diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/53115-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53115-0.txt | 15838 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 15838 deletions
diff --git a/old/53115-0.txt b/old/53115-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index f7a8dea..0000000 --- a/old/53115-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,15838 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook, The History of Tammany Hall, by Gustavus Myers - - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - - - - -Title: The History of Tammany Hall - Second Edition - - -Author: Gustavus Myers - - - -Release Date: September 21, 2016 [eBook #53115] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - - -***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY OF TAMMANY HALL*** - - -E-text prepared by Charlene Taylor, Bryan Ness, and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made -available by Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries -(https://archive.org/details/toronto) - - - -Note: Images of the original pages are available through - Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries. See - https://archive.org/details/historyoftammany00myeruoft - - - - - -THE HISTORY OF TAMMANY HALL - -by - -GUSTAVUS MYERS - -Author of “A History of Public Franchises -in New York City,” etc., etc. - -Second Edition -Revised and Enlarged - - - - - -[Illustration] - -New York -Boni & Liveright, Inc. -1917 - -Copyright, 1917. -By Boni & Liveright, Inc. - - - - -PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION (1901) - - -In most men’s minds a certain spell of wonder attaches to the career -and character of the Tammany Society and Tammany Hall. The long -continuance of this dual power; its control of the city, infrequently -interrupted, throughout the century; the nature of its principles, the -method of its practices and the character of its personnel--all these -combine to furnish a spectacle which exerts over the general mind a -peculiar and strong fascination. - -It was under the sway of this mood that I began the investigation which -has resulted in this volume. I had no thought, on beginning, to carry -the work so far: I sought merely to satisfy my curiosity regarding the -more important particulars of Tammany’s history. But I soon learned -that what I sought was not easily to be obtained. The few narratives -already published were generally found to be either extravagant -panegyrics, printed under the patronage of the Tammany Society, or else -partisan attacks, violent in style and untruthful in statement. Usually -both were characterized by their paucity of real information no less -than by the number of their palpable errors of fact. - -Turning from these, I determined to find the facts for myself. -My search led me first through the files of all the available -newspapers from 1789 to the present time, and thence--for origins and -contributory causes--through publications as far back as 1788; thence -through State and city histories, and a great number of biographies, -sketches, essays, political pamphlets and broadsides. The fragmentary -matter gleaned from these sources was found to be extremely valuable -in helping to form the continuous thread of a narrative, and in -determining contemporary spirit; but the statements and conclusions, -particularly with regard to the character and conduct of public men, -were generally contradictory and inconclusive. Realizing this, I began -the last phase of my search--a task that has led me through numberless -dreary pages of the Minutes and Documents of the Common Council (which -for the years previous to 1881 exist only in manuscript), Journals and -Documents of the Senate and Assembly, including the reports of various -legislative committees; Congressional and Executive Records, Treasury -Reports, Records of the Police, Common Pleas, Superior and Supreme -Courts; Minutes of the Oyer and Terminer; Grand Jury Presentments, -and Records of the Board of Supervisors. Finally, I have had the good -fortune, in developing the story of the middle and later periods, -of having secured many valuable interviews with a number of men who -actively participated in the stirring events of thirty, forty and even -fifty years ago. - -The purpose to write a book became fixed as my search progressed. The -work is finished, and the result is now to be given to the public. What -I have sought to produce is a narrative history--plain, compact and -impartial. I have sought to avoid an indulgence, on the one hand, in -political speculation, and on the other, in moralizing platitudes. Such -deductions and generalizations as from time to time I have made, seem -to me necessary in elucidating the narrative; without them the story -would prove to the reader a mere chronology of unrelated facts. - -If my narrative furnishes a sad story for the leaders and chieftains -of the Tammany Society and the Tammany Hall political organization, -the fault is not mine, but that of a multitude of incontestible public -records. It was in no partizan spirit that I began the work, and in -none that I now conclude it. I have always been an independent in -politics; and I have even voted, when there seemed to me ample reason -for doing so, a Tammany ticket. I have tried to set down nothing in -malice, nor with such exceptions as are obviously necessary with -regard to living men, to extenuate anything whatever. Those who may be -tempted to consider my work partial and partizan, on account of the -showing that it makes of Tammany corruption and inefficiency, will do -well to read carefully the pages relating to the Whigs and to some -other opponents of Tammany Hall. - - * * * * * - -The records show that a succession of prominent Tammany leaders were -involved in some theft or swindle, public or private. These peculations -or frauds ranged, in point of time, from 1799 and 1805-6 to the later -decades; in the matter of persons, from the founder of the Tammany -Society to some of the subsequent “bosses,” and in gradation of amount, -from the petty thousands taken by Mooney, Stagg and Page, in the first -decade of the century, to the $1,220,000 taken by Swartwout in 1830-38 -and the undetermined millions taken by Wood and Tweed in the fifties, -sixties and first two years of the seventies. From nearly the beginning -of its active political career, Tammany leaders, with generally brief -interruptions, thus continued to abstract money from the city, the -State and the nation--the interruptions to the practice generally -coinciding with the periods when Tammany in those years was deprived of -political power. - -My search has shown me the absurdity of the pretense that any vital -distinction exists between the Tammany Society and the Tammany Hall -political organization. Tammany members industriously propagate this -pretense, but it has neither a historic nor an actual basis. From -1805, the date of the apparent separation of the organization from -the society, the Sachems of the latter have ruled the policies of -the former. Repeatedly, as in 1828, 1838, 1853, and 1857, they have -determined the “regularity” of contending factions in the organization, -and have shut the hall to members of the faction against which they -have decided. The Sachems have at all times been the leaders in the -political body, and the control of the society in every year that -Tammany has held control of the city, has determined the division of -plunder for the ensuing year. The Tammany Society and the Tammany -political organization constitute a dual power--but, unlike Ormuzd and -Ahrimanes, a duality working by identical means for an identical end. - -The records show that Tammany was thus, from the beginning, an evil -force in politics. Its characteristics were formed by its first great -leader, Aaron Burr, and his chief lieutenant, Matthew L. Davis; and -whatever is distinctive of Tammany methods and policies in 1900 is, -for the most part, but the development of features initiated by these -two men one hundred years ago. It is curious to recall, on looking -back to the time when my researches began, the abundant evidences of -misapprehension regarding Tammany’s earlier history. “No especial -discredit attached to Tammany Hall before Tweed’s time,” wrote, in -effect, Mr. E. L. Godkin in an essay published a few years ago. State -Senator Fassett, in 1890, made a similar statement in his report on -the investigation of conditions in New York City. “Down to the time,” -he says, “that the Tammany ‘ring,’ under the leadership of William -M. Tweed, took possession of the government of New York City … the -office [of Alderman] was held in credit and esteem.” The exact reverse -of both statements is true; and abundant proof of my contention, I -believe, will be found in the pages of this book. Another instance may -be given--though the opinion expressed, instead of being founded upon -misapprehension, may charitably be set down as one of misjudgment. “I -was a Sachem of Tammany,” said a one-time noted politician recently, -before the Society for the Reformation of Juvenile Delinquents, “in -the days when it was _an honor to be a Sachem_.” The precise time he -did not specify; and it would be difficult to identify it from the -description he has given. Certainly, since 1805, the office of Sachem -has been one ill calculated, of itself, to bring particular honor to -the incumbent. - -It would be dishonest to pretend for a moment that Tammany has been -alone in its evil-doing; it has been simply the most ingenious and the -most pretentious; and its practices have a historic continuity and -persistence not shared by any of its rivals. The Whigs, for instance, -sought in every possible way to outdo Tammany in election frauds; they -stuffed ballot boxes, colonized voters, employed rowdies and thugs at -the polls and distributed thousands of deceptive ballots for the use -of their opponents. In fiscal frauds, likewise, they left a record -well-nigh equaling that of Tammany. The Native Americans imitated -both Whigs and Tammany men, and the Republicans have given instances -at Albany of a wholesale venality unapproached in the history of -legislative bodies. Among the few exceptions, during the earlier half -of the century, to the general prostitution of civic ideals, was the -career of the Workingmen’s party (1829-31) and of its successor, the -Equal Rights party (1834-38). The principles of both these parties were -far in advance of their time; and though the effect tended somewhat to -the temporary heightening of political standards, a reaction followed, -which again brought in a long period of fraud and corruption. - -But shameful as this record is, it is one which, viewed in the light -of present practises and present ideals, gives the basis for a robust -faith in the future. The hiding of vice and the employment of indirect -methods in cheating and plundering, are themselves an evidence of the -existence of moral standards; and it is unquestionable that Tammany -to-day outwardly conforms to ethical demands which would have been -scoffed at a half century ago. No one can read the details of political -history without acknowledging a growing betterment in political methods. - -“Hardly a man [before the Civil War] could be found,” says Jesse Macy -in his recent _History of Political Parties in the United States_, -“who felt himself too virtuous to go into politics. The sensitively -moral were not repelled by political methods which to-day are regarded -as disgraceful.” And further along he says: “It is easy to forget -that, from the very nature of moral progress, it often happens that -intelligent moral leaders of one generation will in all good conscience -say and do things which only the conscious hypocrite or the knave of a -later generation can do.” Pessimism as to political progress secures no -support from real research. - -It may be asked, and with some show of reason, how it has been possible -for New York City to achieve its present rank in population, in wealth, -in commerce and in transportation facilities; how it has acquired -its splendid libraries, its magnificent buildings, its museums, its -parks, its benevolent institutions, in the face of this continued -dominancy of corruption, violence and fraud. The answer is simple: the -city has grown _despite_ these adverse influences. The harbor of New -York is one factor; the Erie Canal (constructed notwithstanding the -opposition of the dominant political party of the city) is another; the -tremendous growth of the nation, and the thousand external influences -that determined the location of the nation’s metropolis, are yet other -factors. The city has grown to magnificence and world-wide influence; -but it has paid dear tribute for every forward step it has taken. -Imagination fails at picturing the metropolis that might have been, -could the city throughout the century have been guided and controlled -in the light of present-day civic ideals. - - * * * * * - -The difficulties of securing the publication of this work by any -of the regular publishing houses proved insurmountable. Two of the -best known firms wrote that they could not encourage me to submit -the manuscript to them for consideration. Four others considered its -publication “inadvisable,” though their readers had returned favorable -recommendations. One other declined it without giving reasons. More -recently, when the offer of certain responsible persons who had -read the manuscript, to guarantee the expense of its publication, -was made to a certain house, the firm replied: “… we should hardly -feel warranted in locking horns with Tammany Hall.…” It was thought -that perhaps an out-of-town house might issue it, but here again -declinations were forthcoming. Finally it was decided to attempt -its publication by private subscription. To this end I solicited -individual advances to a publication fund, from a number of the city’s -public-spirited citizens. The appearance of the work at this time is -due to the kindly interests of these men. - -Acknowledgments for the courtesies tendered me, and for material aid -rendered in the project of issuing the work, are due to a number -of persons: To the public-spirited citizens of different political -faiths, who, while familiar with the scope of the work, contributed the -funds for its publication without insisting upon a censorship of the -manuscript or its alteration in any way for political purposes; and -particularly to Mr. James B. Reynolds, Mr. James W. Pryor and Milo R. -Maltbie, Ph. D. - - GUSTAVUS MYERS. - -New York City, January, 1901. - - - - -FOREWORD TO THE NEW EDITION (1917) - - -Since the original publication of this work, a large number of -inquiries have appeared in the _Publisher’s Weekly_ and have come -from other quarters requesting information as to where copies of The -_History of Tammany Hall_ could be obtained. For the last ten years -this work has been in continuous demand but unavailable. For reasons -fully set forth in the preface to that issue, the edition of 1901 was -brought out in the face of difficulties. Not the least of these was -the self-expressed dread of certain publishing houses to bring out -a work which (as some of them frankly admitted in their letters of -declination) might bring reprisals to them in some unexplained form or -other. - -Hence to all intents and purposes, that edition was in the nature of a -restricted private edition. Denied the usual and almost indispensable -publication and distribution facilities by the publishing houses, the -work necessarily was subject to obvious disadvantages, and, so far as -circulation went, practically took rank as a suppressed book--not, it -is true, suppressed by any particular agency, but by the circumstances -of the case. - -In 1913 Mr. Edward Kellogg Baird, a public-spirited attorney in New -York City, kindly undertook, in behalf of the author (who was absent in -another country at the time) to see whether some one of the publishing -houses would not bring out a new edition of _The History of Tammany -Hall_, brought down to date. In his letters to these publishers, -Mr. Baird pointed out that there never had been any lack of general -interest in this work, and referred to the extremely large number of -reviews in important publications in many countries treating the book -at length and commending its purpose and scope. Mr. Baird also called -the attention of publishers to the fact that the book was recognized -as the only authority on the subject; that it had been tested by -time; that there had never been a libel suit arising from any of the -statements made therein; and that, therefore, there could be no valid -objection on the part of any publisher that publication of further -editions would lead to any legal trouble. - -With such possible objections thus disposed of in advance, Mr. -Baird confidently expected that he would find at least one of -the old-established publishers who would not be deterred by such -considerations as influenced them to refuse publication in 1901. But -the replies were virtually repetitions of those received twelve years -previously. One of the first replies, dated February 24, 1913, from the -senior member of a New York publishing house, read as follows: - -“For the very same reason that the author of _The History of Tammany -Hall_ was unable to obtain a publisher for the original edition, -leads us to decide unfavorably so far as we are concerned. The policy -of publishing the book was the first question raised by one of my -partners, before he had a chance even to read the preface, and we as -a firm have decided that the objection is too strong to permit us to -bring the book out over our imprint. I am sorry that we must be so -cowardly, for the book itself is worthy of reissue, and I personally -should be glad to see it published by my firm.…” - -At about the same time, the head of another prominent and older New -York publishing house--a citizen, by the way, who had served as foreman -of a noted grand jury exposing Tammany corruption--wrote this reply: - -“I have given due consideration, with my partners, to the suggestion -you are so kind to submit to us in regard to the publication of a new -edition of _The History of Tammany Hall_ brought down to date.… I must -report that our judgment is adverse to the desirability of reissuing -such a book with the imprint of our house. I should be individually -interested in obtaining a copy for my own library in case you may be -able to secure for the work a satisfactory arrangement with some other -house.” - -An equally well-known New York publishing house sent this declination: -“We have looked over with interest _The History of Tammany Hall_, which -you were good enough to submit to us, but are sorry to say that after a -careful examination we are unable to persuade ourselves that we could -successfully undertake its publication.” The head of still another -old-established New York publishing house wrote, on March 4, 1913, a -long apologetic letter giving his reasons for not caring to undertake -the publication of the work, the principal of those reasons being the -plea that there was not sufficient prospect of gain “to compensate for -some of the unpleasantness its publishers would have to endure.” Yet -a year later a magazine published by this identical house contained a -laudatory reference to “Myers’s excellent _History of Tammany Hall_.” - -On April 10, 1913, Mr. Baird wrote to a prominent Boston publishing -house. “Before offering the book,” Mr. Baird wrote in part, “I want to -tell you frankly that it has been turned down by other publishers, not -because of any lack of excellence or authenticity, but simply because, -as several of the publishers have frankly acknowledged, they ‘are -afraid of reprisals from Tammany Hall.’ - -“Your house has been suggested by a publisher as one which is probably -not so timid as some others, and as you are located out of town you are -therefore not subject to local influences, and I write to ask if you -would be interested in having the publication submitted to you. - -“I might add that I have been lecturing on this subject at the City -Club and other prominent clubs in the city, and the subject itself -seemed to bring out record audiences wherever the lecture was given, -and it is because so many people have asked me where they can obtain -copies of Mr. Myers’s book, that I am prompted to endeavor to have a -reprint of it.” - -The reply of the Boston publishing house was a curt declination. - -Subsequently the following letter was received by the author from a -prominent New York City attorney: - -“I have been endeavoring to purchase a copy of _The History of Tammany -Hall_ published by you, but as yet have been unable to find a copy in -any of the book stores. I shall appreciate it very much if you can tell -me where I can obtain a copy. - -“You may be interested to know that a few months ago a number of -booksellers were given instructions to purchase and retire all -outstanding copies of the book. For whose account this order was given -I do not know. I am told by the booksellers that an advertisement for -the book resulted in their being able to purchase only a few copies.” - -To the present publishers the author gives all due appreciation for -their unqualified recognition of the need of the publication of this -work. - - GUSTAVUS MYERS. - -March, 1917. - - - - -CONTENTS - - - PAGE - - PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION (1901) v - - FOREWORD TO THE NEW EDITION (1917) xiii - - CHAPTER I - - RESISTANCE TO ARISTOCRACY--1789-1798 1 - - CHAPTER II - - AARON BURR AT THE HELM--1798-1802 11 - - CHAPTER III - - TAMMANY QUARRELS WITH DE WITT CLINTON--1802-1809 17 - - CHAPTER IV - - SLOW RECOVERY FROM DISASTER--1809-1815 29 - - CHAPTER V - - TAMMANY IN ABSOLUTE CONTROL--1815-1817 37 - - CHAPTER VI - - CLINTON MAINTAINS HIS SUPREMACY--1817-1820 47 - - CHAPTER VII - - THE SUFFRAGE CONTEST--1820-1822 56 - - CHAPTER VIII - - STRUGGLES OF THE PRESIDENTIAL FACTIONS--1822-1825 60 - - CHAPTER IX - - THE JACKSON ELEMENT VICTORIOUS--1825-1828 69 - - CHAPTER X - - THE WORKINGMEN’S PARTY--1829-1830 77 - - CHAPTER XI - - TAMMANY AND THE BANK CONTEST--1831-1834 85 - - CHAPTER XII - - THE EQUAL RIGHTS PARTY--1834-1837 94 - - CHAPTER XIII - - TAMMANY “PURIFIED”--1837-1838 112 - - CHAPTER XIV - - WHIG FAILURE RESTORES TAMMANY TO POWER--1838-1840 117 - - CHAPTER XV - - RISE AND PROGRESS OF THE “GANGS”--1840-1846 128 - - CHAPTER XVI - - “BARNBURNERS” AND “HUNKERS”--1846-1850 140 - - CHAPTER XVII - - DEFEAT AND VICTORY--1850-1852 150 - - CHAPTER XVIII - - “HARDSHELLS” AND “SOFTSHELLS”--1852-1858 161 - - CHAPTER XIX - - A CHAPTER OF DISCLOSURES--1853-1854 167 - - CHAPTER XX - - FERNANDO WOOD’S FIRST ADMINISTRATION--1854-1856 174 - - CHAPTER XXI - - WOOD’S SECOND ADMINISTRATION--1856-1859 181 - - CHAPTER XXII - - THE CIVIL WAR AND AFTER--1859-1867 194 - - CHAPTER XXIII - - THE TWEED “RING”--1867-1870 211 - - CHAPTER XXIV - - TWEED IN HIS GLORY--1870-1871 225 - - CHAPTER XXV - - COLLAPSE AND DISPERSION OF THE “RING”--1871-1872 237 - - CHAPTER XXVI - - TAMMANY RISES FROM THE ASHES--1872-1874 250 - - CHAPTER XXVII - - THE DICTATORSHIP OF JOHN KELLY--1874-1886 258 - - CHAPTER XXVIII - - THE DICTATORSHIP OF RICHARD CROKER--1886-1897 267 - - CHAPTER XXIX - - THE DICTATORSHIP OF RICHARD CROKER (_Concluded_)--1897-1901 284 - - CHAPTER XXX - - TAMMANY UNDER ABSENTEE DIRECTION--1901-1902 290 - - CHAPTER XXXI - - CHARLES F. MURPHY’S AUTOCRACY--1902-1903 299 - - CHAPTER XXXII - - THE SWAY OF BRIBERY AND “HONEST GRAFT”--1903-1905 307 - - CHAPTER XXXIII - - TAMMANY’S CONTROL UNDER LEADER MURPHY--1906-1909 324 - - CHAPTER XXXIV - - ANOTHER ERA OF LEGISLATIVE CORRUPTION--1909-1911 342 - - CHAPTER XXXV - - “CHIEF” MURPHY’S LEADERSHIP--FURTHER DETAILS 1912-1913 356 - - CHAPTER XXXVI - - GOVERNOR SULZER’S IMPEACHMENT AND TAMMANY’S DEFEAT--1913-1914 375 - - CHAPTER XXXVII - - TAMMANY’S PRESENT STATUS--1914-1917 392 - - - - -HISTORY OF TAMMANY HALL - - - - -CHAPTER I - -RESISTANCE TO ARISTOCRACY - -1789-1798 - - -The Society of St. Tammany, or Columbian Order, was founded on May -12, 1789, a fortnight later than the establishment of the National -Government, by William Mooney.[1] “His object,” says Judah Hammond,[2] -an early member of Tammany, “was to fill the country with institutions -designed, and men determined, to preserve the just balance of power. -His purpose was patriotic and purely republican. The constitution -provided by his care contained, among other things, a solemn -asseveration, which every member at his initiation was required to -repeat and subscribe to, that he would sustain the State institutions -and resist a consolidation of power in the general Government.” - -Before the Revolution, societies variously known as the “Sons of -Liberty” and the “Sons of St. Tammany” had been formed to aid the cause -of independence. Tammany, or Tamanend, was an Indian chief, of whom -fanciful legends have been woven, but of whose real life little can -be told. Some maintain that he lived in the neighborhood of Scranton, -Pa., when William Penn arrived, and that he was present at the great -council under the elm tree. His name is said to have been on Penn’s -first treaty with the Indians, April 23, 1683. He is also described as -a great chief of the Delaware nation, and his wigwam is said to have -stood on the grounds now occupied by Princeton University. The fame of -his wisdom, benevolence and love of liberty spreading to the colonists, -they adopted his name for their patriotic lodges. When societies -sprang up bearing the names of St. George, St. Andrew or St. David and -proclaiming their fealty to King George, the Separatists dubbed Tammany -a saint in ridicule of the imported saints. The Revolution over, the -“Sons of Liberty” and the “Sons of St. Tammany” dissolved. - -The controversy over the adoption of the Federal constitution had the -effect of re-uniting the patriotic lodges. The rich and influential -classes favored Hamilton’s design of a republic having a President and -a Senate chosen for life, and State governments elected by Congress. -Opposed to this attempt toward a highly centralized government were -the forces which afterward organized the Anti-Federalist party. Their -leader in New York was Governor George Clinton. The greater number of -the old members of the Liberty and Tammany societies, now familiarly -known as “Liberty boys,” belonged to this opposition. - -During this agitation Hamilton managed to strengthen his party, by -causing to be removed, in 1787, the political disabilities bearing -upon the Tories. New York was noted for its Tories, more numerous in -proportion than in any other colony, since here, under the Crown, -offices were dispensed more liberally than elsewhere. In the heat of -the Revolutionary War and the times immediately following it, popular -indignation struck at them in severe laws. In all places held by the -patriot army a Tory refusing to renounce his allegiance to King George -ran considerable danger not only of mob visit, but of confiscation -of property, exile, imprisonment, or, in flagrant cases of adherence -to the enemy, death. From 1783 to 1787 the “Liberty boys” of the -Revolution, who formed the bulk of the middle and working classes, -governed New York City politics. In freeing the Tories from oppressive -laws, and opening political life to them, Hamilton at once secured -the support of a propertied class (for many of them had succeeded in -retaining their estates) numerous enough to form a balance of power and -to enable him to wrest the control of the city from the “Liberty boys.” - -The elevation to office of many of the hated, aristocratic supporters -of Great Britain inflamed the minds of the “Liberty boys” and their -followers, and made the chasm between the classes, already wide, yet -wider. The bitterest feeling cropped out. Hamilton, put upon the -defensive, took pains in his addresses to assure the people of the -baselessness of the accusation that he aimed to keep the rich families -in power. That result, however, had been partially assured by the -State constitution of 1777. Gaging sound citizenship by the ownership -of property, the draughtsmen of that instrument allowed only actual -residents having freeholds to the value of £100, free of all debts, to -vote for Governor, Lieutenant-Governor and State Senators, while a vote -for the humbler office of Assemblyman was given only to those having -freeholds of £20 in the county or paying forty shillings rent yearly. -Poor soldiers who had nobly sustained the Revolutionary cause were -justly embittered at being disqualified by reason of their poverty, -while full political power was given to the property-owning Tories. - -“The inequality,” wrote one who lived in those days, - - “was greatly added to by the social and business customs of - the times.