and the President of the Convention so ordered. This decision broke at the outset any attempt to enforce the Unit Rule and affirmed the absolute right of the individual delegate to cast his vote at his own pleasure and upon his own responsibility. It was accepted without appeal, and thus the law of Republican Conventions was established. The subst.i.tute being defeated, the original motion was laid upon the table, and the Convention adjourned until the next day.

At the opening of the third day Mr. Conkling offered a resolution that "as the sense of the Convention every member is bound in honor to support its nominee, whoever the nominee may be; and that no man should hold a seat here who is not ready to so agree." On a call of the roll the resolution was adopted with but three dissenting votes, which came from West Virginia. Thereupon Mr. Conkling offered a resolution, declaring in effect that the delegates who voted that they would not obey the action of the majority "have forfeited their votes in the Convention." Mr. Campbell, editor of the _Wheeling Intelligencer_, the most prominent of the three who had voted no, defended their action.

He expected to support the nominee of the Convention, but would not agree in advance that whatever it might do should have his endors.e.m.e.nt.

The discussion was becoming very animated, when General Garfield, in an unimpa.s.sioned speech, recalled the Convention to the real question and warned delegates against committing an error. He said that those who voted in the negative had indicated their purpose to support the candidates, but did not think it wise to pa.s.s the resolution. "Are they," he asked, "to be disfranchised because they thought it was not the time to make such an expression? That is the question and that is the whole question. We come here as Republicans and we are ent.i.tled to take part in the proceedings of this Convention; and as one of our rights we can vote on every resolution, _aye_ or _no_. We are responsible for those votes to our const.i.tuents, and to them alone.

There never was a convention, there never can be a convention, of which I am one delegate, equal in rights to every other delegate, that shall bind my vote against my will on any question whatever." General Garfield insisted that the delegates had acted within their rights, and appealed to Mr. Conkling to withdraw his resolution, which he finally consented to do. This brief and earnest speech made a deep impression upon the Convention.

The report on contested States was now presented by Senator Conger, and led to a debate and a struggle lasting through the larger part of two days. The Committee had examined cases involving the seats of fifty delegates and alternates. After eliminating those about which there could be no reasonable dispute and upon which a unanimous conclusion was reached, the final issue involved three delegates from Alabama, eighteen from Illinois, two from West Virginia, and four from Kansas.

In all of these cases the decision rested upon the principle of district representation. The majority of the committee accepted that principle as the established law of Republican Conventions, and reported in favor of the delegates chosen under it. The minority of the Committee, representing fourteen States and led by Mr. Tracy of New York, reported against the delegates elected on the district plan, and sustained the authority of the State Conventions to overrule the choice of the district representatives. The issue of district representation was thus clearly and sharply presented. The first case in order was that of Alabama, and after full debate a motion to subst.i.tute the report of the minority for that of the majority was defeated, the _ayes_ being 306, the _noes_ 449. The Convention thus re-affirmed the cardinal doctrine of district representation. The case of Illinois, which had excited more interest than all others, next came up. The discussion was prolonged and animated, and the result was not reached until nearly two o'clock in the morning. Nine districts were at stake, but the vote was taken on each separately, and the delegates chosen in the districts were admitted by a vote of 387 to 353. In the cases of West Virginia and Kansas there was some dispute as to the facts, but they were decided upon the same principle according to the best understanding of the Convention.