… There was an aristocracy and a democracy whose - limits were as clearly marked by manner and dress as by legal - enactment.… The aristocracy controlled capital in trade, - monopolized banks and banking privileges, which they did not - hesitate to employ as a means of perpetuating their power.” - -Dr. John W. Francis tells, in his _Reminiscences_, of the prevalence in -New York for years after the Revolution of a supercilious class that -missed no opportunity of sneering at the demand for political equality -made by the leather-breeched mechanic with his few shillings a day. - -Permeated with democratic doctrines, the populace detested the landed -class. The founding of the Society of the Cincinnati was an additional -irritant. Formed by the officers of the Continental army before -disbandment, this society adopted one clause especially obnoxious -to the radicals. It provided that the eldest male descendant of an -original member should be entitled to wear the insignia of the order -and enjoy the privileges of the society, which, it was argued, would be -best perpetuated in that way. Jefferson saw a danger to the liberties -of the people in this provision, since it would tend to give rise to -a race of hereditary nobles, founded on the military, and breeding in -turn other subordinate orders. At Washington’s suggestion the clause -was modified, but an ugly feeling rankled in the public mind, due to -the existence of an active party supposedly bent on the establishment -of a disguised form of monarchy. - -It was at such a juncture of movements and tendencies that the Society -of St. Tammany or Columbian Order was formed. The new organization -constituted a formal protest against aristocratic influences, and stood -for the widest democratization in political life. - -As a contrast to the old-world distinctions of the Cincinnati and other -societies, the Tammany Society adopted aboriginal forms and usages. -The officers held Indian titles. The head, or president, chosen from -thirteen Sachems, corresponding to trustees, elected annually, was -styled Grand Sachem. In its early years the society had a custom, now -obsolete, of conferring the honorary office of Kitchi Okemaw, or Great -Grand Sachem, upon the President of the United States. Washington, -John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams and Jackson -were hailed successively as the Great Grand Sachems of Tammany. After -the Sachems came the Sagamore, or Master of Ceremonies, a Scribe, or -secretary, and a Wiskinskie,[3] or doorkeeper. Instead of using the -ordinary calendar designations, the society divided the year into -seasons and these into moons. Its notices bore reckoning from the -year Columbus discovered America, that of the Declaration of American -Independence and of its own organization. Instead of inscribing: -“New York, July, 1800,” there would appear: “Manhattan, Season of -Fruits, Seventh Moon, Year of Discovery three hundred and eighth; of -Independence twenty-fourth, and of the Institution the twelfth.” In -early times the society was divided into tribes, one for each of the -thirteen original States; there were the Eagle, Otter, Panther, Beaver, -Bear, Tortoise, Rattlesnake, Tiger, Fox, Deer, Buffalo, Raccoon and -Wolf tribes, which stood respectively for New York, New Hampshire, -Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, -Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and -Georgia. A new member of the Tammany Society had the choice of saying -to which of these tribes he cared to be attached. Frequently the -members dressed in Indian garb and carried papooses in their public -parades. They introduced the distinction between “long talks” and -“short talks” in their public addresses. The name “Wigwam” was given to -their meeting-place, and Barden’s Tavern was selected as their first -home. - -At the initiation of the Grand Sachem a song beginning, “Brothers, Our -Council Fire Shines Bright, et-hoh!” was sung, and at the initiation -of a member another song was sung, beginning: - - “Sacred’s the ground where Freedom’s found, - And Virtue stamps her Name.” - -The society contemplated founding a chain of Tammany societies over -the country, and accordingly designated itself as Tammany Society, No. -1. A number sprang into life, but only a few--those in Philadelphia, -Providence, Brooklyn and Lexington, Ky., continued for any time, and -even these disappeared about the year 1818 or a few years later. - -The society showed its Indian ceremonies to advantage and gained -much prestige by aiding in the conciliation of the Creek Indians. -After useless attempts to make a treaty with them, the Government -undertook, as a last resort, in February, 1790, to influence Alexander -McGillivray, their half-breed chief, to visit New York, where he might -be induced to sign a treaty. To Col. Marinus Willett, a brave soldier -of the Revolution, and later Mayor of New York City, the mission -was intrusted. In July, 1790, Willett started North accompanied by -McGillivray and twenty-eight Creek chiefs and warriors. Upon their -arrival in New York, then the seat of the National Government, the -members of the Tammany Society, in full Indian costume, welcomed them. -One phase of the tale has it that the Creeks set up a wild whoop, at -whose terrifying sound the Tammany make-believe red-faces fled in -dismay. Another version tells that the Tammany Society and the military -escorted the Indians to Secretary Knox’s house, introduced them to -Washington and then led them to the Wigwam at Barden’s Tavern, where -seductive drink was served. On August 2 the Creeks were entertained at -a Tammany banquet. A treaty was signed on August 13. - -In June of the same year Tammany had established, in the old City Hall, -a museum “for the preservation of Indian relics.” For a brief while -the society devoted itself with assiduity to this department, but the -practical men grew tired of it. On June 25, 1795, the museum was given -over to Gardiner Baker, its curator, on condition that it was to be -known for all time as the Tammany Museum and that each member of the -society and his family were to have entrance free. Baker dying, the -museum eventually passed into the hands of a professional museum-owner. - -Tammany’s chief functions at first seem to have been the celebration -of its anniversary day, May 12; the Fourth of July and Evacuation Day. -The society’s parades were events in old New York. On May 12, 1789, -the day of organization, two marquees were built two miles above the -city, whither the Tammany brethren went to hold their banquet. Thirteen -discharges of cannon followed each toast. The first one read: “May -Honor, Virtue and Patriotism ever be the distinguishing characteristics -of the sons of St. Tammany.” John Pintard,[4] Tammany’s first Sagamore, -wrote an account[5] of the society’s celebration of May 12, 1791. “The -day,” he says, - - “was ushered in by a Federal salute from the battery and - welcomed by a discharge of 13 guns from the brig Grand Sachem, - lying in the stream. The society assembled at the great Wigwam, - in Broad street, five hours after the rising of the sun, and - was conducted from there in an elegant procession to the brick - meeting house in Beekman street. Before them was borne the cap - of liberty; after following seven hunters in Tammanial dress, - then the great standard of the society, in the rear of which - was the Grand Sachem and other officers. On either side of - these were formed the members in tribes, each headed by its - standard bearers and Sachem in full dress. At the brick meeting - house an oration was delivered by their brother, Josiah Ogden - Hoffman, to the society and to a most respectable and crowded - audience. In the most brilliant and pathetic language he traced - the origin of the Columbian Order and the Society of the - Cincinnati. From the meeting house the procession proceeded (as - before) to Campbell’s grounds, where upwards of two hundred - people partook of a handsome and plentiful repast. The dinner - was honored by his Excellency [George Clinton] and many of the - most respectable citizens.” - -The toasts, that now seem so quaint, mirror the spirit of the diners. -“The Grand Sachem of the Thirteen United Fires,” ran the first, “may -his declining sun be precious in the sight of the Great Spirit that -the mild luster of his departing beams may prove no less glorious than -the effulgence of the rising or transcendent splendor of his meridian -greatness.” The second: “The head men and chiefs of the Grand Council -of the Thirteen United Fires--may they convince our foes not only of -their courage to lift, prudence to direct and clemency to withhold the -hatchet, but of their power to inflict it in their country’s cause.” - -Up to 1835, at least, toasts were an important feature in public -dinners, as they were supposed to disclose the sentiments, political or -otherwise, of the person or body from whom they came. In this fashion -the Tammany Society announced its instant sympathy with the French -Revolution in all its stages. On May 12, 1793, the sixth toast read: -“Success to the _Armies_ of France, and Wisdom, Concord and Firmness -to the Convention.” “The first sentence was hardly articulated,” a -newspaper[6] records, “when _as one_ the whole company _arose_ and gave -three cheers, continued by roars of applause for several minutes; the -toast was then given in whole and the applauses reiterated.” - -At ten o’clock that morning, the same account relates, “the society -had assembled at Tammanial Hall, in Broad street, and marched to St. -Paul’s Church, where Brother Cadwallader D. Colden delivered to a -crowded and brilliant audience an animated talk on the excellence of -the Government and situation of the United States when contrasted -with those of despotic countries.” In the procession were about 400 -members in civilian dress. From each hat flowed a bucktail--the symbol -of Liberty--and the standard and cap of Liberty were carried in front -of the line. From the church “the Tammanials went to their Hall, where -some 150 of them partook of an elegant dinner.” - -Public feeling ran high in discussing the French Revolution, and there -were many personal collisions. The Tammany Society was in the vanguard -of the American sympathizers and bore the brunt of abuse. The pamphlets -and newspapers were filled with anonymous threats from both sides. “An -Oneida Chief” writes in the _New York Journal and Patriotic Register_, -June 8, 1793: - - “A Hint to the Whigs of New York: To hear our Brethren of - France vilified (with all that low Scurrility of which their - enemies the English are so well stocked) in our streets and on - the wharves; nay, in our new and elegant Coffee House; but more - particularly in that den of ingrates, called Belvidere Club - House, where at this very moment _those enemies to liberty_ are - swallowing potent draughts to the destruction and _annihilation - of Liberty, Equality_ and the _Rights of Man_, is not to - be borne by freemen and I am fully of opinion that if some - method is not adopted to suppress such daring and presumptuous - insults, a band of determined Mohawks, Oneidas and Senekas will - take upon themselves that necessary duty.” - -There is no record of the carrying out of this threat. - -Despite its original composition of men of both parties, the Tammany -Society drifted year by year into being the principal upholder of -the doctrines of which Jefferson was the chief exponent. Toward the -end of Washington’s administration political feelings developed into -violent party divisions, and the Tammany Society became largely -Anti-Federalist, or Republican, the Federalist members either -withdrawing or being reduced to a harmless minority. It toasted the -Republican leaders vociferously to show the world its sympathies and -principles. On May 12, 1796, the glasses ascended to “Citizen” Thomas -Jefferson, whose name was received with three cheers, and to “Citizen” -Edward Livingston, for whom nine cheers were given. “The people,” -ran one toast, “may they ever at the risk of life and liberty support -their equal rights in opposition to Ambition, Tyranny, to Sophistry and -Deception, to Bribery and Corruption and to an enthusiastic fondness -and implicit confidence in their fellow-fallible mortals.” - -Tammany had become, by 1796-97, a powerful and an extremely partizan -body. But it came near being snuffed out of existence in the last year -of Washington’s presidency. Judah Hammond writes that when Washington, -before the close of his second term, - - “rebuked self-creative societies from an apprehension that - their ultimate tendency would be hostile to the public - tranquillity, the members of Tammany supposed their institution - to be included in the reproof, and they almost all forsook - it. The founder, William Mooney, and a few others continued - steadfast. At one anniversary they were reduced so low that - but three persons attended its festival.[7] From this time it - became a political institution and took ground with Thomas - Jefferson.” - -To such straits was driven the society which, a short time after, -secured absolute control of New York City, and which has held that -grasp, with but few and brief intermissions, ever since. The contrast -between that sorry festival, with its trio of lonesome celebrators, and -the Tammany Society of a few years afterwards presents one of the most -striking pictures in American politics. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] Mooney was an ex-soldier, who at this time kept a small upholstery -shop at 23 Nassau street. He was charged with having deserted the -American Army, September 16, 1776, and with joining the British forces -in New York, where for a year he wore the King’s uniform. The truth or -falsity of this charge cannot be ascertained. - -[2] Hammond, _Political History of the State of New York_, Vol. I, p. -341. - -[3] So spelled in all the earlier records. Later, the _s_ in the -penultimate syllable came to be dropped. - -[4] John Pintard was one of the founders of the New York Historical -Society, the Academy of Design and other institutions. He was a very -rich man at one time, but subsequently failed in business. - -[5] Dunlap’s _American Daily Register_, May 16, 1791. - -[6] _New York Journal and Patriotic Register_, May 15, 1793. - -[7] This statement of Hammond probably refers to May 12, 1797. - - - - -CHAPTER II - -AARON BURR AT THE HELM - -1798-1802 - - -The second period of the Tammany Society began about 1798. Relieved -of its Federalist members, it became purely partizan. As yet it was -not an “organization,” in the modern political sense; it did not seek -the enrollment and regimentation of voters. Its nature was more that -of a private political club, which sought to influence elections by -speeches, pamphlets and social means. It shifted its quarters from -Barden’s Tavern to the “Long Room,” a place kept by a sometime Sachem, -Abraham or “Brom” Martling,[1] at the corner of Nassau and Spruce -streets. This Wigwam was a forlorn, one-story wooden building attached -to Martling’s Tavern, near, or partly overlapping, the spot where -subsequently Tammany Hall erected its first building--recently the -_Sun_ newspaper building. No larger than a good-sized room the Wigwam -was contemptuously styled by the Federalists “the Pig Pen.” In that -year New York City had only 58,000 inhabitants. The Wigwam stood on -the very outskirts of the city. But it formed a social rendezvous very -popular with the “Bucktails” of the time. Every night men gathered -there to drink, smoke and “swap” stories. Fitz-Greene Halleck has -written of a later time: - - “There’s a barrel of porter at Tammany Hall, - And the Bucktails are swigging it all the night long; - In the time of my boyhood ’twas pleasant to call - For a seat and cigar mid the jovial throng.” - -This social custom was begun early in the life of the society, and was -maintained for several decades. - -Aaron Burr was the first real leader of the Tammany Society. He -was never Grand Sachem or even Sachem; it is doubtful whether he -ever set foot in the Wigwam; it is known that it was never his -habit to attend caucuses; but he controlled the society through his -friends and protégés. The transition of Tammany from an effusive, -speech-making society to an active political club was mainly through -his instrumentality. Mooney[2] was a mediocre man, delighting in -extravagant language and Indian ceremonials, and was merely a tool in -the hands of far abler men. “Burr was our chief,”[3] said Matthew L. -Davis, Burr’s friend and biographer, and several times Grand Sachem of -the society. - -Davis’s influence on the early career of Tammany was second only to -that of Burr himself. He was reputed to be the originator of the -time-honored modes of manufacturing public opinion, carrying primary -meetings, obtaining the nomination of certain candidates, carrying -a ward, a city, a county or even a State. During one period of his -activity, it is related, meetings were held on different nights in -every ward in New York City. The most forcible and spirited resolutions -and addresses were passed and published. Not only the city, but the -entire country, was aroused. It was some time before the secret was -known--that at each of these meetings but three persons were present, -Davis and two friends. - -Though Davis was credited with the authorship of these methods, it is -not so certain that he did not receive his lessons from Burr. Besides -Davis, Burr’s chief protégés, all of whom became persons of importance -in early New York, were Jacob Barker, John and Robert Swartwout, John -and William P. Van Ness; Benjamin Romaine, Isaac Pierson, John P. Haff -and Jacob Hayes.[4] When Burr was in disgrace William P. Van Ness, at -that time the patron of the law student Martin Van Buren, wrote a long -pamphlet defending him. At the time of his duel with Hamilton these men -supported him. They made Tammany his machine; and it is clear that they -were attached to him sincerely, for long after his trial for treason, -Tammany Hall, under their influence, tried unsuccessfully to restore -him to some degree of political power. Burr controlled Tammany Hall -from 1797 until even after his fall. From then on to about 1835 his -protégés either controlled it or were its influential men. The phrase, -“the old Burr faction still active,” is met with as late as 1832, and -the Burrites were a considerable factor in politics for several years -thereafter. Nearly every one of the Burr leaders, as will be shown, was -guilty of some act of official or private peculation. - -These were the men Burr used in changing the character of the Tammany -Society. The leader and his satellites were quite content to have the -Tammany rank and file parade in Indian garb and use savage ceremonies; -such forms gave the people an idea of pristine simplicity which was -a good enough cloak for election scheming. Audacious to a degree and -working through others, Burr was exceedingly adroit. One of his most -important moves was the chartering of the Manhattan Bank. Without this -institution Tammany would have been quite ineffective. In those days -banks had a mightier influence over politics than is now thought. -New York had only one bank, and that one was violently Federalist. -Its affairs were administered always with a view to contributing to -Federalist success. The directors loaned money to their personal and -party friends with gross partiality and for questionable purposes. If a -merchant dared help the opposite party or offended the directors he was -taught to repent his independence by a rejection of his paper when he -most needed cash. - -Burr needed this means of monopoly and favoritism to make his political -machine complete, as well as to amass funds. He, therefore, had -introduced into the Legislature (1799) a bill, apparently for the -purpose of diminishing the future possibility of yellow fever in New -York City, incorporating a company, styled the Manhattan Company, to -supply pure, wholesome water. Supposing the charter granted nothing -more than this, the legislators passed it. They were much surprised -later to hear that it contained a carefully worded clause vesting the -Manhattan Company with banking powers.[5] The Manhattan Bank speedily -adopted the prevailing partizan tactics. - -The campaign of 1800 was full of personal and party bitterness and was -contested hotly. To evade the election laws disqualifying the poor, -and working to the advantage of the Federalists, Tammany had recourse -to artifice. Poor Republicans, being unable individually to meet the -property qualification, clubbed together and bought property. On the -three election days[6] Hamilton made speeches at the polls for the -Federalists, and Burr directed political affairs for the Republicans. -Tammany used every influence, social and political, to carry the city -for Jefferson. - -Assemblymen then were not elected by wards, but in bulk, the -Legislature in turn selecting the Presidential electors. The -Republican Assembly candidates in New York City were elected[7] by a -majority of _one_, the vote of a butcher, Thomas Winship, being the -decisive ballot. The Legislature selected Republican electors. This -threw the Presidential contest into the House of Representatives, -insuring Jefferson’s success. Though Burr was the choice of the Tammany -chiefs, Jefferson was a favored second. Tammany claimed to have brought -about the result; and the claim was generally allowed.[8] - -The success of the Republicans in 1800 opened new possibilities to the -members of the Tammany Society. Jefferson richly rewarded some of them -with offices. In 1801 they advanced their sway further. The society had -declared that one of its objects was the repeal of the odious election -laws. For the present, however, it schemed to circumvent them. The -practise of the previous year of the collective buying of property -to meet the voting qualifications was continued. Under the society’s -encouragement, and with money probably furnished by it, thirty-nine -poor Republicans in November, 1801, bought a house and lot of ground in -the Fifth Ward. Their votes turned the ward election. The thirty-nine -were mainly penniless students and mechanics; among them were such men -as Daniel D. Tompkins, future Governor of New York and Vice-President -of the United States; Richard Riker, coming Recorder of New York -City; William P. Van Ness, United States Judge to be, Teunis Wortman, -William A. Davis, Robert Swartwout and John L. Broome, all of whom -became men of power. - -The result in the Fifth Ward, and in the Fourth Ward, where seventy -Tammany votes had been secured through the joint purchase of a house -and lot at 50 Dey street, gave the society a majority in the Common -Council.[9] The Federalist Aldermen decided to throw out these votes, -as being against the spirit of the law, and to seat their own party -candidates. The Republican Mayor, Edward Livingston, who presided over -the deliberations, maintained that he had a right to vote.[10] His vote -made a tie. The Tammany, or Republican, men were arbitrarily seated, -upon which, on December 14, 1801, eight Federalists seceded to prevent -a quorum;[11] they did not return until the following March. - -The Tammany Society members, or as they were called until 1813 or -1814, the Martling Men (from their meeting place), soon had a far more -interesting task than fighting Federalists. This was the long, bitter -warfare, extending over twenty-six years, which they waged against De -Witt Clinton, one of the ablest politicians New York has known, and -remembered by a grateful posterity as the creator of the Erie Canal. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] Martling was several times elected a Sachem. Like most of the -Republican politicians of the day he had a habit of settling his -disputes in person. Taking offense, one day, at the remarks of one -John Richard Huggins, a hair-dresser, he called at Huggins’s shop, 104 -Broadway, and administered to him a sound thrashing with a rope. When -he grew old Tammany took care of him by appointing him to an obscure -office (Keeper of the City Hall). - -[2] Mooney was a life-long admirer of Burr, but was ill-requited in -his friendship. At Mooney’s death, in 1831, a heap of unpaid bills for -goods charged to Burr was found. - -[3] _American Citizen_, July 18, 1809. - -[4] Hayes, as High Constable of the city from 1800 to 1850, was a -character in old New York. He was so devoted to Burr that he named his -second son for him. - -[5] Hammond, Vol. I, pp. 129-30. - -[6] Until 1840 three days were required for elections in the city and -State. In the earlier period ballots were invariably written. The first -one-day election held in the city was that of April 14, 1840. For the -rest of the State, however, the change from three-day elections was not -made until several years later. - -[7] During the greater part of the first quarter of the century members -of the Legislature, Governor and certain other State officers were -elected in April, the Aldermen being elected in November. - -[8] Shortly after Jefferson’s inauguration Matthew L. Davis called -upon the President at Washington and talked in a boastful spirit of -the immense influence New York had exerted, telling Jefferson that -his elevation was brought about solely by the power and management of -the Tammany Society. Jefferson listened. Then reaching out his hand -and catching a large fly, he requested Davis to note the remarkable -disproportion in size between one portion of the insect and its body. -The hint was not lost on Davis, who, though not knowing whether -Jefferson referred to New York or to him, ceased to talk on the subject. - -[9] The Common Council from 1730 to 1830 consisted of Aldermen and -Assistant Aldermen, _sitting as one board_. The terms “Board of -Aldermen” and “Common Council” are used interchangeably. - -[10] _Ms. Minutes of the Common Council_, Vol. 13, pp. 351-52. - -[11] _Ibid._, pp. 353-56. - - - - -CHAPTER III - -TAMMANY QUARRELS WITH DE WITT CLINTON - -1802-1809 - - -The quarrel between Tammany and De Witt Clinton arose from Clinton’s -charge in 1802 that Burr was a traitor to the Republican party and had -conspired to defeat Jefferson. De Witt Clinton was a nephew of George -Clinton. When a very young man he was Scribe of the Tammany Society. -Owing to the influence of his powerful relative, backed by his own -ability, he had become a United States Senator, at the promising age -of thirty-three. His principal fault was his unbridled temper, which -led him to speak harshly of those who displeased him. George Clinton -thought himself, on account of his age and long public service, -entitled to the place and honors heaped upon Burr, whom he despised -as an unprincipled usurper. He was too old, however, to carry on a -contest, and De Witt Clinton undertook to shatter the Burr faction for -him. To oppose the Tammany Society, which embraced in itself nearly -all there was of the Republican party in New York City, was no slight -matter. But De Witt Clinton, with the confidence that comes of steady, -rapid advancement, went about it aggressively. He had extraordinary -qualities of mind and heart which raised him far above the mere -politicians of his day. - -Such of the elective offices as were allowed the city were filled by -the Tammany Republicans from 1800 to 1809. State Senators, Assemblymen -and Aldermen were elective, but the Mayor, Sheriff, Recorder, -Justices of the Peace of counties--in fact, nearly all civil and -military officers from the heads of departments and Judgeships of -the Supreme Court down to even auctioneers--were appointed by a body -at Albany known as the Council of Appointment, which was one of the -old constitutional devices for centralizing political power. Four -State Senators, chosen by the Assembly, comprised, with the Governor, -this Council. Gov. Clinton, as president of this board, claimed the -exclusive right of nomination, and effectually concentrated in himself -all the immense power it yielded. He had De Witt Clinton transferred -from the post of United States Senator to that of Mayor of New York -City in 1803, and filled offices in all the counties with his relatives -or partizans. The spoils system was in full force, as exemplified by -the Council’s sudden and frequent changes. Though swaying New York -City, Tammany could get only a few State and city offices, the Clintons -holding the power elsewhere throughout the State and in the Council of -Appointment. Hence in fighting the Clintons, Tammany confronted a power -much superior in resources. - -One of the first moves of the Clintons was to get control of the -Manhattan Bank. They caused John Swartwout, Burr’s associate director, -to be turned out. Some words ensued, and De Witt Clinton styled -Swartwout a liar, a scoundrel and a villain. Swartwout set about -resenting the insult in the gentlemanly mode of the day. Clinton -readily accepted a challenge, and five shots were fired, two of which -hit Swartwout, who, upon being asked whether he had had enough said -that he had not; but the duel was stopped by the seconds. - -While the Clintons were searching for a good pretext to overthrow Burr, -the latter injudiciously supplied it himself when in 1804 he opposed -the election of Morgan Lewis, his own party’s nominee for Governor. -Burr’s action gave rise to much acrimony; and from that time he was -ostracized by every part of the Republican party in New York except -the chiefs of the Tammany Society, or Martling Men. He fell altogether -into disgrace with the general public when he shot Alexander -Hamilton in a duel, July 11, 1804. Tammany, however, still clung to -him. Two of Tammany’s chiefs--Nathaniel Pendleton and William P. Van -Ness--accompanied Burr to the field; John Swartwout, another chief, was -at Burr’s house awaiting his return. The Tammany men looked upon much -of the excitement over Hamilton’s death as manufactured. But as if to -yield to public opinion, the society on July 13 issued a notice to its -members to join in the procession to pay the “last tribute of respect -to the _manes_ of Hamilton.” - -In the inflamed state of public feeling which condemned everything -connected with Burr and caused his indictment in two States, the -Sachems knew it would be unwise for a time to make any attempt to -restore him to political power. They found their opportunity in -December, 1805, when, strangely enough, De Witt Clinton, forced by -the exigencies of politics, made overtures to form a union with the -Burrites in order to resist the powerful Livingston family, which, with -Gov. Morgan Lewis at its head, was threatening the Clinton family. The -Burrites thought they would get the better of the bargain and be able -to reinstate their chief. - -The negotiators met secretly February 20, 1806, at Dyde’s Hotel. John -Swartwout and the other Tammany chiefs insisted as conditions of the -union that Burr should be recognized as a Republican; that his friends -should be well cared for in the distribution of offices, and that -“Burrism” should never be urged as an objection against them. The -Clintons, anxious to beat down the Livingstons, were ready to agree to -these terms, knowing that Burr’s prestige was utterly swept away and -that any effort of his followers to thrust him forward again would be -a failure. Clintonites and Burrites set to drinking hilariously as a -token of good will. But their joy was premature. - -When the body of the Tammany men learned of the arrangement they were -aroused. The Sachems drew off, and the Tammany Society continued to -revile Clinton and to be reviled in return. - -It was just before this that the Tammany Hall political organization, -as apparently distinct from the Tammany Society, was created. In 1805 -the society made application for, and obtained from the Legislature, -the charter, which still remains in force, incorporating it as a -benevolent and charitable body “for the purpose of affording relief to -the indigent and distressed members of said association, their widows -and orphans and others who may be proper objects of their charity.” - -The wording of the charter deluded only the simple. Everybody knew -that the society was the center around which the Republican politics -of the city revolved. It had its public and its secret aspects. “This -society,” says _Longworth’s American Almanac, New York Register and -City Directory_ for 1807-1808, in a description of Tammany, “has a -constitution in two parts--public and private--the public relates to -all external or public matters; and the private, to the arcana and all -transactions which do not meet the public eye, and on which its code of -laws are founded.” - -The Sachems knew that to continue appearing as a political club would -be most impolitic. Year after year since 1798 the criticisms directed -at the self-appointed task of providing candidates for the popular -suffrage grew louder. In 1806 these murmurings extended to Tammany’s -own voters. Honest Republicans began to voice their suspicions of -caucuses which never met and public meetings called by nobody knew -whom. The Sachems, though perfectly satisfied with the established -forms which gave them such direct authority, wisely recognized the need -of a change. - -It was agreed that the Republicans should assemble in each ward to -choose a ward committee of three and that these ward committees should -constitute a general committee, which should have the power of -convening all public meetings of the party and of making preparatory -arrangements for approaching elections. This was the origin of the -Tammany Hall General Committee, which, consisting then of thirty -members, has been expanded in present times to over five thousand -members. - -At about the same time each of the ten wards began sending seven -delegates to Martling’s, the seventy forming a nominating committee, -which alone had the right to nominate candidates. The seventy met -in open convention. At times each member would have a candidate for -the Assembly, to which the city then sent eleven members. These -improvements on the old method gave, naturally, an air of real -democracy to the proceedings of the Tammany faction in the city and -had the effect of softening public criticism. Yet behind the scenes -the former leaders contrived to bring things about pretty much as they -planned. - -The action of the nominating committee was not final, however. It was -a strict rule that the committee’s nominations be submitted to the -wards and to a later meeting of all the Republican electors who chose -to attend and who would vote their approval or disapproval. If a name -were voted down, another candidate was substituted by the meeting -itself. This was called the “great popular meeting,” and its design -was supposed to vest fully in the Republican voters the choice of -the candidates for whom they were to vote. But in those days, as has -always been the case, most voters were so engrossed in their ordinary -occupations that they gave little more attention to politics than to -vote; and the leaders, except on special occasions, found it easy to -fill the great popular meeting, as well as other meetings, with their -friends and creatures, sending out runners, and often in the winter, -sleighs, for the dilatory. To the general and nominating committees -was added, several years later, a correspondence committee, which was -empowered to call meetings of the party when necessary, the leaders -having found the general committee too slow and cumbersome a means -through which to reach that important end. - -To hold public favor, the Tammany Society thought prudent to make it -appear that it was animated by patriotic motives instead of the desire -for offices. That the people might see how dearly above all things -Tammany prized its Revolutionary traditions, the society on April 13, -1808, marched in rank to Wallabout, where it laid the corner-stone of a -vault in which were to be placed the bones of 11,500 patriots who had -died on board the British prison ships. On April 26, the vault being -completed, the remains were laid in it. The Tammany Society, headed by -Benjamin Romaine and the military; the municipal officials, Gov. Daniel -D. Tompkins, members of Congress, Army and Navy officers, and many -other detachments of men of lesser note participated in the ceremony. - -The Federalists maintained that Tammany’s patriotic show was merely an -election maneuver. Subsequent developments did not help to disprove the -charge. The society proclaimed far and wide its intention of building -a monument over the vault, and induced the Legislature to make a grant -of land worth $1,000 for the purpose. Associations and individuals -likewise contributed. The political ceremonies connected with the -burial having their expected effect, Tammany forgot altogether about -its project until ugly rumors, pointing to the misuse of the money -collected, forced the society in 1821 to petition the Legislature for -further aid in erecting the monument. On that occasion the Tammany -Society was denounced bitterly. It was brought out that such was -Tammany’s interest in the monument that no request was ever made for -the land granted by the Legislature in 1808. The Legislature, however, -granted $1,000 in cash.[1] This sum was not enough; and as Tammany did -not swell the amount, though its Sachems were rich with the spoils of -office, a resolution was introduced in the Assembly, March 4, 1826,[2] -stating that as the $1,000 appropriated February 27, 1821, had not been -used for the purpose but remained in the hands of Benjamin Romaine, -the society’s treasurer, it should be returned, and threatening legal -proceedings in case it was not. This resolution, slightly amended, was -passed on a close vote. There is, however, no available record of what -became of the $1,000. - -During three years, culminating in 1809, a series of disclosures -regarding the corruption of Tammany officials astounded the city. -Rumors grew so persistent that the Common Council was forced by public -opinion to investigate. In the resultant revelations many Tammany -chiefs suffered. - -Benjamin Romaine, variously Sachem and Grand Sachem, was removed in -1806 from the office of City Controller for malfeasance, though the -Common Council was controlled by his own party.[3] As a trustee of -corporation property he had fraudulently obtained valuable land in the -heart of the city, without paying for it. The affair caused a very -considerable scandal. The Common Council had repeatedly passed strong -resolutions calling on him to explain. Romaine must have settled in -some fashion; for there is no evidence that he was prosecuted. - -On January 26, 1807, Philip I. Arcularius, Superintendent of the -Almshouse, and Cornelius Warner, Superintendent of Public Repairs, were -removed summarily.[4] It was shown that Warner had defrauded the city -as well as the men who worked under him.[5] - -Jonas Humbert, Inspector of Bread and sometime Sachem, was proved to -have extorted a third of the fees collected by Flour Inspector Jones, -under the threat of having Jones put out of office. In consequence -of the facts becoming known, Humbert and his associate Inspector, -Christian Nestell, discreetly resigned their offices--probably to avert -official investigation.[6] - -Abraham Stagg, another of the dynasty of Grand Sachems, as Collector -of Assessments failed, it was disclosed in 1808, to account for about -$1,000.[7] Two other Assessment Collectors, Samuel L. Page (for a long -time prominent in Tammany councils), and Simon Ackerman, were likewise -found to be embezzlers.[8] Stagg and Page managed to make good their -deficit by turning over to the city certain property, but Ackerman -disappeared. - -John Bingham, at times Sachem, and a noted politician of the day, -managed, through his position as an Alderman, to wheedle the city -into selling to his brother-in-law land which later he influenced the -corporation to buy back at an exorbitant price. The Common Council, -spurred by public opinion, demanded its reconveyance.[9] Even Bingham’s -powerful friend, Matthew L. Davis, could not silence the scandal, for -Davis himself had to meet a charge that while defending the Embargo at -Martling’s he was caught smuggling out flour in quantities that yielded -him a desirable income. - -But worse than these disclosures was that affecting the society’s -founder, William Mooney. The Common Council in 1808 appointed him -Superintendent of the Almshouse, at an annual recompense of $1,000 and -the support of his family in the place, provided that this latter item -should not amount to over $500. Mooney had a more exalted idea of how -he and his family ought to live. In the summer of 1809 the city fathers -appointed a committee to investigate. The outcome was surprising. -Mooney had spent nearly $4,000 on himself and family in addition to -his salary; he had taken from the city supplies about $1,000 worth of -articles, and moreover had expended various sums for “trifles for -Mrs. Mooney”--a term which survived for many years in local politics. -The ofttimes Grand Sachem of the Tammany Society could not explain his -indulgences satisfactorily, and the Common Council relieved him of the -cares of office, only one Alderman voting for his retention.[10] - -Most of these leaders were only momentarily incommoded, the Tammany -Society continuing many of them, for years after, in positions of trust -and influence. Mooney subsequently was repeatedly chosen Grand Sachem -and Father of the Council; Romaine was elected Grand Sachem in 1808, -again in 1813, and frequently Sachem; Matthew L. Davis was elected -Grand Sachem in 1814 and reelected in 1815[11] and was a Sachem for -years later; Abraham Stagg remained a leader and continued to get -contracts for street paving and regulating, and neither Jonas Humbert -nor John Bingham suffered a loss of influence with the Wigwam men. - -Meanwhile the Sachems were professing the highest virtue. The society’s -calls for meetings ran like this: - - “Tammany Society, or Columbian Order--Brothers, You are - requested to assemble around the council fire in the Great - Wigwam, No. 1, on Saturday, the 12th inst., at 9 o’clock A. M. - (wearing a bucktail in your hat), to celebrate the anniversary - of the Columbian Order and recount to each other the deeds of - our departed chiefs and warriors in order that it may stimulate - us _to imitate them in whatever is virtuous and just_.”[12] - -The public, however, took another view of the matter. These scandals, -and the showing of a deficit in the city’s accounts of $250,000, hurt -Tammany’s prestige considerably. The Republican strength in the city at -the election of April, 1809, showed a decrease of six hundred votes, -the majority being only 116, while the Federalists carried the State, -and thus secured control of the Council of Appointment. - -The lesson was lost on the leaders. The society at this time was led by -various men, of whom Teunis Wortman[13] was considered the chief power. -Wortman was as enraged at the defection of these few hundred voters as -his successors were at a later day at an adverse majority of tens of -thousands. He caused a meeting to be held at Martling’s on May 19, and -secured the appointment of a committee, with one member from each of -the ten wards, instructed to inquire into the causes contributing to -lessen Tammany’s usual majority. The committee was further instructed -to call a general meeting of the Republican citizens of the county, -on the completion of its investigation, and to report to them, that -it might be known who were their friends and who their enemies. Here -is to be seen the first manifestation of that systematic discipline -which Tammany Hall thereafter exercised. Wortman’s plan excited both -Clintonites and Federalists. The committee was called “the committee -of spies,” and was regarded generally as the beginning of a system of -intimidation and proscription. - -In the passionate acrimony of the struggle between Tammany and the -Clintons, the Federalists seemed to be well-nigh forgotten. The -speakers and writers of each side assailed the other with great fury. -One of these was James Cheetham, a Clinton supporter and editor of -the _American Citizen_. Goaded by his strictures, the Tammany Society -on the night of February 28, 1809, expelled him from membership on -the grounds that he had assailed the general Government and vilified -Jefferson. - -In the _American Citizen_ of March 1, Cheetham replied that the -resolution was carried by trickery. “Tammany Society,” Cheetham -continued, “was chartered by the Legislature of the State for -_charitable purposes_. Not a member of the Legislature, when it was -chartered, imagined, I dare to say, that it would be thus perverted to -the worst purposes of faction.” On May 1 he sent this note to the Grand -Sachem: - - “Sir, I decline membership in Tammany Society. Originally - national and Republican, it has degenerated into a savage - barbarity.” - -Cheetham then wrote to Grand Sachem Cowdrey for a certified copy of the -proceedings, saying he wanted it to base an action which he would bring -for the annulment of the charter of the Tammany Society for misuser. -Cowdrey expressed regret at not being able to accommodate him. “Tammany -Society,” wrote Cowdrey, - - “is an institution that has done much good and may and - undoubtedly will do more.… I do not think one error can or - ought to cancel its long list of good actions and wrest from it - its charter of incorporation, the basis of its stability and - existence.” - -The _American Citizen_ thereupon bristled with fiercer attacks upon -Tammany. “Jacobin clubs,” says “A Disciple of Washington,” in this -newspaper, July 29, 1809, - - “are becoming organized to overawe, not only the electors but - the elected under our government; such are the Washington and - the Tammany Societies. The latter was originally instituted - for harmless purposes and long remained harmless in its acts; - members from all parties were admitted to it; but we have seen - it become a tremendous political machine.… The Washington - Jacobin Club, it is said, consists of at least two thousand - rank and file, and the Tammany Jacobins to perhaps as many.… - The time will come, and that speedily, when the Legislature, - the Governor and the Council of Appointment shall not dare to - disobey their edicts.” - -Tammany retaliated upon Cheetham by having a bill passed by the -Legislature taking away from him the position of State Printer, which -paid $3,000 a year. - -Tammany’s comparative weakness in the city, as shown in the recent -vote, prompted Clinton to suggest a compromise and union of forces. -Overtures were made by his agents, and on July 13, 1809, twenty-eight -of the leaders of the Clinton, Madison, Burr and Lewis factions met in -a private room at Coleman’s Fair House. Matthew L. Davis told them the -chiefs ought to unite; experience demonstrated that if they did they -would lead the rest--meaning the voters. Tammany, he said, welcomed -a union of the Republican forces so as to prevent the election of a -Federalist Council of Appointment. Davis and Wortman proposed that they -unite to prevent any removals from office; that the two opposition -Republican clubs in turn should be destroyed and that their members -should go back to the Tammany Society, which, being on the decline, -must be reenforced. Or, if it should be thought advisable to put down -the Tammany Society, “considering its prevailing disrepute,” then a new -society should be organized in which Burrites, Lewisites, Clintonites -and Madisonians were to be admitted members under the general family -and brotherly name of Republican. - -De Witt Clinton cautiously kept away from this meeting, allowing his -lieutenants to do the work of outwitting Tammany. A committee of ten -was appointed to consider whether a coalition of the chiefs were -practicable; whether, if it were, the people would agree to it; whether -the Whig (opposition Republican) clubs should be destroyed and whether -the Tammany Society should be reenforced. - -The meeting came to naught. In this effort to win over the Tammany -chiefs, De Witt Clinton abandoned his protégé and dependent, Cheetham, -who had made himself obnoxious to them. Finding Clinton’s political -and financial support withdrawn, Cheetham, out of revenge, published -the proceedings of this secret meeting in the _American Citizen_, and, -awakening public indignation, closed the bargaining. A few nights later -a Tammany mob threw brickbats in the windows of Cheetham’s house. By -his death, on September 19, 1810, Tammany was freed from one of its -earliest and most vindictive assailants. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] _Journal of the Assembly_, 1821, p. 532, also p. 758. - -[2] _Ibid._, 1826, p. 750. - -[3] _MS. Minutes of the Common Council_, Vol. 16, pp. 239-40 and 405. - -[4] _MS. Minutes of the Common Council_, Vol. 16, pp. 288-89. - -[5] _Ibid._, p. 316. - -[6] _Ibid._, p. 50. - -[7] _Ibid._, Vol. 18, p. 194. - -[8] _Ibid._ - -[9] _Ibid._, Vol. 20, pp. 355-56. - -[10] _Ibid._, Vol. 20, p. 308. The full report on Mooney’s -administration appears in _Ibid._, pp. 376-92. - -[11] Although the subsequent laws of the Tammany Society forbade the -successive reelection of a Grand Sachem, the incumbent of the office -was frequently permitted to “hold over.” - -[12] Advertisement in the _Columbian_, May 14, 1810. - -[13] Wortman had been a follower of Clinton and had been generously -aided by him. He suddenly shifted to Tammany, on seeing better -opportunities of advancement with that body. - - - - -CHAPTER IV - -SLOW RECOVERY FROM DISASTER - -1809-1815 - - -The Tammany men fared badly for a time. During 1809 the Council of -Appointment removed numbers of them from office. In November the -Federalists elected a majority of their Aldermanic ticket, and in -April, 1810, they elected their Assembly ticket by the close majority -of 36. Even when the Federalists were beaten the following year, it -brought no good to Tammany, for a Clintonite Council of Appointment -dispensed the offices. Clinton, though ousted from the Mayoralty in -1810 to make room for the Federalist Jacob Radcliff, was again made -Mayor in the Spring of 1811. - -But before long affairs took another turn. Tammany was the only real -Republican organization in the city. It stood for the national party. -As men were inclined to vote more for party success than for particular -local nominees, Tammany’s candidates were certain to be swept in at -some time on the strength of party adherence. While the rank and file -of the organization were concerned in seeing its candidates successful -only inasmuch as that meant the success of democratic principles, the -leaders intrigued constantly for spoils at the expense of principles. -But whatever their conduct might be, they were sure of success when the -next wave of Republican feeling carried the party to victory. - -De Witt Clinton’s following was largely personal. Drawing, it was -estimated, from $10,000 to $20,000 a year in salary and fees as Mayor, -he lived in high style and distributed bounty liberally among his -supporters. His income aroused the wonder of his contemporaries. The -President of the United States received $25,000 annually; the Mayor of -Philadelphia, $2,000. “Posterity,” said one observer, “will read with -astonishment that a Mayor of New York should make the enormous sum of -$15,000 out of his office.” This was no inconsequential salary at a -time when a man worth $50,000 was thought rich; when a good house could -be rented for $350 a year, and $750 or $800 would meet the expenses of -the average family. Many of those whom Clinton helped picked a quarrel -with him later, in order to have a pretext for the repudiation of their -debts, and joined Tammany. - -Tammany had the party machine, but Clinton had a powerful hold on the -lower classes, especially the Irish. As United States Senator he had -been foremost in having the naturalization period reduced from fourteen -to five years, and he made himself popular with them in other ways. He, -himself, was of Irish descent. - -The Irish were bitter opponents of Tammany Hall. The prejudice against -allowing “adopted citizens” to mingle in politics was deep; and Tammany -claimed to be a thoroughly native body. As early as May 12, 1791, at -Campbell’s Tavern, Greenwich, the Tammany Society had announced that -being a national body, it consisted of Americans born, who would fill -all offices; though adopted Americans were eligible to honorary posts, -such as warriors and hunters. An “adopted citizen” was looked upon -as an “exotic.” Religious feeling, too, was conspicuous. It was only -after repeated hostile demonstrations that Tammany would consent, in -1809, for the first time to place a Catholic--Patrick McKay--upon its -Assembly ticket. - -The accession of the Livingston family had helped the society, adding -the support of a considerable faction and “respectability.” The -Livingstons, intent on superseding the Clintons, seized on Tammany as -a good lever. Above all, it was necessary to have a full application -of “respectability,” and to further that end the society put up a -pretentious building--the recent _Sun_ newspaper building. In 1802 -the Tammany Society had tried by subscription to build a fine Wigwam, -but was unsuccessful. The unwisdom of staying in such a place as -Martling’s, which subjected them to gibes, and which was described as -“the Den where the Wolves and Bears and Panthers assemble and drink -down large potations of beer,” was impressed upon the Sachems who, led -by Jacob Barker, the largest shipbuilder in the country at the time, -raised the sum of $28,000. The new Wigwam was opened in 1811, with the -peculiar Indian ceremonies. Sachem Abraham M. Valentine--the same man -who, for malfeasance, was afterward (May 26, 1830) removed from the -office of Police Magistrate[1]--was the grand marshal of the day. - -From 1811 the Tammany, or Martling, men came under the general term -of the Tammany Hall party or Tammany Hall; the general committee was -called technically the Democratic-Republican General Committee. The -Tammany Society, with its eleven hundred members, now more than ever -_appeared_ distinct from the Tammany Hall political body. Though the -general committee was supplied with the use of rooms and the hall in -the building, it met on different nights from the society, and to all -appearances acted independently of it. But the society, in fact, was -and continued to be, the secret ruler of the political organization. -Its Sachems were chosen yearly from the most influential of the local -Tammany political leaders. - -De Witt Clinton aimed to be President of the United States and schemed -for his nomination by the Republican Legislative caucus. Early -in 1811 he sought and received from the caucus the nomination for -Lieutenant-Governor. He purposed to hold both the offices of Mayor -and Lieutenant-Governor, while spending as much time as he could at -Albany so as to bring his direct influence to bear in person. As a -State officer he could do this without loss of dignity. He would -have preferred the post of State Senator, but he feared if he stood -for election in New York City Tammany would defeat him. The chiefs, -regarding his nomination as treachery toward Madison, immediately held -a meeting and issued a notice that they ceased to consider him a member -of the Republican party; that he was not only opposing Madison but was -bent on establishing a pernicious family aristocracy. - -When the Clinton men tried to hold a counter meeting at the Union -Hotel a few days later, the Tammany men rushed in and put them to -flight.[2] Tammany was so anxious to defeat Clinton that it supported -the Federalist candidate for Lieutenant-Governor, defeating the -aggressive Mayor. But Clinton obtained the caucus nomination for -President. His partizans voted the Federalist Assembly ticket (1812) -rather than aid the Republican ticket of Tammany Hall. Assisted by the -Federalists, Clinton received the electoral vote of New York State, but -was overwhelmed by Madison. His course seemed precisely that with which -Tammany had charged him--treason to the party to which he professed to -belong. In a short time, the Wigwam succeeded in influencing nearly all -the Republicans in New York City against him. - -One other event helped to bring back strength and prestige to -Tammany Hall. This was the War of 1812, which Tammany called for and -supported. On February 26, four months before war was declared, the -Tammany Society passed resolutions recommending immediate war with -Great Britain unless she should repeal her “Orders in Council.” The -members pledged themselves to support the Government “in that just -and necessary war” with their “lives, fortunes and sacred honor.” The -conservative element execrated Tammany, but the supporters of the war -came to look upon it more favorably, and about a thousand persons, some -of whom had been members before but had ceased attendance, applied -for membership. Throughout the conflict Tammany Hall was the resort -of the war-party. At the news of each victory the flag was hoisted to -the breeze and a celebration followed. The successful military and -naval men were banqueted there, while hundreds of candles illumined -every window in the building. On August 31, 1814, 1150 members of the -society marched to build defenses in Brooklyn; but this was not done -until public pressure forced it, for by August 15 at least twenty other -societies, civil and trades, had volunteered, and Tammany had to make -good its pretensions. - -The leaders prospered by Madison’s favor. From one contract alone -Matthew L. Davis reaped $80,000, and Nathan Sanford was credited with -making his office of United States District Attorney at New York yield -as high as $30,000 a year. The lesser political workers were rewarded -proportionately. Having a direct and considerable interest in the -success of Madison’s administration, they were indefatigable partizans. -Some of the Tammany leaders proved their devotion to their country’s -cause by doing service in the Quartermaster’s Department. Among these -were the two Swartwouts (John and Robert), who became Generals, and -Romaine, who became a Colonel. - -This war had the effect of causing the society to abandon its custom -of marching in Indian garb.[3] In 1813 the Indians in the Northwest, -incited by British agents, went on the war-path, torturing and -scalping, devastating settlements and killing defenseless men, women -and children. Their very name became repulsive to the whites. The -society seemed to be callous to this feeling, and began preparations -for its annual parades, in the usual Indian costumes, with painted -faces, wearing bearskins and carrying papooses. The Federalists -declared that these exhibitions, at all times ridiculous and absurd, -would be little short of criminal after the cruelties which were being -committed by the Tammany men of the wilderness. These attacks affected -the Tammany Society so much that a majority of the members, consisting -mainly of the politicians and young men, held a secret meeting and -abolished all imitations of the Indians, in dress and manners as well -as in name, and resolved that the officers should thereafter bear plain -English titles. - -Mooney opposed the change.[4] He would not listen to having those -picturesque and native ceremonies, which he himself had ordained, wiped -out. He resigned as Grand Sachem, and many of the Sachems went with -him. On May 1, 1813, Benjamin Romaine was elected Grand Sachem, and -other “reformers” were chosen as Sachems. On July 4 the Tammany Society -marched with reduced numbers in ordinary civilian garb. From that time -the society contented itself with civilian costume until 1825, when its -parades ceased. - -The attitude of the political parties to the war had the effect -of making Tammany Hall the predominant force in the State, and of -disorganizing the Federalist party beyond hope of recovery. Tammany -began in 1813 to organize for the control of the State and to put -down for all time De Witt Clinton, whom it denounced as having tried -to paralyze the energies of Madison’s administration. Meanwhile -the Federalist leaders in the city, with a singular lack of tact, -were constantly offending the popular feeling with their political -doctrines and their haughty airs of superior citizenship. To such an -extent was this carried that at times they were mobbed, as on June 29, -1814, for celebrating the return of the Bourbons to the French throne. - -The organization of Tammany Hall, begun, as has been seen, by the -formation of the general, nominating and correspondence committees, -in 1806 and 1808, was now further elaborated. A finance committee, -whose duty it was to gather for the leaders a suitable campaign fund, -was created, and this was followed by the creation of the Republican -Young Men’s General Committee,[5] which was a sort of auxiliary to the -general committee, having limited powers, and serving as a province -for the ambitions of the young men. The Democratic-Republican General -Committee was supposed to comprise only the trusted ward leaders, ripe -with years and experience. About the beginning of the War of 1812, it -added to its duties the issuing of long public addresses on political -topics. These general committees were made self-perpetuating. At the -close of every year they would issue a notice to the voters when and -where to meet for the election of their successors. No sooner did -the committee of one year step out than the newly elected committee -instantly took its place. There were also ward or vigilance committees, -which were expected to bring every Tammany-Republican voter to the -polls, to see that no Federalist intimidation was attempted and -to campaign for the party. The Tammany Hall organization was in a -superb state by the year 1814, and in active operation ceaselessly. -The Federalists, on the contrary, were scarcely organized, and the -Clintonites had declined to a mere faction. - -The Tammany leaders, moreover, were shrewd and conciliating. About -forty Federalists--disgusted, they said, with their party’s opposition -to the war--joined the Tammany Society. They were led by Gulian C. -Verplanck, who severely assailed Clinton, much to the Wigwam’s delight. -Tammany Hall not only received them with warmth, but advanced nearly -all of them, such as Jacob Radcliff, Richard Hadfelt, Richard Riker -and Hugh Maxwell, to the first public positions. This was about the -beginning of that policy, never since abandoned, by which Tammany Hall -has frequently broken up opposing parties or factions. The winning over -of leaders from the other side and conferring upon them rewards in the -form of profitable public office or contracts has been one of the most -notable methods of Tammany’s diplomacy. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] _MS. Minutes of the Common Council_, Vol. 72, p. 137. Judge Irving -and an Aldermanic committee, after a searching investigation, found -Valentine guilty of receiving from prisoners money for which he did not -account to the city. - -[2] Hammond, Vol. I, p. 294. - -[3] R. S. Guernsey, _New York City During the War of 1812_. - -[4] Mooney had now become opulent, being the owner of three or four -houses and lots. - -[5] The moving spirit in this committee for some years was Samuel L. -Berrian, who had been indicted in August, 1811, for instigating a riot -in Trinity Church, convicted and fined $100. - - - - -CHAPTER V - -TAMMANY IN ABSOLUTE CONTROL. - -1815-1817 - - -By 1815 Tammany Hall obtained control of the State, and in 1816 -completely regained that of the city. The Common Council and its -dependent offices since 1809 had been more or less under Federalist -rule, and from the beginning of the century the city had had a -succession of Clintonite office-holders in those posts controlled by -the Council of Appointment. - -At the close of the War of 1812 the population of the city approached -100,000, and there were 13,941 voters in all. The total expenses of -the municipality reached a little over a million dollars. The city had -but one public school, which was maintained by public subscription. -Water was supplied chiefly by the Manhattan Company, by means of bored -wooden logs laid underground from the reservoir in Chambers street. No -fire department was dreamed of, and every blaze had the city at its -mercy. The streets were uncleaned; only two or three thoroughfares were -fit for the passage of carriages, though until 1834 the law required -the inhabitants to clean the streets in front of their houses. Many -of those elaborate departments which we now associate with political -control were then either in an embryo state or not thought of. - -The Aldermen were not overburdened with public anxieties. No salary -was attached to the office, yet none the less, it was sought -industriously. In early days it was regarded as a post of honor and -filled as such, but with the beginning of the century it was made a -means of profit. The professional politician of the type of to-day was -rare. The Aldermen had business, as a rule, upon which they depended -and to which they attended in the day, holding sessions of the board -sporadically at night. The only exception to this routine was when -the Alderman performed some judicial office. Under the law, as soon -as an Alderman entered office he became a judge of some of the most -important courts, being obliged to preside with the Mayor at the -trial of criminals. This system entailed upon the Aldermen the trial -of offenses against laws many of which they themselves made, and it -had an increasingly pernicious influence upon politics. Otherwise the -sole legal perquisites and compensation of the Aldermen consisted in -their power and custom of making appropriations, including those for -elaborate public dinners for themselves. It was commonly known that -they awarded contracts for city necessaries either to themselves or to -their relatives. - -The backward state of the city, its filthy and neglected condition and -the chaotic state of public improvements and expenditures, excited -little public discussion. The Common Councils were composed of men of -inferior mind. It is told of one of them that hearing that the King of -France had taken umbrage he ran home post haste to get his atlas and -find out the location of that particular spot. In the exclusive charge -of such a body New York City would have struggled along but slowly had -it not been for the courage and genius of the man who at one stroke -started it on a dazzling career of prosperity. This was De Witt Clinton. - -No sooner did a Republican Council of Appointment step into office, -early in 1815, than Tammany Hall pressed for the removal of Clinton -as Mayor and announced that John Ferguson, the Grand Sachem of the -Society, would have to be appointed in his place.[1] The Council, at -the head of which was Gov. Tompkins, wavered and delayed, Tompkins -not caring to offend the friends of Clinton by the latter’s summary -removal. At this the entire Tammany representation, which had gone -to Albany for the purpose, grew furious and threatened that not only -would they nominate no ticket the next Spring, but would see that none -of their friends should accept office under the Council, did it fail -to remove Clinton. This action implied the turning out of the Council -of Appointment at the next election. Yielding to these menaces, the -Council removed Clinton. Then by a compromise, Ferguson was made Mayor -until the National Government should appoint him Naval Officer when -Jacob Radcliff (Mayor 1810-1811) was to succeed him--an arrangement -which was carried out.[2] - -The Wigwam was overjoyed at having struck down Clinton, and now -expected many years of supremacy. From youth Clinton’s sole occupation -had been politics. He had spent his yearly salaries and was deeply -in debt. His political aspirations seemed doomed. Stripped, as he -appeared, of a party or even a fraction of one, the Sachems felt sure -of his retirement to private life forever. In this belief they were as -much animated by personal as by political enmity. Clinton had sneered -at or ridiculed nearly all of them, and he spoke of them habitually in -withering terms. - -Besides, to enlarge their power in the city they needed the Mayor’s -office. The Mayor had the right to appoint a Deputy Mayor from -among the Aldermen, the Deputy Mayor acting with full power in his -absence. The Mayor could convene the Common Council, and he appointed -and licensed marshals, porters, carriers, cartmen, carmen, cryers, -scullers and scavengers, and removed them at pleasure. He licensed -tavern-keepers and all who sold excisable liquors by retail. The Mayor, -the Deputy Mayor, Recorder and Aldermen were ex-officio Justices of -the Peace, and were empowered to hold Courts of General Sessions. The -Mayor, Recorder and Aldermen were also Justices of Oyer and Terminer; -and the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Recorder could preside over the Court -of Common Pleas with or without the Aldermen. The gathering of all this -power into its own control gave further strength to Tammany Hall. - -But the expressions of regret at Clinton’s removal were so spontaneous -and sincere that Tammany feigned participation in them and took the -utmost pains to represent the removal as only a political exigency. The -Common Council (which was now Federalist) passed, on March 21, 1815, a -vote of thanks to Clinton for his able administration.[3] Curiously, -the very Wigwam men who had made it their business to undertake the -tedious travel over bad roads to Albany to effect his removal (Aldermen -Smith, George Buckmaster, Mann and Burtis) voted loudest in favor of -the resolution. - -Out of office, Clinton found time to agitate for the building of a -navigable canal between the great western lakes and the tide waters -of the Hudson. The idea of this enterprise was not original with him. -It had been suggested over thirty years before, but it was he who -carried it forward to success. The bigotry and animus with which it -was assailed were amazing. Tammany Hall frequently passed resolutions -denouncing the project as impracticable and chimerical, declaring that -the canal would make a ditch fit to bury its author in. At Albany the -Tammany representatives greeted the project with a burst of mockery, -and placed obstacle after obstacle in its path. - -In the intervals of warring upon Clinton, Tammany was adroitly seizing -every post of vantage in the city. The Burr men ruled its councils and -directed the policy and nominations of the Republican, or, as it was -getting to be more generally known, the Democratic-Republican party. -Three men, in particular, were foremost as leaders--George Buckmaster, -a boat builder; Roger Strong and Benjamin Prince, a druggist and -physician. Teunis Wortman, one of the energetic leaders in 1807-10, -was now not quite so conspicuous. What the Wigwam lacked to make -its rule in the city complete was a majority in the Common Council. -The committees of the Council not only had the exclusive power of -expenditures, but they invariably refused an acceptable accounting.[4] -The Federalists, though vanishing as a party owing to their attitude -in the recent war, still managed, through local dissensions among the -Republicans, to retain control of the Common Council. The Federalists, -therefore, held the key to the purse. It had always been customary for -the Mayor to appoint the Common Council committees from the party which -happened to be dominant. - -Established forms meant nothing to Mayor Radcliff and to Buckmaster[5] -and other Tammany Aldermen, who late in December, 1815, decided to turn -out the Federalist chairmen of committees and put Tammany men in their -places. Radcliff imprudently printed a handbill of officers he intended -appointing, copies of which he sent to his partizans. A copy fell into -a Federalist’s hands. At the next meeting, before the Mayor could get a -chance to act, the Federalist majority altered the rules so as to vest -in future the appointment of all committees in a majority of the board. -The Sachems were so enraged at Radcliff’s bungling that they declared -they would have him removed from office. About a year afterward they -carried out their threat. - -In 1816 Tammany elected not only its Congress and Assembly ticket, but -a Common Council, by over 1000 majority out of 9000 votes. This victory -was the result of the wily policy of further disrupting the Federalist -party by nominating its most popular men. Walter Bowne, a late -Federalist, an enemy of Clinton and a man of standing in the community, -was one of those nominated by Tammany Hall for State Senator, and the -support of the wealthy was solicited by the selection of men of their -own class, such as Col. Rutgers, said to be the richest man in the -State. - -Most of Tammany’s early members, certainly the leaders, were now rich -and had stepped into the upper middle class; but their wealth could -not quite secure them admittance to that stiff aristocracy above them, -which demanded something more of a passport than the possession of -money. Another body of members were the small tradesmen and the like, -to whom denunciations of the aristocracy were extremely palatable. A -third class, that of the mechanics and laborers, believed that Tammany -Hall exclusively represented them in its onslaughts on the aristocracy. -From the demands of these various interests arose the singular sight -of Tammany Hall winning the support of the rich by systematically -catering to them; of the middle class, which it reflected, and of the -poor, in whose interests it claimed to work. The spirit of the Tammany -Society was well illustrated in its odd address on public affairs in -1817, wherein it lamented the spread of the foreign game of billiards -among the aristocratic youth and the prevalence of vice among the -lower classes. Again, in May, 1817, the Tammany majority of the Common -Council, under pressure from the religious element, passed an ordinance -fining every person $5 who should hunt, shoot, fish, spar or play on -Sunday--a law which cut off from the poor their favorite pastimes. - -Here, too, another of the secrets by which the organization was enabled -to thrive, should be mentioned. This was the “regularity” of its -nominations. Teunis Wortman, a few years before, had disclosed the -real substance of the principle of “regularity” when he wrote: “The -nominating power is an omnipotent one. Though it approaches us in the -humble attitude of the _recommendation_, its influence is irresistible. -Every year’s experience demonstrates that its recommendations are -commands. That instead of presenting a choice it deprives us of all -option.”[6] The plain meaning was that, regardless of the candidate’s -character, the mass of the party would vote for him once he happened -to be put forth on the “regular” ticket. Fully alive to the value of -this particular power, the Tammany Hall General Committee, successively -and unfailingly, would invite in its calls for all meetings “those -friendly to regular nominations.” Its answer to charges of dictatorship -was plain and direct. Discipline was necessary, its leaders said, to -prevent aristocrats from disrupting their party by inciting a variety -of nominations. - -It was through this fertile agency that “bossism” became an easy -possibility. With the voters in such a receptive state of mind it -was not difficult to dictate nominations. The general committee was -composed of thirty members; its meetings were secret and attended -seldom by more than fourteen members. So, substantially, fourteen -men were acting for over five thousand Republican voters, and eight -members of the fourteen composed a majority. Yet the system had all the -pretense of being pure democracy; the wards were called upon at regular -intervals to elect delegates; the latter chose candidates or made party -rules; and the “great popular meeting” accepted or rejected nominees; -it all seemed to spring directly from the people. - -This exquisitely working machine was in full order when the -organization secured a firm hold upon the city in 1816. The newly -elected Common Council removed every Federalist possible and put a -stanch Tammany man in his place. The Federalist Captains of Police -and the heads and subordinates of many departments whose appointments -and removal were vested in the Common Council were all ejected. This -frequent practice of changes in the police force, solely because of -political considerations, had a demoralizing effect upon the welfare of -the city. - -Both parties were as responsible for this state of affairs as they were -for the increase in the city’s debt. To provide revenue the Aldermen -repeatedly caused to be sold ground owned by the municipality in the -heart of the city. This was one of their clumsy or fraudulent methods -of concealing the squandering of city funds, on what no one knew. They -were not ignorant that with the growth of the city the value of the -land would increase vastly. It was perhaps for this very reason they -sold it; for it was generally themselves or the Tammany leaders who -were the buyers. One sale was of land fronting Bowling Green, among the -purchasers being John Swartwout, Jacob Barker and John Sharpe. A hint -as to the fraudulent ways in which the Tammany leaders became rich is -furnished by a report made to the Common Council respecting land in -Hamilton Square, bought from the city by Jacob Barker, John S. Hunn and -others. The report stated that repeated applications for the payment -of principal and interest had been made without effect.[7] - -By 1817 the Federalists in New York City were crushed, quite beyond -hope of resurrection as a winning party. The only remaining fear was -Clinton, whose political death the organization celebrated prematurely. -Public opinion was one factor Tammany had not conquered. - -This inclined more and more daily to the support of Clinton. -Notwithstanding all the opposition which narrow-mindedness and hatred -could invent, Clinton’s grand project of the Erie Canal became -popular--distinctively so throughout the State, then so greatly -agricultural. On April 15, 1817, the bill pledging the State to the -building of the canal became a law, the Tammany delegation and all -their friends voting against it. - -Gov. Tompkins becoming Vice-President, a special election to fill the -gubernatorial vacancy became necessary. A new and powerful junction -of Clinton’s old friends and the disunited Federalists joined in -nominating him to succeed Tompkins. This was bitter news to Tammany, -which made heroic efforts to defeat him, nominating as its candidate -Peter B. Porter, and sending tickets with his name into every county in -the State. - -Inopportunely for the Wigwam, the resentment of the Irish broke out -against it at this time. Tammany’s long-continued refusal to give -the Irish proper representation among its nominations, either in the -society or for public office, irritated them greatly. On February 7, -a writer in a newspaper over the signature “Connal,” averred in an -open letter to Matthew L. Davis that on the evening of February 3, -the Tammany Society had considered a resolution for the adoption of -a new constitution, the object of which was to exclude foreigners -entirely from holding office in the society. This may not have been -strictly true, but the anti-foreign feeling in the organization was -unquestionably strong. The Irish had sought, some time before, to have -the organization nominate for Congress Thomas Addis Emmett, an Irish -orator and patriot and an ardent friend of Clinton. As Tammany Hall -since 1802 had not only invariably excommunicated all Clintonites, -but had broken up such Clinton meetings as were held, this demand was -refused without discussion. The Irish grew to regard Tammany Hall as -the home of bigotry; the Wigwam, in turn, was resolved not to alienate -the prejudiced native support by recognizing foreigners; furthermore, -the Irish were held to be Clintonites trying to get into Tammany Hall -and control it. - -The long-smouldering enmity burst out on the night of April 24, 1817, -when the general committee was in session. Two hundred Irishmen, -assembled at Dooley’s Long Room, marched in rank to the Wigwam and -broke into the meeting room. The intention of their leaders was -to impress upon the committee the wisdom of nominating Emmett for -Congress, as well as other Irish Catholics on the Tammany ticket in -future, but the more fiery spirits at once started a fight. Eyes were -blackened, noses and heads battered freely. The invaders broke the -furniture, using it for weapons and shattering it maliciously; tore -down the fixtures and shivered the windows. Reinforcements arriving, -the intruders were driven out, but not before nearly all present had -been bruised and beaten.[8] - -Clinton received an overwhelming majority for Governor, Porter -obtaining a ridiculously small vote in both New York City and the rest -of the State.[9] Thus in the feud between Tammany Hall and DeWitt -Clinton, the latter, lacking a political machine and basing his contest -solely on a political idea--that of internal improvements--emerged -triumphant. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] Hammond, Vol. I, p. 399. - -[2] Valentine in his _Manual of the Common Council of New York_, for -1842-44, p. 163, states that Ferguson held on to both offices until -President Monroe required him to say which office he preferred. -Ferguson soon after resigned the Mayoralty. He held the other post -until his death in 1832. - -[3] _MS. Minutes of the Common Council_, Vol. 29, p. 150. - -[4] As late as July 28, 1829, the Common Council refused such an -accounting. Charles King, a prominent citizen, memorialized the -Council, through Alderman Lozier, to furnish an itemized statement of -the expenditure of over half a million dollars for the previous fiscal -year. By a vote of 15 to 6 the Council refused to grant the request. A -public agitation on the question following, the board later rescinded -its action, and supplied the statement. - -[5] Buckmaster had a record. On October 9, 1815, the Common Council -passed a secret resolution to sell $440,000 of United States bonds -it held at 97--the stock being then under par. About $30,000 worth -was disposed of at that figure, when the officials found that not a -dollar’s worth more could be sold. Investigation followed. Gould Hoyt -proved that Buckmaster had disclosed the secret to certain Wall street -men, who, taking advantage of the city’s plight, forced the sale of the -stock at 95. Buckmaster was chairman of the general committee in 1815 -and at other times, and chairman of the nominating committee in 1820. - -[6] _New York Public Advertiser_, April 13, 1809. This journal was -secretly supported for a time by the funds of the Tammany Society. - -[7] _MS. Minutes of the Common Council_, Vol. 18, p. 359. - -[8] _The National Advocate_, May 10, asserted that the Irish entered -Tammany Hall, shouting “Down with the Natives!” but the assertion was -denied. - -[9] Clinton’s vote was nearly 44,000; Porter’s not quite 1,400. - - - - -CHAPTER VI - -CLINTON MAINTAINS HIS SUPREMACY - -1817-1820 - - -With Gov. Clinton at the head of the Council of Appointment, Tammany -men expected the force of his vengeance. They were not disappointed. He -removed many of them for no other reason than that they belonged to the -organization. - -Hoping to make terms with him, the Wigwam Assemblymen, early in 1818, -presented to the Council of Appointment a petition praying for the -removal of Mayor Radcliff and the appointment in his place of William -Paulding, Jr. “Radcliff,” the paper read, “is an unfit person longer -to fill that honorable and respectful office.” Clinton smiled at this -ambidexterity. It was rumored that he intended to award the honor to -Cadwallader D. Colden, a Federalist supporter of the War of 1812, and -one of the Federalists Tammany Hall had sent to the Assembly in 1817, -as a means of breaking up that party. Colden now let it be understood -that he sided with Clinton. - -The whole Tammany delegation lived in a single house at Albany and -met in a large room, No. 10, in Eagle Tavern. “This system of acting -as a separate body,” admitted Tammany’s own organ,[1] “was very -injudicious to our city. It created suspicion and distrust among -country members; it looked like a separate interest; a combination of -a powerful delegation to frown down or overpower the delegation of a -smaller county.” Colden did not join in these nightly meetings. One -day he was coaxed in to take a glass of wine. To his surprise, upon -opening the door of No. 10, he found the delegation in caucus. The -meeting seemed to be waiting for him before transacting business. He -had scarcely taken a seat, when one of the members arose, and in a long -speech protested against any member of the city delegation accepting -an office, and suggested that each member should pledge himself not -to do so. Colden saw at once that the resolution was directed against -himself. He exclaimed energetically against the trickery, declaring -that he had not asked for the office of Mayor, but would accept it if -offered. The meeting broke up; Colden was appointed Mayor, and Tammany -Hall from that time denounced him. - -In Albany, Clinton was vigorously pushing forward the Erie Canal -project; the Tammany men were as aggressively combatting it.[2] While -Clinton was thus absorbed in this great public enterprise the Wigwam -was enriching its leaders in manifold ways. An instance of this was -the noted Barker episode. Jacob Barker was a Sachem, a leader of -great influence in the political organization, and such a power in -financial and business circles that at one time he defied the United -States Bank. He and Matthew L. Davis were Burr’s firmest friends to -the hour of Burr’s death. Early in 1818 a bill prohibiting private -banking, prepared at the instance of the incorporated banks, which -sought a monopoly, passed the Senate; though as a special favor to -Barker the Senate exempted from its provisions the latter’s Exchange -Bank for three years. But Barker desired an indefinite lease. To create -a show of public sentiment he had the hall packed with his friends -and creatures on April 14, when resolutions were passed stating that -the proposed bill would destroy all competition with the incorporated -banks, “benefit the rich, oppress the poor, extend the power of -existing aristocracies, and terminate the banking transactions of an -individual whose loans have been highly advantageous to many laborious -and industrious mechanics and neighboring farmers.” The Legislature -granted the privileges Barker asked. A few years later (1826) the -sequel to this legislative favoritism appeared in the form of one of -the most sensational trials witnessed in early New York. - -The year 1818 saw Tammany Hall in the unusual position of advocating -a protective tariff. The War of 1812 having injured domestic -manufacturing, the demand for such a measure was general. Party -asperity had softened, and Republicans, or Democrats--as they were -coming to be known--and Federalists alike favored it. The society made -the best of this popular wave. It issued an address, advising moderate -protective duties on foreign goods. But New York then, and until after -the Civil War, was a great shipbuilding center; and the shipbuilders -and owners and the importing merchants soon influenced Tammany to -revert to the stanch advocacy of free trade. - -The almost complete extinction of national party lines under Monroe -caused the disappearance of violent partizan recriminations and brought -municipal affairs more to public attention. From 1817 onward public -bodies agitated much more forcibly and persistently than before for -the correction of certain local evils. Chief among these were the high -taxes. In 1817 the city tax levy was $180,000; in 1818 it rose to -$250,000, “an enormous amount,” one newspaper said. Though the city -received annually $200,000 in rents from houses and lots, for wharves, -slips and piers, and also a considerable amount from fines, yet there -was a constantly increasing deficit. The city expenses were thought -to be too slight to devour the ordinary revenue. The Democratic, or -Tammany, officials made attempts to explain that much of the debt was -contracted under Federalist Common Councils, and said that sufficient -money must be provided or “the poor would starve.” - -At almost the identical time this plea was entered, E. C. Genet -was laying before the Grand Jury a statement to this effect: that -although it was known that the aggregate capital of the incorporated -banks, insurance and commission companies in New York City, exclusive -of one branch of the United States Bank, amounted in 1817 to about -$22,000,000, in addition to the shares in those companies, yet the city -and States taxes combined “on all that vast personal estate in New York -City are only a paltry $97,000.” - -The explanation of the blindness of the Wigwam officials to the escape -of the rich from taxation is simple. The Tammany Hall of 1818 was not -the Tammany Hall of 1800. In that interval the poor young men who once -had to club together in order to vote had become directors in banking, -insurance and various other corporations, which as members of the -Legislature or as city officials they themselves had helped to form. -Being such, they exerted all the influence of their political machinery -to save their property from taxation. From about 1805 to 1837 Tammany -Hall was ruled directly by about one-third bankers, one-third merchants -and the remaining third politicians of various pursuits. The masses -formed--except at rare times--the easily wielded body. The leaders -safeguarded their own interests at every point, however they might -profess at election times an abhorrence of the aristocracy; and the -Grand Jury being of them, ignored Genet’s complaint. - -A new series of revelations concerning the conduct of Tammany -chieftains was made public during 1817-18. Ruggles Hubbard, a one-time -Sachem and at the time Sheriff of the county, absconded from the city -August 15, 1817, leaving a gap in the treasury.[3] John L. Broome, -another Sachem, was shortly after removed from the office of City -Clerk by the Council of Appointment for having neglected to take the -necessary securities from Hubbard. John P. Haff, a one-time Grand -Sachem and long a power in the organization, was removed by President -Monroe on November 14, 1818, from the office of Surveyor of the Port, -for corruption and general unfitness.[4] - -But the most sensational of these exposures was that concerning the -swindling of the Medical Science Lottery, by which Naphtali Judah[5] -and others profited handsomely. The testimony brought out before Mayor -Colden, November 10, 1818, showed that a corrupt understanding existed -between Judah and one of the lottery’s managers, by which the former -was enabled to have a knowledge of the state of the wheel. Not less -than $100,000 was drawn on the first day, of which Judah received -a large share. Further affidavits were submitted tending to show a -corrupt understanding between Judah and Alderman Isaac Denniston in the -drawing of the Owego Lottery, by which Denniston won $35,000. John L. -Broome was also implicated in the scandal, and Teunis Wortman, while -not directly concerned in it, was considered involved by the public, -and suffered a complete loss of popular favor,[6] though retaining -for some time a certain degree of influence in the society and -organization. - -Always as popular criticism began to assert itself, Tammany would -make a sudden display of patriotism, accompanied by the pronouncement -of high-sounding toasts and other exalted utterances. Such it did in -1817, when the society took part in the interment of the remains of -Gen. Montgomery in St. Paul’s Church. And now the Sachems prepared to -entertain Andrew Jackson at a banquet, and also indirectly signify -that he was their choice for President. William Mooney, again elected -Grand Sachem, sent to Gen. Jackson, under date of February 15, 1819, a -grandiloquent letter of invitation which, referring to the battle of -New Orleans, said in part: - - “Columbia’s voice, in peals of iron thunder, proclaimed the - dread fiat of that eventful morn! Terra was drenched with human - gore! The perturbed elements were hushed! Mars and Bellona - retired from the ensanguined field! and godlike Hera resumed - her gentle reign.… We approbate your noble deeds and greet you - hero. Scourge of British insolence, Spanish perfidy and Indian - cruelty--these, sir, are the sentiments of the Sons of Liberty - in New York who compose the National Institution of Tammany - Society No. 1 of the United States. Here, sir, we guard the - patriot flame--‘preserved by concord’--its effulgence, in a - blaze of glory, shall surround and accompany you to the temple - of interminable fame and honor.” - -Jackson accepted the invitation. Cadwallader D. Colden, who had been -reappointed Mayor a few days before, was asked to preside. When, on -February 23, the banquet was held and Jackson was called for his toast, -Colden arose, and to the consternation of the Tammany men proposed: -“De Witt Clinton, the Governor of the great and patriotic State of New -York.” This surprising move made it appear that Jackson favored the -Clinton party. To counteract the impression, the General instantly -left the room, “amidst reiterated applauses,” and a dead silence ensued -for three minutes. This incident, it may well be believed, did not -dampen the society’s enthusiasm for Jackson; it continued to champion -him ardently. - -Colden was reappointed Mayor for the third time in February, 1820. -Municipal issues were dividing the public consideration with Tammany’s -renewed efforts to overthrow Clinton. The report of the Common Council -Finance Committee, January 10, 1820, showed that the city would soon -be $1,300,000 in debt. An attempt was made to show how the money had -been spent on the new City Hall and Bellevue Hospital, but it proved -nothing. Although the law expressly prohibited Aldermen from being -directly or indirectly interested in any contract or job, violations -were common. It was alleged that streets were sunk, raised and sunk -again, to enable the contractors to make large claims against the city. -To soothe public clamor, the Aldermen made a show of reducing city -expenses. The salary of Colden--he being a Clintonite--was reduced -$2,500, and the pay of various other city officers was cut down. The -salaries of the Wigwam men were not interfered with. - -The wholesome criticism of municipal affairs was soon obscured again -by the reviving tumult of the contest between Tammany and Clinton. The -Governor stood for reelection against Daniel D. Tompkins in April, -1820. Tompkins had long been the idol of the Tammany men and for a -time was one of the society’s Sachems. In 1818 he had been practically -charged with being a public defaulter. State Controller Archibald -M’Intyre submitted to the Legislature a mass of his vouchers, public -and private (for the time Tompkins was Governor), which showed a -balance against him of $197,297.64. In this balance, however, was -included the sum of $142,763.60 which was not allowed to Tompkins’s -credit because the vouchers were insufficient. Allowing Tompkins this -amount, the balance against him was $54,533.44. Tompkins, on the other -hand, claimed the State owed him $120,000. His partisans in the Senate -in 1819 passed a bill to re-imburse him, but it was voted down in the -Assembly.[7] - -The statements of both sides during the campaign of 1820 were filled -with epithets and strings of accusations. Tammany contrasted Clinton’s -alleged going over to the British with Tompkins’s patriotism in the -War of 1812. Party lines were broken down, and Federalists and Tammany -men acted together, as they had done the year before (1819), when -their Legislative ticket won over the Clintonites by 2,500 majority. -The Clintonites were tauntingly invited to visit the Wigwam, because -in that “stronghold of Democracy would be found no ‘Swiss’ Federalism, -no British partizans, no opponents of the late war, no bribers or -bribed for bank charters, no trimming politicians, no lobby members -or legislative brokers.” In Tammany Hall they would see a body of -independent yeomen, of steady and unerring Republicans and men who -rallied around their country in the hour of danger.[8] - -While Clinton’s adherents in New York City on election day were -inactive, his opponents, ever on the lookout, carried the city by 675 -majority. The popularity of the Erie Canal, however, which was fast -nearing completion, carried the rest of the State for Clinton.[9] -“Heads up! tails down,” shouted the exuberant, successful Clintonites -some days after, pointing to the disappointed, discomfited Bucktails. -For Tammany had been so sure of Tompkins’s election that it had -procured, at considerable expense, a painting of him which was to be -exhibited in the hall when the news of his election should arrive. By -way of consolation the Sachems drank to this toast at their anniversary -on May 12: - - “De Witt Clinton, our lean Governor-- - ---- May he never get fat, - While he wears two faces under one hat.” - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] _National Advocate_, October 7, 1822. A circumstantial account of -the meeting referred to on the following page appears in this issue. -The paper was edited and owned by M. M. Noah, who became Grand Sachem -in 1824. - -[2] Hammond, Vol. I, p. 450. - -[3] In what year Hubbard was Sachem is uncertain. His name is included -in Horton’s list. He was one of the chiefs in the nominating committee -from 1815 to 1817. It is worthy of note that only a short time before -his flight a committee of the Common Council had examined his accounts -and approved them as correct. - -[4] That Haff was removed is certain, though the author has been unable -to find a record of the fact in the available papers of the Treasury -Department. The Tammany organ, the _National Advocate_, November 19, -1818, commented as follows: “The rumors which, for several days past, -have been afloat and which we treated as idle and interested, are -confirmed--Captain Haff has been removed from office.” Many evidences -of public gratification were shown. In one instance, eighty citizens -dragged a field piece from the Arsenal to the Battery and fired a -salute. - -[5] Naphthali Judah had been Sachem of the Maryland tribe in 1808, and -continued for some time to be a leader in the party’s councils. He was -again elected a Sachem in 1819. - -[6] How deeply the people of New York were concerned in lotteries may -be gathered from the fact that in 1826 there were 190 lottery offices -legalized by statute in New York City. A saying obtained that “one-half -the citizens got their living by affording the opportunity of gambling -to the rest.” Many State institutions were in part supported from the -proceeds of the lotteries. These swindles, therefore, became a matter -for legislative investigation. A great number of pages of the Journal -of the Assembly for 1819 are taken up with the testimony. - -[7] _Journal of the Assembly_, 1819, pp. 222-45, and _Ibid._, -pp. 1046-53. Tompkins, now Vice President, made this race for -“vindication.” It is altogether likely that this particular charge -against Tompkins was made for political effect in a campaign in which -each side sought to blacken the other by fierce personal attacks. - -[8] _National Advocate_, March 29, 1820. - -[9] Tammany charged that in the construction of the Erie Canal, land -had been cut up in slips to make additional voters for Clinton and -cited the county of Genesee, which, though polling but 750 freehold -votes in 1815, gave nearly 5,000 votes in this election. - - - - -CHAPTER VII - -THE SUFFRAGE CONTEST - -1820-1822 - - -Tammany Hall now entered upon a step destined to change its composition -and career, and greatly affect the political course of the State and -nation. - -From its inception the society had declared among its objects the -accomplishment of two special reforms--the securing of manhood suffrage -and the abolition of the law for the imprisonment of debtors. No steps -so far had been taken by either the organization or the society toward -the promotion of these reforms; first, because the leaders were engaged -too busily in the contest for office, and second, because Tammany Hall, -though professing itself devoted to the welfare of the poor, was, -to repeat, essentially a middle-class institution. Having property -themselves, the men who controlled and influenced the organization were -well satisfied with the laws under which Tammany had grown powerful -and they rich; they could not see why so blissful a state of affairs -should be changed for something the outcome of which was doubtful. The -farmer, the independent blacksmith, the shoemaker with an apprentice -or two, the grocer--these had votes, and though they looked with envy -on the aristocratic class above them, yet they were not willing that -the man with the spade should be placed on a political equality with -themselves. In addition, most of the aristocratic rich were opposed -to these reforms, and the Tammany leaders were either ambitious to -enter that class or desirous of not estranging it. Lastly, the lower -classes had sided with Clinton generally; they regarded him as their -best friend; to place the ballot unrestrictedly in their hands, Tammany -Hall reckoned, would be fatuous. As to the debtors’ law, the tradesmen -that thronged Tammany were only too well satisfied with a statute that -allowed them to throw their debtors, no matter for how small an amount, -into jail indefinitely. - -Agitation for these two reforms, begun by a few radicals, gradually -made headway with the public. The demand for manhood suffrage made -the greater progress, until in 1820 it overshadowed all other -questions. The movement took an such force and popularity that Tammany -Hall was forced, for its own preservation, to join. Agreeable to -instructions, the _National Advocate_, September 13, 1820, began to -urge the extension of the right of suffrage and the abolition of -those cumbersome relics of old centralizing methods, the Council of -Appointment and the Council of Revision--the latter a body passing -finally on all laws enacted by the Legislature. On October 7, a meeting -of Democrats from all parts of the State was held in the Wigwam, -Stephen Allen presiding, and the Legislature was called upon to provide -for a constitutional convention for the adoption of the amendments. - -The aristocracy and all the powers at its command assailed the proposed -reforms with passionate bitterness. “Would you admit the populace, -the patron’s coachman to vote?” asked one Federalist writer. “His -excellency (the Governor) cannot retain the gentry, the Judges, and -the ‘manors’ in his interest without he opposes either openly or -clandestinely every attempt to enlarge the elective franchise.” “We -would rather be ruled by a _man_ without an estate than by an estate -without a _man_,” replied one reform writer. The Legislature passed a -bill providing for the holding of a constitutional convention, and the -Council of Revision, by the deciding vote of Clinton, promptly rejected -it. Doubtless this action was due to the declared intention of the -advocates of the constitutional convention to abolish this body. Again -an assemblage gathered at Tammany Hall (December 1) and resolved that -as the “distinction of the electorial rights, the mode of appointment -to office and the union of the judiciary and legislative functions were -objectional and highly pernicious,” the next Legislature should pass -the pending bill. - -Upon this issue a Legislature overwhelmingly favorable to the extension -of suffrage and other projected reforms was elected. The aristocratic -party opened a still fiercer onslaught. But when the Legislature -repassed the convention bill, the Council of Revision did not dare to -veto it. The convention bill was promptly submitted to the people and -ratified. On the news of its success the Democratic voters celebrated -the event in the Wigwam, June 14, 1821. - -Beaten so far, the Federalists tried to form a union with the -reactionary element in Tammany Hall by which they could elect delegates -opposed to the projected reforms. All opposition was unavailing, -however; the reformers had a clear majority in the convention, and -the new amendments, embodying the reforms, were submitted to the -people. They were adopted in January, 1822, the city alone giving them -4608 majority.[1] When the Legislature took oath under the revised -constitution on March 4, the bells of the city churches were rung; -flags were flung on the shipping and public buildings; “a grand salute” -was fired by a corps of artillery from the Battery; the City Hall was -illuminated at night, and the municipality held a popular reception -there. In Tammany Hall a gala banquet was spread, one toast of which -ran: “The right of suffrage--Corruption in its exercise most to be -apprehended from its limitation to a few.” After that pronouncement, so -edifying in view of later developments, came another as instructive: -“The young and rising politician--May integrity and principle guide -him--studying the public good, not popularity.” - -So Tammany Hall built for itself a vast political following, which soon -made it practically invincible. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] A considerable increase in the number of voters was made by the -suffrage reform. The last remnant of the property qualification was -abolished in the State in 1826 by a vote of 104,900 to 3,901. - -The abolition of the Council of Appointment carried with it a clause -vesting the Appointment of the Mayor in the Common Council. It was -not until 1834 that the Mayor was elected by the people. By the -Constitutional Amendments the gubernatorial term was changed to two -years and the election time to November. - - - - -CHAPTER VIII - -STRUGGLES OF THE PRESIDENTIAL FACTIONS - -1822-1825 - - -Inevitably the greater part of the newly created voters gravitated to -Tammany Hall, but they did not instantly overrun and rule it. - -A new set of leaders came in view. Wortman and Judah had been forced -from public life through the lottery exposures of 1818, and Broome -had lost prestige. Hubbard had fled; Haff, Buckmaster, Strong and -Prince were no longer powerful, and Jonas Humbert, who until 1820 had -been a person of some authority, was now no longer in public notice. -Stephen Allen and Mordecai M. Noah, with a following of some of the old -Burrites, were now regarded as being at the helm. - -The pro-Tammany Council of Appointment chosen late in 1820, before the -new constitutional amendments were adopted, had removed Colden and -appointed Allen (Grand Sachem about this time) Mayor[1] in his place. -Noah was made Sheriff, and all the other offices were filled with -Wigwam men. - -The new voting element coming into the organization had to be impressed -with the traditional principle of discipline. Otherwise there might -be all kinds of nominations, whose effect upon the machine-made -“regular” nominations of the organization would be disastrous, if -not destructive. To this end the different ward committees passed -resolutions (April 27 and 28, 1822) declaring in nearly identical terms -that the sense of a majority, fairly expressed, ought always to govern, -and that no party, however actuated by principle, could be truly useful -without organization. “Therefore, that the discipline of the Republican -party, as established and practised for the last twenty-five years, -has, by experience, been found conducive to the general good and -success of the party.”[2] - -In 1822 Clinton declined to stand for reelection. Tammany Hall was -considered so invincible in the city that the Clintonites and the -remnant of the Federalists refused to nominate contesting candidates -for Congress and the Legislature. Experience demonstrating that almost -all the voters cast their ballots for the “regular” ticket without -asking questions, competition for a place on that ticket, which now -was equivalent to election, became sharp. When, on October 30, the -nominating committee reported the name of M. M. Noah for the office -of Sheriff, Benjamin Romaine moved to have that of Peter H. Wendover -substituted. Two factors were at work here; one was religious prejudice -against Noah, who was a Jew; the other and greater, was the struggle -between the partizans of Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams and William -H. Crawford to get control of Tammany Hall, as a necessary preliminary -to the efforts of each for the nomination for President.[3] Romaine was -an Adams supporter and could easily have nominated a ticket independent -of Tammany Hall, but it would have lacked “regularity,” and hence -popular support. A row ensued; and while Noah’s party rushed out of -Tammany Hall claiming the “regular” nomination, the other faction, by -the light of a solitary candle, passed resolutions denouncing Noah and -claiming that Wendover was the “regular” nominee. - -Each of the candidates put himself before the people, declaring that -a majority of the nominating committee favored him as “regular.” The -leaders of the organization inclined to Noah, as one of its heads, -but Wendover skillfully appealed to Anti-Semitic bigotry and gathered -a large following. The Sachems dared not interfere between them, and -each in consequence had a room in Tammany Hall, where his tickets -were distributed and his agents made their headquarters. Noah was -defeated at the polls; but his defeat did not impair his influence in -Tammany Hall. He was a person of singular ability. A facile writer and -effective manipulator, he maintained his hold. - -“Regularity,” then, was the agency by which the leaders imposed their -candidates upon the thousands of voters who, from their stores and -benches, offices and farms, went to the polls to deposit a list of -names prepared for them. The voters were expected only to vote; the -leaders assumed the burden of determining for whom the voting should be -done. An instance of the general recognition of this fact was given in -1820 when the counties of Suffolk, Queens, Kings and Dutchess voted to -discontinue the practice of holding Senatorial conventions in Tammany -Hall because a fair expression of the wishes of a great proportion of -the Democratic-Republican electors was not obtainable there. At the -same time, and for years later, complaints were frequent that the ward -meetings had long since become an object of so little interest that -they were nearly neglected; and that a small knot of six or eight men -managed them for their own purposes. - -In 1823 attempts were made by different factions to obtain the -invaluable “regular” nominations. Seemingly a local election, the -real point turned on whether partisans of Jackson, Adams or Crawford -should be chosen. Upon this question Tammany Hall was still divided. -The nominating committee, however, was for Jackson. The voters were -bidden to assemble in the hall at 7 o’clock on the evening of October -30 to hear that committee’s report. When they tried to enter, they -found the hall occupied by the committee and its friends. This was a -new departure in Tammany practices. Since the building of the hall -the nominating committee had always waited in a lower room for the -opening of the great popular meeting, and had then marched up stairs -and reported. To head off expected hostile action by the Adams men, the -committee this time started proceedings before the appointed hour. The -names of its candidates were called and affirmed in haste. Gen. Robert -Swartwout, a corrupt but skillful politician and an Adams supporter, -proposed a substitute list of names, upon which the chairman declared -that the meeting stood adjourned. A general fist-fight followed, in the -excitement of which Swartwout took the chair, read off a list of names -and declared it adopted. Epithets, among which “liar” and “traitor” -figured most, were distributed freely. Both tickets went to the people -under the claim of “regularity,” and each carried five of the ten wards. - -Though Robert Swartwout[4] was for Adams, another Swartwout (Samuel), -an even shrewder politician, was Jackson’s direct representative in -the task of securing the organization’s support for President. A third -and less important group were the Crawford advocates. They were led -by Gen. John P. Van Ness, an adroit intriguer and one of the old -Burr chieftains of Tammany. In 1821 Adams, then Secretary of State, -ascertaining that Van Ness, as president of the Bank of the Metropolis, -was indebted to that institution to the amount of $60,000 and that its -affairs were in bad condition, transferred the account of the State -Department to another bank. From that time Van Ness bore deep hatred -against Adams, and supported Crawford, Secretary of the Treasury, for -President. Crawford had deposited as a standing balance with Van Ness -about the same sum Adams had withdrawn, notwithstanding the bank’s -suspicious character. The Crawford men went first about the business of -obtaining complete ascendency in the Tammany Society. With that end in -view they tried in 1823 to elect a Grand Sachem favoring Crawford. The -old Burr faction now brought forth a Presidential candidate of its own -in the person of John C. Calhoun, and taking advantage of the absence -of most of the society’s members, dexterously managed to elect William -Todd, a partisan of Calhoun, Grand Sachem. - -The popular voice for Jackson becoming daily stronger, some of the -Adams leaders changed about. Perhaps having a premonition that Adams -would be chosen President by the House of Representatives, the general -committee of Tammany Hall, on October 3, 1823, resolved that the -election of President by that branch of Congress was “an event to be -deprecated,” and that the constitution ought to be so amended as to -give the election directly to the people without the intervention -of electors. The ward committees passed similar resolutions. This -action was on a line with that of a few years before when the Wigwam, -fearing the nomination of Clinton for Governor by legislative caucus, -recommended that State nominations be made by a State convention of -delegates. In the following April (1824) Jackson’s friends filled -Tammany Hall and nominated him for President. - -Before the election came on, however, the organization, in the full -swing of power, again brought public odium upon itself. De Witt -Clinton, having filled his gubernatorial term, was now serving in the -modest post of a Canal Commissioner, without pay and utterly without -political power. Yet Tammany carried its hatred of him so far as to -cause the Legislature to remove him (April 12, 1824), despite the -protests of a few of its more sagacious members.[5] - -Naturally, this petty act caused an immediate and strong reaction -in a community endeared to Clinton by that splendid creation of his -energy--the Erie Canal. No sooner did the news reach New York City than -10,000 persons held an indignation meeting in the City Hall Park and -in front of Tammany Hall. Throughout the State similar meetings were -held. In spite of the politicians, the cyclonic popular movement forced -Clinton to be again a candidate for Governor. - -The chiefs regretted their folly. At the same time they were subjected -to public criticism in another direction. One of them, William P. Van -Ness, Burr’s companion at the Hamilton duel, a Judge of the United -States District Court, took it upon himself to select Tammany Hall -permanently for a court-room, his object being to have the Government -pay rent to the Tammany Society. His colleague, Judge Thompson, a -scrupulous official, indignantly asked why the courts were not to be -held in the City Hall, as usual. Judge Van Ness defiantly held court -in Tammany Hall, Judge Thompson going to the City Hall. Public disgust -asserting itself, an investigation was set afoot. Van Ness tried to -throw the blame on his marshal. But this officer, as was conclusively -shown, acted under written instructions from Van Ness in refusing to -consider any other place than Tammany Hall, and he agreed to pay to the -society $1,500 a year rent. The lease, which was made under the plea -that no room was available in the City Hall, contained a stipulation -that not only should the tavern be allowed in Tammany Hall but that -the court-room should be used, when required, as the meeting place of -the society or of the political conventions. The citizens assembled in -the wards and denounced the proceeding. The Aldermen decided to shift -the responsibility which Van Ness attempted to place upon them. Their -committee reported (October 24, 1824),[6] that the City Hall always had -been and would be at the service of the United States Court Judges, and -that a room had been set apart especially for their use. Judge Van Ness -was forced to return to the City Hall to hold court.[7] - -Tammany now had recourse to its customary devices in endeavoring to -bring out its usual vote in the coming election. The general committee -announced that at no period in the last twenty years had the welfare -and perpetuity of the party more imperiously required a rigid adherence -to ancient usages and discipline. This was meant to play on the -partizan emotions of the Democrats. It was likewise a threat to punish -any man of independent views who disobeyed the orders of the general -committee. Such summary, veiled notifications of the general committee -were seldom disregarded by those who profited or expected to profit -by politics. After toasting their “squaws and papooses” on July 4 the -society impressively made this toast: “May regular nominations ever -prevail”--a thrust at the method of Clinton’s nomination and a warning -for the future guidance of all Tammany men. - -Tammany further attempted to counteract the impetus of the Clinton -movement by touching at length upon its own patriotism in the past -and by stirring up class hatreds. On the vital issues the Wigwam was -silent; but in another long fulmination it recalled the “sins” and -“treason” of Clinton against the Democratic party. “He is haughty in -his manners,” it went on, “and a friend of the aristocracy--cold and -distant to all who cannot boast of wealth and family distinctions and -selfish in all the ends he aims at.” - -The partizans of Jackson carried the city. Presidential electors were -still selected by the Legislature, and it is therefore impossible -to determine Jackson’s vote. A fusion between the Clintonites and -the People’s party caused the defeat of most of Tammany’s Assembly -candidates, but the victors were Jackson men, and Clinton himself had -declared for Old Hickory. The full Jackson strength was shown in the -vote for the three Tammany candidates for Congress, who were elected. - -Clinton’s victory was sweeping. The near completion of the Erie Canal, -for which he had labored so zealously and which Tammany had opposed -so pertinaciously, made him the idol of the people, and he was again -elected Governor, carrying even New York City by 1,031 majority. That -eye was blind which could not see in the opening of the canal the -incalculable benefits Clinton had estimated from the first. This great -work secured as a virtual gift to New York City the inland commerce of -the vast empire west of the mountains, no rival being able to contend -for it. The trade of the canal almost immediately increased the city’s -business $60,000,000 annually, and year by year the amount grew. Along -its course a hundred new and thrifty villages sprang into existence, -and the State’s wealth and population went upward by leaps and bounds. - -Compared with this illustrious achievement, a summary of the record of -Clinton’s antagonists, the Tammany leaders, makes but a poor showing. -Contributing to the development of democracy, for the most part, -only so far as it benefited themselves; declining to take up even -the question of manhood suffrage until forced to, they did little or -nothing, even in the closer domain of the city, for the good of their -own time or of posterity. In the years when Clinton was engaged in -projecting and building the canal, they were too busy wrangling over -offices or cribbing at the public treasury to improve city conditions. -The streets were an abomination of filth. The local authorities long -refused, despite public pressure, to take steps to have the city -furnished with pure water. As a result of the bad water of a private -corporation and the uncleanliness of the streets, yellow fever and -cholera had several times devastated the city, and in one year (1822) -it was so deserted that grass grew in the streets. To make up for -municipal deficits the city fathers continued selling the public land, -that might have been made into parks or retained for future uses, -buying it in as individuals. Between 1813 and 1819, according to the -admission of the Tammany organ in the latter year, $440,347 worth -of land, whose present value probably amounts to tens of millions -of dollars, was thus fraudulently disposed of.[8] In a word, their -records, public and private, furnish an extreme contrast to the record -of Clinton, who, while a politician when need be, gave his years and -his talents to the completion of a public work of the greatest utility -and importance. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] The first election for Mayor by the Common Council, under the new -constitution, resulted in the choice of William Paulding, Jr., 1823-25. - -[2] Advertisements of the ward committees in the _National Advocate_, -April 29, 1822. - -[3] It is a convincing commentary on the absolute disruption of party -lines at this epoch that a contest could arise in such an organization -as Tammany Hall between supporters of men of such diverse political -beliefs as Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams. - -[4] When United States Navy Agent in 1820, Robert Swartwout became -indebted to the Government in the sum of $68,000, a defalcation he -could not make good. The Government took a mortgage on his property -for $75,000. This and political influence saved him from prison. It -was because of Adams’s efforts in his behalf that his extraordinary -devotion to the sixth President was credited. Tammany Hall, considerate -of human infirmity, continued him in full favor as a leader. These -facts were brought out in the suit of the United States Government -against Francis H. Nicholl, one of Robert Swartwout’s sureties, before -Judge Van Ness in the United States District Court, April 8, 1824. - -[5] _Journal of the Senate_, 1824, p. 409. - -[6] _MS. Minutes of the Common Council_, Vol. 52, pp. 75-78. - -[7] During this agitation Jacob Barker, Judge Van Ness and M. M. Noah -repeatedly presented, in the public prints, arguments in favor of using -Tammany Hall as a court-room. We shall have need to refer to Barker -again on another page. - -[8] For a part of this time, it should be stated, the Federalists were -in power. - - - - -CHAPTER IX - -THE JACKSON ELEMENT VICTORIOUS - -1825-1828 - - -Factional strife had not entirely smothered the demand for improvement -in the city government.[1] The arbitrary powers of the Common Council, -composed, as it was, of one Board in which sat both Aldermen and -Assistant Aldermen, excited general dissatisfaction. Having the power -of making assessments, ordering public improvements, and disposing of -the public property at will, the Aldermen made no detailed account of -their expenditures. One writer advised the Aldermen to curtail some of -their own extravagances: “Why not stop,” he wrote, - - “in their career of eating the most unreasonable and costly - suppers every time they meet on public business and drinking - such wines as they never in the course of their lives tasted - before; choice wines that cost $40 a dozen? O! but I will soon - tell a tale that will make our citizens stare. I understand - that our city expenses are now nearly _$2,000 a day_.” - -The State constitution of 1821-22 had granted the Common Council -greater powers than before in vacating and filling important offices -in the city. In 1823 the city debt was rising, and though the Common -Council professed to attempt retrenchment, no real effort was made, the -fathers being loth to give over the voting of pretended improvements -out of which they benefited as individual contractors. The agitation -continuing, the Legislature, in April, 1824, had passed a law to -“erect” two separate chambers--a Board of Aldermen to be elected from -among the freeholders for two years, and a Board of Assistants for one -year, with concurrent powers. The opponents of the new branch termed it -derisively the “House of Lords” and denounced its aristocratic nature. -The amendment was defeated by the radicals in June, though the interest -in it was slight. Over 8,000 electors failed to vote. - -Other schemes for municipal reform dissolved in talk, and by the Spring -of 1825 public attention became concentrated again on the matter of -Jackson’s candidacy for the office of President. Barely had John -Quincy Adams been inaugurated when Tammany set about to make Jackson -his successor. On May 12 Sachem Nicholas Schureman, at the anniversary -celebration of the society, gave this toast: “Jackson, the Hero of New -Orleans, our next President.” Again, on July 4, the principal toast was -to Jackson.[2] - -The Jackson campaign went energetically on. But it was rudely -interrupted during the following Autumn by a fresh series of -revelations regarding certain Tammany chieftains. The legislative -favoritism by which Jacob Barker was enabled to secure advantages for -his Exchange Bank (1818)[3] now culminated in a grave public scandal. -In September, 1826, Barker, Henry Eckford, another of the line of -Sachems; Matthew L. Davis, lately Grand Sachem, and several other -accomplices were principals in one of the most extended and sensational -trials which the city had known. They stood charged with swindles -aggregating several million dollars. The Grand Jury’s indictment of -September 15 charged them, and also Mark Spencer, William P. Rathbone, -Thomas Vermilyea and others, with defrauding the Mechanics’ Fire -Insurance Company of 1,000 shares of its own capital stock, 1,000 -shares of United States Bank stock and $50,000; the Fulton Bank of -2,000 shares of its own capital stock and $50,000; the Tradesmen’s -Bank of 2,000 shares of its own capital stock and $50,000; the Morris -Canal and Banking Company of 2,000 shares of its own capital stock -and $50,000; and the Life and Fire Insurance Company of 2,000 shares -of its own capital stock. The indictment further charged these men -with obtaining fraudulently 1,000 promissory notes for the amount of -nearly $100 each, belonging to the Fulton Bank; and the same number of -notes for similar sums belonging respectively to the Tradesmen’s Bank, -the Morris Canal and Banking Company, and the Life and Fire Insurance -Company, and with additionally obtaining by fraud the sum of $50,000, -the property of Henry Barclay, George Barclay and others.[4] - -A disagreement of the jury marked the first trial; the second brought a -conviction of the prisoners. Tammany Hall was unwilling to see any of -its leaders go to prison. As soon as the storm of popular indignation -blew over, a new trial was had for Davis, and owing to strong political -influence his acquittal was the outcome. Barker was again convicted, -but, thanks to the discreet use of his money, never saw a cell. He went -South and lived on till over ninety years of age.[5] Eckford fled to -the Orient and died in Syria. The severity of the law fell on the minor -offenders, two of whom, Mowatt and Hyatt, went to prison for two years, -and the Lambert brothers for one year. - -The trial over, public interest again centered on the Presidential -struggle. Alive to the necessity of winning Tammany to his interest, -President Adams chose most of his New York appointees from its -organization, thereby creating in that body an alert clique of devoted -partizans. If the leaders had been able to direct the organization -absolutely, Adams might have bribed nearly all of them with offices, -favors or promises, but there were other deciding factors. The first -was the mass of the Democrats who favored Jackson and forced most -of the leaders to his support. The second was the organizing genius -of Martin Van Buren. He was a member of the Tammany Society, and in -September, 1827, he visited New York to compose the discord in the -general committee, which was divided equally on the question of the -Presidency, although in the society itself a majority was for Jackson. -The Jackson men quickly gained predominant influence. On September -27 the general committee recommended in a public address to its -“fellow-citizens” that when they met in their wards, they should elect -such citizens _only_, to represent them in their different committees, -as were favorable to Jackson. The Adams men were enraged.[6] Col. James -Fairlie, a veteran of the Revolution; Benjamin Romaine, Peter Sharpe, -William Todd, W. H. Ireland, Abraham Stagg, Peter Stagg and John L. -Lawrence, known as “the elite” of Tammany Hall, and others, denounced -this action. “Was such a power of proscription and dictation ever -delegated to or practised by any other general committee?” they asked -in an address. - -The ward primary elections on the night of October 3 were tumultuous. -The Jackson men took possession of the meeting rooms, installed their -own chairmen and passed resolutions, without allowing the Adams -supporters a chance to be heard. Both factions then alternately -held meetings in Tammany Hall. So determined was the struggle to get -possession of the Wigwam that the Adams men contrived to expel their -opponents from it for one day, and the Jackson men had to make their -nominations in the cellar called “the Coal Hole.” At a later meeting of -the Adams faction, embracing a group of old Federalists, Col. Marinus -Willett, a venerable Revolutionary patriot, who presided, spoke of -“the danger and absurdity of confiding the destinies of the country to -a mere arbitrary soldier.” The meeting passed resolutions denouncing -the general committee majority and reiterating its support of Adams. -The Jackson men rallied to the Wigwam in force and approved the ticket -nominated in “the Coal Hole.” The nominees were for local offices and -were themselves of no particular importance. The great question was -whether New York City favored Jackson or Adams, and the coming election -was the accepted test. - -The Jackson men made desperate efforts to carry the city. Now were -observable the effects brought about by the suffrage changes of 1822 -and 1826. The formerly disinherited class had become attached to -Tammany Hall, and the organization, entirely reversing its exclusive -native policy, declared for a reduction of the five-year naturalization -period. From that time forth the patronage of aliens became a settled -policy of Tammany. In this election these aliens exercised a powerful -influence, materially aiding Jackson. - -Cases of fraud and violence had hitherto been frequent; but nothing -like the exhibition at the primaries and polls in November, 1827, had -ever been known. Cart-loads of voters, many of whom had been in the -country less than three years, were used as repeaters in the different -wards. An instance was known of one cart-load of six men voting at six -different places. Other men boasted of having voted three and four -times. In an upper ward, where the foreign population had full sway, -an American found it almost impossible to appear or vote at all. If -he tried the experiment, he was arrested immediately, his votes were -taken from him and Jackson votes put in his hands. Many of the polling -places had no challengers, and most of the inspectors did duty for -the Jackson ticket by a display of stout hickory branches. By such -means the Jackson men rolled up in the city a majority of nearly five -thousand. - -Reflective citizens of both parties were alarmed and humiliated by -the events of the election. The public conscience was not used to the -indiscriminate stuffing of ballot boxes. To the revelations of this -election can be traced the origin of the Native American party, whose -cry that “political privileges should belong exclusively to the natives -of the country” even now was heard. - -Though a year before the time for choosing a President, the result of -this election strongly indicated the choice of Jackson and caused great -exultation and encouragement among his supporters in other cities. -In the Winter of 1827, Tammany sent a delegation to visit him at New -Orleans, ostensibly to present an address on the anniversary of the -battle of New Orleans, but in reality, it was supposed, to confer with -him on the work to be done in his behalf. By the beginning of 1828 the -organization was controlled wholly by Jackson men. Not a nomination, -however petty, was made of a man not known to be his partizan. The -great body of Democrats approved this course on the ground that -Jackson’s election was the real issue, and that local issues were -subordinate for the time. When the Adams men tried to hold anti-Jackson -meetings in the Wigwam, the Sachems stepped forward and exercised a -long dormant power--a power which explains the real connection between -the society and the organization, and which it frequently used later -against hostile factions. Through pressure, the lessee of Tammany -Hall sold to the society his lease. This secured, the society put -in charge of the building (which was fitted in part as a hotel as -well as a hall) another person, instructed not to let any room to the -Adams committee. The Adams men asked by what right a “charitable and -benevolent society” interfered in politics. But, being excluded, they -could no longer claim they represented Tammany Hall--a fatal loss to -them and an important advantage to the Jackson men, who now were the -only Tammany organization. The Adams committees were thus shut off from -holding any meetings in the hall. - -With the Adams committees put out, the Jackson men began to quarrel -among themselves for local and State nominations. The Wigwam’s -inveterate foe, De Witt Clinton, was out of the way, he having died on -February 11, 1828, while still Governor. As nominations continued to -be looked upon as almost certainly resulting in election, there was a -swarm of candidates.[7] The ambitions of few of these were gratified. -The nominations were settled beforehand by a small clique, headed, it -was said, by M. M. Noah. - -Of a voting population of 25,000, Tammany Hall secured a majority of -5,831 for Jackson[8] and elected all its candidates except one. That -hundreds, if not thousands, of illegal votes were counted was admitted. -Boys of 19 and 20 years of age voted and were employed to electioneer -for the Jackson ticket. On the other hand, raftsmen just arrived from -the interior and men who had no homes were gathered in bunches and sent -to swell the Adams vote, though it is doubtful whether their votes -were counted. For the first time in city elections money was used to -influence voting. - -The Common Council soon after removed every office-holder not of the -Jackson faith. As a matter of course, Jackson rewarded his friends. He -made Samuel Swartwout Collector of the Port and filled every Federal -local post with his Tammany adherents. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] William Paulding was succeeded by Philip Hone (1825-26), who in -turn was followed by Paulding (1826-29). - -[2] This anniversary was the first on which the society, since its -formation, did not march in the streets and go to church. Each -“brother,” wearing a bucktail in front of his hat, went instead to the -great council chamber, where the Declaration of Independence was read -by Matthew L. Davis. - -[3] See Chapter vi. - -[4] _Minutes of the Oyer and Terminer_, Vol. 6, pp. 3-137. - -[5] Barker maintained that a conspiracy had been formed against him. A -pamphlet entitled, _Jacob Barker’s Letters Developing the Conspiracy -Formed in 1826 for His Ruin_, was extensively circulated about this -time or later. - -[6] The action of the general committee had a sweeping national -importance. “The State of New York represents the Democracy of the -Union; the City of New York gives tone to the State; the General -Committee govern the City.” Quoted by “A Journalist” as applying to -these years in his _Memoirs of James Gordon Bennett and His Times_, New -York, 1855. - -[7] “Should the Independent electors,” wrote one of them, Aaron -Sergeant, “give me a nomination (for Sheriff) (as there will be several -candidates for the office) I shall succeed by a handsome majority. The -Sons of Erin are my most particular friends. I rely with confidence on -their support. - -“Knowing the office to be one worth $10,000 per annum, should I be -elected, I shall give one-third of the income of this office to be -divided equally to [among] the several charitable Religious Societies -in the city. My claims for the office are, that I am a citizen born, -and my father one of the _Patriots of the Revolution for seven long -years …_.” - -[8] This was the first election in the State in which Presidential -electors were voted on by the people. - - - - -CHAPTER X - -THE WORKINGMEN’S PARTY - -1829-1830 - - -In 1829 the indignation against the Tammany leaders crystallized in -a “purifying” movement. Under the direction of its banker, merchant -and lawyer leaders, Tammany Hall had been made a medium for either -coercing or bribing the Legislature or the Common Council into passing -dozens of bank charters and franchises with scarcely any provision -for compensation to either State or city.[1] In 1819 the Tammany -Society, in one of its pompous addresses, had recited the speculative -spirit and consequent distress brought about by the multiplication of -incorporated banks, and suggested that the Legislature adopt a prompt -and decisive remedy tending to the abolition of those institutions. -This sounded well; but at that very time, as before and after, the -Sachems were lobbying at Albany for charters of banks of which they -became presidents or directors. By one means or another these banks -yielded fortunes to their owners; but the currency issued by them -almost invariably depreciated. The laboring classes on whom this bad -private money was imposed complained of suffering severely. Each year, -besides, witnessed an increase in the number of chartered monopolies, -armed with formidable powers for long periods, or practically in -perpetuity.[2] To the first gas company, in May, 1823, the Common -Council had granted the exclusive right to light all the streets -south of Grand street for thirty years, without returns of any kind -to the city.[3] At the rate at which the city was expanding, this -was a concession of immense value, and formed one of the subjects of -complaint in 1829. - -While laws were instituted to create a money aristocracy, the old -debt and other laws bearing on the working classes were not changed. -No attempt was made to improve a condition which allowed a dishonest -contractor to put up a building or a series of buildings, collect his -money and then swindle his laborers out of their wages. The local -administration, moreover, continued corrupt. It was freely charged -at this time that $250,000 of city money was being stolen outright -every year. The city charter drafted and adopted in 1829-30 contained -provisions which, it was thought, might remedy matters. It created two -bodies of the Common Council--the Aldermen and Assistant Aldermen--and -gave each a negative upon the propositions of the other, vesting a -supreme veto power in the Mayor. It again separated the election of the -Common Council from the general election. It abolished secret contracts -and compelled all resolutions involving appropriations of public money -or placing taxes or assessments to be advertised, and included other -precautionary measures against corruption. But it opposed the public -wish in still vesting the appointment of the Mayor in the Common -Council. - -To battle against the prevailing injustices the Mechanics’ or -Workingmen’s party was formed. Its chief inspiration was Robert -Dale Owen, son of the famous Robert Owen. “Dale” Owen, as he was -familiarly known, and others had recently returned to the city after -an unsuccessful experiment at cooperative colonizing at New Harmony, -Indiana, and a number of bright and ardent intellects gathered about -him. Boldly declaring against the private and exclusive possession of -the soil and against the hereditary transmission of property, the new -party won over a large part of the laboring element. “Resolved,” ran -its resolutions adopted at Military Hall, October 19, 1829, - - “in the opinion of this meeting, that the first appropriation - of the soil of the State to private and exclusive possession - was eminently and barbarously unjust. That it was substantially - feudal in its character, inasmuch as those who received - enormous and unequal possessions were _lords_ and those who - received little or nothing were _vassals_. That hereditary - transmission of wealth on the one hand and poverty on the - other, has brought down to the present generation all the evils - of the feudal system, and that, in our opinion, is the prime - source of all our calamities.” - -After declaring that the Workingmen’s party would oppose all exclusive -privileges, monopolies and exemptions, the resolutions proceeded: - - “We consider it an exclusive privilege for one portion of the - community to have the _means of education in colleges_ while - another is restricted to common schools, or perhaps, by extreme - poverty, even deprived of the limited education to be acquired - in those establishments. Our voice, therefore, shall be raised - in favor of a system of education which shall be equally open - to _all_, as in a real republic it should be.” - -The banks, too, came in for a share of the denunciation. The bankers -were styled “the greatest knaves, impostors and paupers of the age.” -The resolutions continued: - - “As banking is now conducted, the owners of the banks receive - annually of the people of this State not less than two millions - of dollars in their paper money (and it might as well be pewter - money) for which there is and can be nothing provided for its - redemption on demand.…” - -The Workingmen put a full ticket in the field. - -Tammany Hall, dominated by some of the same men and interests denounced -by the Workingmen’s party, opened a campaign of abuse. Commercial and -banking men outside the Wigwam joined ardently in the campaign. The new -movement was declared to be a mushroom party, led by designing men, -whose motives were destructive. The _Evening Post_, which represented -the commercial element and which sided with Tammany in opposition to -the new party, said that it remained for the really worthy mechanics -who might have associated accidentally with that party, to separate -themselves from it, now that its designs and doctrines were known. The -_Courier and Enquirer_, partly owned and edited by Noah,[4] styled -the Workingmen’s party an infidel ticket, hostile to the morals, to -the institutions of society and the rights of property. The Tammany -Hall, or to speak more technically, the Democratic-Republican General -Committee, declaiming on the virtues of Jackson and Democracy, advised -all good men, and especially all self-respecting laborers, not to vote -the Workingmen’s ticket. - -Nevertheless, its principles made such an impression that in -November it polled over 6,000 votes, while Tammany, with its compact -organization, could claim little more than 11,000 votes. It was -well settled that numbers of Whig workingmen voted the new party’s -ticket; and that the rich Whigs secretly worked for the success of -Tammany Hall, whose ticket was almost entirely successful, though the -Workingmen elected Ebenezer Ford to the Assembly. - -Tammany was dismayed at the new party’s strength, and determined to -destroy it by championing one of the reform measures demanded. In -January, 1830, a bill for the better security of mechanics and other -laborers of New York City was introduced by Silas M. Stillwell. The -Tammany men immediately took it up as if it were their own, urged -its passage and secured the credit of its adoption, when in April, -much emasculated, it became a law. It required, under penalties, the -owner of a building to retain from the contractor the amount due to -the mechanics employed thereon. By exploiting this performance to the -utmost, Tammany succeeded in making some inroads on the Workingmen’s -party. The organization leaders had recognized that it was time they -did something for the laboring classes. They were fast losing caste -with even independent Democrats of means, because of their subservience -to the aristocracy and of the common knowledge of the illegitimate ways -in which they were amassing wealth. - -One result of the Workingmen’s movement was the failure of the Wigwam -to secure a majority in the Common Council. This seemed to frustrate -the design to reelect, as Mayor, Walter Bowne (Grand Sachem in 1820 -and 1831). Fourteen Aldermen and Assistants were opposed to Bowne, and -thirteen favored him. There was but one expedient calculated to reelect -him, and to this Tammany Hall resorted. Bowne, as presiding officer -of the Council, held that the constitution permitted him to vote for -the office of Mayor. “I will persist in this opinion even though the -board decide against me,” he said. To prevent a vote being taken, seven -of Bowne’s opponents withdrew on December 28, 1829. They went back on -January 6, 1830, when Tammany managed to reelect Bowne by one vote. How -this vote was obtained was a mystery. Fourteen members declared under -oath that they had voted for Thomas R. Smith, Bowne’s opponent.[5] -Charges of bribery were made, and an investigating committee was -appointed on January 11; but as this committee was composed of Bowne’s -own partizans, it announced its inability to find proofs. Meanwhile the -general committee[6] had issued a loftily worded manifesto saying that -it (the committee) was established and was maintained to watch over the -political interests of the Democratic-Republicans of the city and “to -expose and repel the insidious and open machinations of their enemies,” -that it could not discover anything wrong in the conduct of the Chief -Magistrate of the city, and that it “repelled the accusations of his -enemies.” - -The Workingmen’s party continued its agitation, and prepared for -another campaign. In the meantime the Wigwam’s agents skilfully went -about fomenting divisions, with the result that three tickets, all -purporting to be the genuine Workingmen’s, were put into the field -in October, 1830. One was that of the “Clay Workingmen”; it was -composed of a medley of admirers of Clay, the owners of stock in -various great manufacturing establishments, workingmen who believed -in a protective tariff, Whigs,[7] and a bunch of hack politicians who -had taken up the Workingmen’s movement for selfish ends. The second -was that of a fragment of the Workingmen’s party of the year before, -standing resolutely for their principles and containing no suspicious -politicians or monopolists. The third was that of the Agrarian party, -embracing a few individuals of views too advanced even for the -Workingmen’s party. - -To the Clay Workingmen’s party[8] Tammany Hall gave little attention, -since it was made up mainly of Whigs who had always, under different -names, been opposed to the organization. But the genuine movement -Tammany Hall covered with abuse. “Look, fellow-citizens,” said the -address of the “general nominating committee,” - - “upon the political horizon and mark the fatal signs - prognosticating evils of a dire and fatal nature! Associations - and political sects of a new and dangerous character have - lately stalked into existence, menacing the welfare and - good order of society. These associations … have assumed to - represent two of the most useful and respectable classes of our - citizens--our _Workingmen and Mechanics …_. Confide in them, - and when they have gained their ends they will treat you with - derision and scorn! Then rally round your ancient and trusty - friends and remember that honest men and good citizens never - assume false names nor fight under borrowed banners!” - -To display its devotion to the cause of Democracy, Tammany Hall -celebrated, on November 26, the revolution in France. It persuaded -former President James Monroe to preside in Tammany Hall at the -preliminary arrangements, and made a studied parade of its zeal. There -was a procession, Samuel Swartwout acting as grand marshal. Monroe, in -a feeble state of health, was brought in a stage to Washington Square, -where for ten minutes he looked on. A banquet, the usual high-flown -speeches, and fireworks followed. - -The election was favorable to Tammany. About 3,800 workingmen who -had supported the independent movement the previous year, went back -to Tammany, because of its advocacy of the mechanics’ lien law. The -average Tammany plurality was 3,000. The real Workingmen’s ticket -polled a vote of about 2,200; the Clay Workingmen’s ticket a little -above 7,000, and the Agrarian, 116. - -For the next few years the contest of Jackson with the United States -Bank drew together the energies of all Democrats supporting him. -Dropping local contests, they united to renew his power. For the time, -the Workingmen’s movement ceased to exist. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] “The members [of the Legislature] themselves sometimes participated -in the benefits growing out of charters created by their own votes; … -if ten banks were chartered at one session, twenty must be chartered -the next and thirty the next. The cormorants could never be gorged. -If at one session you bought off a pack of greedy lobby agents … they -returned with increased numbers and more voracious appetite.”--Hammond, -Vol. II, pp. 447-48. - -Four conspicuous “charter dealers” at Albany were Sachems Samuel B. -Romaine, Michael Ulshoeffer, Peter Sharpe and Abraham Stagg, all -powerful organization leaders. - -[2] Hammond, Vol. II, pp. 447-48. - -[3] _MS. Minutes of the Common Council_, Vol. 48, pp. 59-60. - -[4] Noah, after falling into financial difficulties, had been ousted -from the editorship of the _National Advocate_ and had now become -associated with his former political enemy, James Watson Webb, in the -conduct of the _Courier and Enquirer_. - -[5] _MS. Minutes of the Common Council_, Vol. 70, p. 311. Shortly after -this the Wigwam men removed Smith from his post of Commissioner of -the Almshouse for opposing Bowne. So great was the haste to oust him, -before the Aldermen went out of office, that one of the board seconded -the motion for his removal before the motion was made. - -[6] The general committee was now composed of thirty-six members, -mainly the directors in banking and other companies. Remonstrances at -this time were frequent that its important proceedings were a sealed -book to the electors. Among other things it dictated to the wards not -only when, but where, they should meet. - -[7] The term “Whig” had now come to have a definite party meaning, -being used as a popular designation of the group led by John Quincy -Adams and Henry Clay, officially known (1828-36) as the National -Republican party. The term is first found in American politics applied -to the Separatists during the Revolution. About 1808 it was taken by -the anti-Burr faction of the Democratic-Republican party. - -[8] The men of this party, as a rule, voted the Anti-Masonic State -ticket. While the Anti-Masonic party occasioned political commotion in -the State, there is no evidence that it had any perceptible effect on -Tammany’s career. - - - - -CHAPTER XI - -TAMMANY AND THE BANK CONTEST - -1831-1834 - - -Tammany lost no time in announcing its intention to support the -renomination of Jackson. The general committee, on March 3, 1831, -unanimously passed a resolution approving of his renomination by the -Democratic members of the Legislature. Seven days later the General -Committee of Democratic Young Men and the ward committees acted -likewise. - -Since the campaign of 1800 there had not been a Presidential contest -in which the masses joined with such enthusiasm. Although the national -election was more than 18 months distant, the excitement was intense. -The late Workingmen’s party and Tammany men fraternized. The ward -resolutions were full of fire, the meetings spirited. The Democratic -electors of the Sixth Ward “friendly to regular nominations” resolved, -on March 15: - - “… That aristocracy in all its forms is odious to us as - Democratic-Republicans, and that of all aristocracies an - aristocracy of wealth, grinding the faces of the poor and - devouring the substance of the people, is the most alarming. - That we regard an incorporated association of rich men wielding - the whole monied capital of the country as dangerous to our - rights and liberties. That we consider the next Presidential - election as substantially a contest between the people on one - side and the monied aristocracy of the country on the other.”[1] - -The organization’s first object was to gain a majority of the local -offices in the Spring election of 1831 on the Jackson issue. The -National Republican party, recently organized in New York City on the -same general lines as Tammany Hall, and headed by Clarkson Crolius, -a former Grand Sachem, set out to crush the Jackson movement. If a -defeat could be administered to it at this time, the practical effect -would be great; New York would possibly influence the entire Union. To -accomplish this, the National Republicans tried to divert the issue to -local lines and agitated for the election of the Mayor by the people. -The Tammany men joined issue at once, and in February, 1831, the Common -Council committee on application, composed chiefly of Tammany men, -reported adversely on a motion to suggest to the Legislature a revision -of the charter. The time was declared to be inexpedient for such an -innovation, one Tammany Alderman, Thomas T. Woodruff, declaring, -when the matter again came up, on April 8, that the people could not -be trusted with the choice of that important official. The National -Republicans replied by denouncing the Common Council for its lavish -expenditures of public money, its distribution of favors in the shape -of “jobs” and contracts among a few retainers whose sole merits lay in -their close relationship to certain managing members of the board, and -for its efforts to prevent the people from having the right to elect -their own Mayor.[2] - -The opposition to Tammany was ineffectual. In the ensuing election, -not less than 22 of the 28 members chosen for the new double-chamber -Common Council were Tammany men, elected solely upon their pledge of -allegiance to the national and State administrations. The first trial -of the new charter, therefore, showed that the separation of municipal -from general elections did not prevent the division of the voters on -national party lines. The extent of this preliminary Jackson victory -made a sensation throughout the Union and caused gloom among the United -States Bank supporters. - -The prestige of Tammany Hall was now overwhelming; its influence -upon the Democratic party, great before, became greater. No aspirant -for public favor could ignore its demands and decrees. When, on May -12, the society held an imposing celebration of the forty-second -anniversary of its founding, politicians from the highest to the -lowest, national and local, four hundred and over, crowded there with -words of flattery. Lewis Cass, Nathaniel P. Tallmadge, the Governor and -Lieutenant-Governor of the State of New York; members of the National -Senate and of the House of Representatives--these and the rest were -glad to avail themselves of the invitation. William Mooney was there, -very old and feeble, beaming with pride at the power of the institution -he had founded.[3] After the banquet, which was described in the old -Indian terms, as consisting “of the game of the forest, the fish of the -lakes, the fruits of the season and the waters of the great spring,” -came the reading of letters. Jackson wrote: “Nothing could afford -me greater gratification than to participate with your ancient and -honorable society of Republicans on such an occasion,” but that press -of official duties kept him away. A letter of regret, in high-flown and -laudatory diction, from Secretary of State Martin Van Buren followed. -James Watson Webb proposed this toast: “Martin Van Buren, the Grand -Sachem of the Eagle Tribe--The Great Spirit is pleased with his -faithful support of the Great Grand Sachem of the Nation and smiles -graciously upon the sages and warriors of the tribe who aim to elevate -their chief in 1836 to the highest station in the country.” This was -greeted by nine cheers, and instantly disclosed Tammany’s choice for -Jackson’s successor in 1836. The only troublous note was furnished by -Duff Green, who sprang this toast upon the surprised gathering: “De -Witt Clinton--His friends honor his memory--his enemies dare not assail -it!” By “enemies” he referred to those present; they retorted that he -was an intruder, was not invited, and had not paid for his ticket.[4] -Mayor Bowne was then installed as Grand Sachem in place of Stephen -Allen, the former Mayor. - -The Fall election of 1831 also turned upon national issues. Upon -Jackson’s popularity nearly every Democratic candidate in New York -city was elected by an average majority of 6,000. There were rumors of -illegal voting, but no proof was submitted. The Wigwam was so overjoyed -at the result that a banquet was held on November 21, presided over by -Benjamin Bailey, who for a dozen years had been chairman of the general -committee. He had reached his seventy-second year and could claim -little political influence. But as a captain in the Revolutionary army, -and as one of those confined in the Jersey prison ships, the Tammany -chiefs considered him a valuable figurehead. Gen. Wool, Cols. Twiggs -and Crogham and five hundred men of various importance spent the night -in the Wigwam drinking to Jackson, Tammany Hall and coming victory. - -Not only did Tammany take the initiative in supporting Jackson, but it -was the first body to nominate Van Buren for Vice-President. On the -news of the Senate’s rejection of Van Buren as Minister to England, an -indignation meeting was held in Tammany Hall, January 30, 1832, this -being the opening expression of public opinion. Van Buren was suggested -for Vice-President, and the Wigwam gathering showed its satisfaction by -repeated cheers.[5] Twenty-four leading Tammany men drew up a letter -containing their sentiments on Van Buren’s rejection, and on May 31 an -outpouring in the Wigwam approved his nomination. - -Then followed a striking revelation, showing the venality of some of -Tammany’s leaders. The United States Bank officials began bargaining -for the betrayal of Jackson. The _Courier and Enquirer_ suddenly -abandoned him for the support of the bank candidates, giving as a -reason the fear of the “fearful consequences of revolution, anarchy -and despotism,” which assuredly would ensue if Jackson were reelected. -The real reason was that Webb and Noah, as revealed by a Congressional -investigation,[6] had borrowed directly and indirectly $50,000 from the -United States Bank, which had now called them to time. Mayor Bowne was -their sponsor to Nicholas Biddle, head of the bank. Some of the other -Tammany leaders, it appeared, had been for years the bank’s retainers. -Representative Churchill C. Cambreleng enjoyed a place on its pay -rolls. Gulian C. Verplanck, another of the Wigwam’s representatives -in Congress, had voted in its behalf, and Stephen Allen, in the State -Senate, had voted for a resolution in its favor. Peter Sharpe, Ogden -Edwards,[7] William H. Ireland, John Morss--all influential men in -times past--now vigorously opposed Jackson, and the services of other -Tammany chiefs were secured. - -Two influences, however, prevented the organization leaders from -betraying the Democratic cause--one the common people, the other the -owners of the State banks, whose self-interest called for the speedy -downfall of the United States Bank. Finding that they could not control -the Wigwam, the Tammany agents of that bank seceded, and joined the -National Republicans. The State Bank men remained in the organization -and labored for Jackson, with no other idea than that their -institutions would benefit in the distribution of Government funds -if the United States Bank were put down. The course of the leaders -remaining in Tammany smacked of double dealing. Refusing to renominate -Verplanck, they put in his place Dudley Selden, who had borrowed $8,000 -from the United States Bank, but who had professed to support Jackson’s -veto. It looked as though certain potent influences were operating in -Tammany Hall for the election of a pro-bank Congress, whoever might be -chosen President. - -The Tammany ward organizations, assisted by the men of the late -Workingmen’s party, appointed vigilance committees to undo any mischief -the leaders might attempt, and to electioneer for Jackson’s success. -So enthusiastic was the Jackson feeling that many politicians of note, -understanding its depth and having a care for their political futures, -made haste to change front. Almost daily the people were rallied to the -Wigwam by the beating of drums. A few years before, a hickory tree had -been planted in front of the Wigwam; now, on October 30, a second was -put there, and a barrel of beer was used to moisten its roots. - -Both sides were guilty of election frauds. Votes were bought at -the rate of $5 each, most of the buying being done by the National -Republicans, who were supplied with abundant resources. The National -Republicans, moreover, had sought to bribe certain men with the promise -of offices, and on the three election days they foisted upon the voters -a Jackson electoral ticket containing forty-three names, instead of the -legal number, forty-two, thereby invalidating each of these ballots -voted. This trick, it was calculated, lost to Jackson more than a -thousand votes. Of a total of 30,474 votes, Tammany carried the city by -5,620 majority. The Wigwam for many successive nights was filled with -celebrating crowds. Jackson gave a conspicuously public display of his -recognition of Tammany’s invaluable services, when, on the evening of -June 13, 1833, he visited the society, attended by the Vice-President, -Secretary Woodbury, Gov. William L. Marcy, the Mayor, and the members -of the Common Council. - -The United States Bank supporters did not surrender with Jackson’s -reelection. They exerted themselves to influence Congress by means of a -defeat for the anti-bank forces in New York City in the Fall election -of 1833. Tammany Hall during the campaign sent out runners ordering -every office-holder to his electioneering post. Vigorous meetings were -held, and all the secret influences of the general committee were -employed. On the other hand, merchants laid aside their ruffled shirts -and broadcloth coats, put on their roundabouts and worked at the polls -on the three election days for the Whig ticket. Tammany carried the -city by between 2,000 and 3,000 majority. Touching this and previous -elections a committee of Assistant Aldermen reported on February 10, -1834: “That frauds have been practised at the polls, the committee -are convinced. At any rate, a universal and deep conviction prevails -among our citizens that tricks have been resorted to for the purpose of -defeating the election of one candidate and securing that of another.” -It was further set forth that persons were brought up to vote who -were not citizens of the United States nor qualified to vote in the -State. Others voted in more than one ward. Voters also were transferred -overnight from a sure to a doubtful ward.[8] No remedy followed the -report. - -The Spring election of 1834, though local, again turned upon national -issues. For the first time in the history of the city, the Mayor was to -be elected by the people. The growth of public opinion had been such -that the Legislature was forced, in 1833, to grant this reform. - -The contending hosts were swayed, first, by the question of the United -States Bank, and second, by the spoils. The merchants shut their shops -and sent their whole body of clerks and laboring men to surround the -polls and influence voters against Tammany Hall. The United States Bank -spread abroad the cry of “panic.” If its directors could show that -public opinion in the foremost city in the Union had altered so as to -favor the continuation of the bank charter, then they could use that -as a good basis for influencing Congress. There was no concealment of -coercion of voters; the weak, the timid, the fearful were overawed by -the increasing clamor of paid newspapers that the destruction of the -United States Bank meant “widespread revulsion of trade and everlasting -injury to the poor.” In fact, a general depression of business was -produced. A row began in the “bloody ould Sixth,” by the breaking -of some ballot boxes. Both parties armed with stones and bludgeons, -and turned the scene into one of violence. The riot became general. -A crowd, composed chiefly of Whigs, ransacked gun-shops in Broadway -and made for the State arsenal at Elm and Franklin streets. Rumors of -their intentions spreading, a gathering of peaceably inclined citizens -arrived before them and held the arsenal until the militia hastened -there and restored order.[9] - -Cornelius W. Lawrence, the Tammany candidate, was declared elected by -181 votes out of a total of nearly 35,000[10] over Gulian G. Verplanck, -who had gone over to the Whigs. Verplanck never ceased to contend that -he had been defrauded of the office. The Whigs obtained a majority -in a Common Council, 17 members to the Wigwam’s 15, and joyfully said -that Tammany Hall in electing the Mayor had the shadow; while they, in -securing the corporation, had the substance. With the Common Council -they could carry the whole patronage of the city, amounting to more -than $1,000,000 a year. - -This election demonstrated clearly that the propertied classes as -a whole were combined against the laborers, mechanics, farmers and -producing classes generally, and that they were as much concerned over -the spoils of office as was the most rabid Tammany man. As a protest -against the indifference of the local leaders of both parties to the -real interests of the people, and to put a stop to the granting of -special privileges, the Equal Rights party now came into existence. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] Advertisement in the New York _Evening Post_, March 17, 1831. - -[2] Resolutions of the Sixth Ward Anti-Tammany Republicans, March 24, -1831. - -[3] Mooney passed away the following November. Tammany passed panegyric -resolutions on his character, and organized a large funeral procession -which escorted his body to the grave. - -[4] Green was an influential and intimate friend of Jackson and a -member of his “Kitchen Cabinet.” He had come up from Washington to -attend the banquet as one of Jackson’s personal representatives. - -[5] The _Courier and Enquirer_, owned by Webb and Noah, promptly came -out with this ticket in large black type upon its editorial page: For -President, Andrew Jackson. For Vice-President, Martin Van Buren. - -[6] _The First Session of the Twenty-Second Congress_, Vol. IV., -containing reports from Nos. 460 to 463, Washington, 1831. - -[7] Edwards was for many years a person of great power in the -organization. In 1821, while Counsel to the Board of Aldermen, a -salaried office, he was specifically charged with having mulcted the -city out of $5,414 as a payment for a few hours’ service in arranging -the details of a delinquent tax sale. Further charges credited him with -having cleaned up more than $50,000 in five years, through various -pickings connected with his office. Such, however, was his influence, -that he not only escaped prosecution, but retained an unimpaired -prestige in the organization. - -[8] _Documents of the Board of Aldermen and Assistant Aldermen_, 1834, -No. 82. - -[9] _Documents of the Board of Aldermen_, 1839, No. 29. - -[10] Lawrence, 17,576; Verplanck, 17,395; blank and scattering, 18; -total, 34,989. - - - - -CHAPTER XII - -THE EQUAL RIGHTS PARTY - -1834-1837 - - -The Equal Rights movement, which began its activity inside the Tammany -organization, was virtually a moral, then a political, revival of the -Workingmen’s movement. Its principles, however, were less radical, -and its demands more moderate. It advocated the equal rights of -every citizen in his person and property and in their management; -declared unqualified and uncompromising opposition to bank notes as -a circulating medium, because gold and silver were the only safe and -constitutional currency, and a like opposition to all monopolies -by legislation. It also announced hostility “to the dangerous and -unconstitutional creation of vested rights by legislation, because -these were a usurpation of the people’s sovereign rights,” and asserted -that all laws or acts of incorporation passed by the Legislature could -be rightfully altered or repealed by its successors. The Equal Rights -movement comprised men of various classes. Moses Jacques and Levi D. -Slamm were its principal leaders. To comprehend its nature, a brief -review of the causes which conspired to bring it into being will be -necessary. - -Up to 1831 the repeal of the law for the imprisonment of debtors -had been a subject of almost constant agitation by reformers and -workingmen. Under this law more than 10,000 persons, mainly unfortunate -laborers, were imprisoned annually in loathsome prisons, without -inquiry as to their innocence or guilt, lying there at their -creditors’ will, unsupplied by the city with any of the necessities -of life.[1] Tammany Hall had taken no action until 1831, when its -leaders gave a belated approval to a bill introduced in the Assembly, -abolishing imprisonment for debts of any sum except in the cases of -non-residents.[2] - -This bill had become a law in that year; yet by 1833 the interest of -Tammany’s chiefs in the workingman had died away to such an extent that -the Assembly was allowed to pass a measure entitled “a law abolishing -imprisonment for debt,” but reinstituting imprisonment on all debts -under $50, thus completely nullifying the law so far as the poor were -concerned. - -The measure failed to become a law; but the sharp practise shown in -its wording, and in the means taken to push it through the Assembly, -disgusted the Equal Rights men, and in their meetings they passed -resolutions denouncing the chiefs responsible therefor. Their -resolutions furthermore declared that the proceedings at Tammany -Hall were a sealed book; that a few men--William Paxen Hallett, -Elisha Tibbits, J. J. Roosevelt and John Y. Cebra--made up important -nominations in Wall street after the bankers had decided upon the -candidates and then had the nominating committee accept them. - -Popular disaffection was increased by the manner in which the -Legislature and the Aldermen continued to create corporations with -enormous grants. The scandals over the procurement of legislative -charters, particularly bank charters, had for more than 25 years -aroused a growing indignation among the people. In 1805, shortly -after the passage of the Merchants’ Bank charter, Peter Betts, an -Assemblyman, declared in open session of the lower house, that Luke -Metcalfe, a fellow-member, had sought to bribe him to vote for the -measure. The price promised was 15 shares of the bank’s stock, valued -at $50 each. Conflicting testimony was given on the matter, and a -motion was made to expel Metcalfe; the house, however, retained him in -his seat by a vote of 37 to 16.[3] - -Charges of the same kind, affecting practically every session of the -Legislature, were common, though only occasionally were they made the -subject of official investigation. In 1812, however, shortly after -the Assembly, forced by public criticism, had passed a resolution -compelling each member to pledge himself that he had neither taken -nor would take, “any reward or profit, direct or indirect, for any -vote on any measure,”[4] another scandal arose. The Bank of America, -with very moderate assets of any sort, received a charter on a stated -capitalization of $6,000,000, an enormous sum in those days. Charges of -corruption were bandied about, one Assemblyman, Silas Holmes, declaring -under oath that the sum of $500, “besides a handsome present,” had been -offered him. A committee of the lower house listened to testimony in -the case, and then, by a decisive majority, voted that the body was -above suspicion.[5] But in a pronunciamento to Gov. Tompkins during the -same year the same house graciously reported: “We are well aware that -the number of charters for banking institutions already granted has -awakened general solicitude and anxiety.” - -The Chemical Bank was a more modern instance. The report of the joint -legislative committee in 1824 had shown that its promoters set apart -$50,000 worth of stock at par value[6] to buy the votes of members, -Gen. Robert Swartwout--he who had defaulted for $68,000 in 1820--acting -as one of the lobbyists and claiming $5,000 for his services.[7] Other -scandals throwing strong light on legislative practises were those of -the Ætna and Chatham Fire Insurance Companies. The testimony brought -out in the investigation of these companies in 1826 showed that -William J. Waldron (one of the line of Grand Sachems) gave $20,000 -in certificates of stock to Gen. Jasper Ward, a State Senator, and -$20,000 more to various other persons to get the Ætna charter through -the Legislature.[8] The Chatham charter, passed in 1822, cost $20,000 -in stock at par value, additional sums being paid for the passage of -certain amendments in 1824.[9] Ward wrote from Albany to a friend in -the city, complaining that the Jefferson Fire Insurance Company, which -secured a charter at the same time (1824), had paid only 5 per cent. of -what it had promised, giving notes for the remainder.[10] These were -but a few examples of the general legislative corruption. The men who -profited by these charters brought about, in 1830, the exemption of -bank stock in the city from taxation. That nearly every Tammany leader -held bank stock was proved by the testimony before an investigating -committee in June, 1833, which set forth how the organizers of the -newly founded Seventh Ward Bank had distributed thousands of shares -among over one hundred State and city office-holders, both Tammany -and Anti-Masonic. Every Tammany Senator was involved. James Perkins, -the principal lobbyist for the charter, swore repeatedly that $5,000 -in stock at par value had been taken directly by State Senators and -from $10,000 to $25,000 in stock distributed indirectly.[11] Perkins -charged Thurlow Weed with accepting a $500 bribe.[12] The investigating -committee reported finally that it could find no proof involving any -but one of the accused.[13] As the bill for the charter had originally -passed the Senate by a vote of 27 to 2,[14] and as the members of -the investigating committee had been chosen from this majority, its -conclusions were naturally viewed with a good deal of suspicion. - -The Equal Rights men complained that 75 per cent. of the whole of the -bank notes circulating in New York City consisted of depreciated paper. -The circulation of these in notes of $5 or under amounted by March, -1835, to nearly $1,500,000. One establishment alone, whose weekly -payroll in 1834 amounted to $40,000, paid the greater part of this sum -in depreciated notes. The wage-earner was in constant fear that any -morning he might wake to hear that the bank whose notes he held had -failed. Frequently the worst deceptions on the public were connived at -by the officials. The Hudson Insurance Company, for instance, with a -nominal capital of $200,000, was permitted to issue bonds to the amount -of $800,000, upon the most fictitious resources. This was far from -being an isolated instance. The law allowed a bank with only $100,000 -capital to loan $250,000, thus receiving interest on more than twice -the capital actually invested.[15] - -The Council was more than ever a hotbed of venality. Numberless -small “jobs” were perpetrated without public notice; but when it was -proposed in October, 1831, to give the Harlem Railroad Company the -franchise for the perpetual and exclusive use of Fourth avenue, free -of all payment to the city, Alderman George Sharp, one of the few -public-spirited members, drew general attention to the matter by an -energetic denunciation. After every other means had been resorted to -without success to influence his vote, he was told that he would be -excluded from the party by certain persons at Tammany Hall. Alderman -Stevens, who declared that he had seen stock given to members of the -board and to the “corps editorial” to secure their influence, was also -threatened. The words of these two men proved conclusively the truth -of what for a long time was common report: that the group of Tammany -leaders not only controlled the party nominations but threatened public -officials with their displeasure, with all which that implied--exile -from public life, loss of political influence, perhaps ruin of -fortune--in case they did not vote for certain measures whose “merits” -were recommended to them. - -The laborer had other grievances. For seventeen years the Council had -refused to grant any additional ferries between New York City and -Brooklyn. During that period the population of New York had increased -150,000 and that of Brooklyn 15,000. This growth involved a vast amount -of marketing and increased the business intercourse between the two -places more than fourfold. The lessees of the Fulton Ferry--the sole -ferry--had made an agreement in 1811, it was alleged, with the New York -City Corporation, by which the latter undertook to bind itself not to -establish any additional ferries from south of Catherine street to -the Village of Brooklyn for twenty-five years. The large landholders -influenced the Common Council to continue this monopoly, their aim -being to force the people to stay in New York, where rents were 35 per -cent. higher than in any other city in the Union. The exactions of the -water, gas and steamboat monopolies likewise had a share in causing the -formation of the Equal Rights party. - -Besides the dispensing to favored knots of citizens of trading -privileges and immunities which were withheld from the great body of -the community, the laboring element believed that there was a gross -inequality of taxation in the interests of the rich. Taxes rose from -$550,000 in 1832 to $850,000 in 1833, but the increase fell upon the -poor. The Merchants’ Bank was assessed at $6,000; the lot and building -had cost that sum twenty years before, and were now worth at least -twice as much. The Merchants’ Exchange was assessed at $115,000, yet it -was known that the land and building had cost $800,000. Dozens of like -instances were cited by the reformers and they now determined upon a -concerted effort looking to better government. - -A powerful influence came to the aid of the Equal Rights men when -William Cullen Bryant and William Leggett assumed the editorship of the -_Evening Post_. This journal now advocated industrial and political -reforms with singular independence and ability. It revived the original -conception of the nominating committee’s functions. It urged the -electors to remember that the nomination by a nominating committee was -but a recommendation to the people of certain candidates whose merits -and qualifications were as fair a matter of discussion as any under -Heaven; and that it was for this very purpose that nominations were -made so long before the great popular meeting was convened. Besides -his editorial support of the movement, Leggett participated in the -practical work of its organization and management. The clear thought -and definite expression shown in most of the Equal Rights manifestoes -and resolutions are perhaps directly due to him. - -The Equal Rights faction became especially active in the Fall of -1884. Its orators raised such a stir that both Tammany Hall and the -Whigs suddenly developed an astonishing care for the workingmen. To -conciliate them, the Tammany Nominating Committee exacted a written -pledge from every one of its candidates requiring an expression of his -sentiments on the monopoly question. To counteract the Wigwam, the -Whigs gathered a meeting of “Whig Mechanics” at Masonic Hall, October -14, at which opposition to monopolies, especially banking monopolies, -was declared. Not to be outdone, the Wigwam got together a meeting -of “Democratic Mechanics,” who resolved to oppose monopolies and to -restore the constitutional currency. Tammany also began to recognize, -even more liberally than before, the naturalized citizens. As a -consequence, it won the Fall (1834) election by over 2,300 majority, -most of the Equal Rights men voting with it. One-third of its 18,000 -voters were estimated at this time to be of foreign birth. - -Nearly all the Tammany Assemblymen proceeded to forget their pledges, -only four of the delegation voting in the February following against -the bill giving exclusive privileges to the Peaconic Company. - -The first clash between the Equal Rights faction and the Tammany -monopolists occurred at a meeting at the Wigwam on March 31, 1835. -Certain that the Aldermen would never grant additional ferries, the -Equal Rights men favored a measure, then pending in the Legislature, -for the establishment of a State Board of Commissioners clothed with -that power. Gideon Lee,[16] a Wall Street banker, called the meeting -to order and nominated Preserved Fish for chairman. Many objections -were uttered, and Fish retired. The radicals howled down the Tammany -speakers and ran the meeting themselves, adopting resolutions prepared -by Joel P. Seaver, declaring for the creation of the State board. A -bill for a new ferry--the present South Ferry--was passed the same year. - -The Equal Rights men still hoped to gain their ends inside the -organization. When Cornelius W. Lawrence[17] stood for reelection as -Mayor in April, 1835, there was scarcely any opposition to him from any -quarter, he receiving 17,696 votes out of a total of 20,196. - -In the Fall of 1835, however, the Tammany Nominating Committee -recommended for State offices candidates of a character most obnoxious -to the Equal Rights men, and called a meeting for the evening of -October 29, to ratify its nominations. Barely were the doors opened -when the Equal Rights men rushed in and frustrated an attempt to -place Isaac L. Varian in the chair. In the mêlée, the Bank Democrats, -finding themselves unable to control the meeting, withdrew, but in -doing so turned off the gas, leaving the Equal Rights men in total -darkness. The trick must have been anticipated; for each man drew forth -a candle and a lucifer, or “loco foco” match, and in a twinkling the -hall was resplendent with dancing lights. The Equal Rights men adopted -resolutions and a suitable ticket of their own.[18] - -Three sets of candidates stood for election. The Native Americans, who -opposed the election of foreigners to office and urged the repeal of -the naturalization laws, took the place of the Whigs. In the face of -this strong sentiment, Tammany Hall acted with its usual diplomacy. The -general committee boasted that the regular Tammany ticket was composed -of only native Americans, which was true, the naturalized citizens -having been cajoled on the promise of receiving the usual quota -among nominations the next year. Of the nearly 23,000 votes cast at -the election, Tammany Hall obtained an average majority of about 800. -The Native Americans polled 9,000 votes, and the Equal Rights men, or -Anti-Monopolists, over 3,500. It was estimated that 2,000 Whigs voted -the Tammany ticket to defeat the Anti-Monopolists, and that about 5,500 -Whig votes were divided between Tammany Hall and the Native Americans. - -The news of its slight plurality was hailed with anything but pleasure -at the Wigwam, where the Anti-Monopolists were denounced as political -swindlers and adventurers. Instead, however, of making a show of -outward fairness, the organization leaders blindly took the course -most adapted to fan the flame of opposition to themselves. After the -great fire of 1835, which destroyed $20,000,000 worth of property, and -the extent of which was due to the refusal of the corrupt Aldermen -to give the city a proper water supply, the Common Council agreed to -loan $6,000,000 at 5 per cent. interest for the relief of insurance -companies and banks which had suffered from the fire.[19] Nothing was -said or done for the relief of the poor sufferers whom the Wigwam -claimed to have under its especial protection. The Council allowed -pawnbrokers 25 per cent. interest and prohibited them from loaning -more than $25 on a single pledge.[20] The city institutions were in -a melancholy state.[21] Most serious of all on the public mind were -the disclosures concerning the Commercial Bank, from which funds were -embezzled in the scheme of cornering the stock of the Harlem Railroad. -As a step towards this end, Samuel Swartwout and Garrit Gilbert (a -sometime Sachem) lobbied for the passage of a bill to increase the -capital stock of this road, which in turn, it was thought, would -increase the price of all the stock--two Senators agreeing to raise -objections temporarily “so as to blind the eyes of the New Yorkers.”[22] - -The leaders made no effort to stop the granting of charters, or to -curtail the monopolist privileges already granted. It was admitted -generally that no legislation even remotely affecting the interests -of the banks could pass without the consent of those institutions. -Tradesmen also had their combinations. But combinations, legal enough -when organized by capital, were declared illegal when formed by -workingmen. At this time the Supreme Court of the State of New York -decided that combinations to raise the wages of any class of laborers -amounted to a misdemeanor, on the ground that they were injurious -to trade. Later, in June, 1836, twenty tailors were found guilty of -conspiracy under that decision and fined by Judge Edwards $1,150 in the -aggregate for engaging in a strike for higher wages. - -The mechanics prepared to hold an indignation meeting and applied for -permission to use Tammany Hall. This was refused by the Sachems.[23] -In defiance of the Wigwam, the meeting, a gathering of 20,000 persons, -was held in the park fronting Tammany Hall. “Are workingmen,” read the -address of the committee of this meeting, - - “free in reality when they dare not obey the first instinct of - all animated beings; when our courts pronounce it criminal to - exercise nature’s paramount law of self-preservation? Trades - unions and mechanick societies are only self-protective against - the _countless combinations of aristocracy_; boards of bank and - other chartered directories; boards of brokers; boards of trade - and commerce; combinations of landlords; coal and wood dealers; - monopolists and all those who grasp at everything and produce - nothing. If _all these combinations_ are suffered to exist, why - are trades unions and combinations of workingmen denounced? - Should they not have an equal chance in the pursuit of life, - liberty and happiness? Should they not have an equal right - with the other classes of society, in their person, in their - property or labor, and in their management?” - -The meeting, in strong resolutions, condemned the Supreme Court -decision and that of Judge Edwards. - -At this moment the peculiar Wigwam methods were being displayed in -another direction to an edified public. In the first days of May, 1836, -the Board of Aldermen found itself divided equally, Tammany Hall and -the Whigs each having eight votes, precluding either from electing a -president. The Tammany members, in the tea-room downstairs, made merry -over refreshments. The Whigs could not muster a quorum, and sent word -to the organization men to appear; the Wigwam men replied that they -didn’t choose, and bade the Whigs come to them. Meanwhile the public -business stood still. Finally the balloting was begun. On May 23, -seventeen votes were found to have been cast, although there were only -sixteen voting Aldermen.[24] By the end of May more than 120 ballots -were had. At last, on July 1, the Tammany men persuaded Alderman Ward, -a Whig, to offer a resolution electing Isaac L. Varian, a Wigwam -candidate, for the first six months, which was done. - -Taking these proceedings as a cue, the Equal Rights party, on June 6, -at Military Hall, adopted a long series of resolutions stating that -the aristocracy of the Democracy, or in other words, the monopolists, -the paper-currency Democrats, the partizans of the “usages,” had -long deceived and misguided the great body of the Democrats. Through -these “usages,” the tools of the banks and other incorporated -and speculative interests were enabled to take advantage of the -unsuspicious self-security of the people, both before and at primary -meetings. By the aristocracy and through secret caucuses, candidates -were chosen, proceedings were cut and dried, and committees were -packed. When committees could not be packed without opposition, the -resolutions further read, two sets of committeemen were usually -elected, and that set whose political complexion best suited the -packed majority of the general committee was always accepted without -any regard to the majorities of the people. The Union did not furnish -a more dangerous usurpation upon the sovereignty of the people than -the fact of the Tammany Hall Nominating Committee sending recently -a petition to the Legislature in favor of chartering more banks and -banking paper capital and designating themselves, not as citizens, -but as members of the nominating committee, notwithstanding the very -nominees of such a committee had given their written pledge to oppose -new banks and monopolies. - -The “usages,” the Equal Rights party next resolved, so productive of -secret caucuses, intrigues and abuses, furnished the avenue through -which one portion of the Democracy had been corrupted, and the other -portion--the great mass--led astray. The latter was taught to believe -that “usages” alone made men Democrats, and that to keep Federalists -and Whigs out of office was the very essence of Democracy.[25] - -The Equal Rights party then nominated Isaac L. Smith, of Buffalo, -for Governor, and Moses L. Jacques, of New York City, for -Lieutenant-Governor. - -To draw from the strength of the new party, some of Tammany’s -leaders--Samuel Swartwout, Jesse Hoyt, Stephen Allen, Saul Alley and -a few others--professed to favor the repeal of the Restraining law, -which in effect prohibited private banking and gave the incorporated -institutions a monopoly. The Anti-Monopolists were not to be deluded. -On September 21 they declared that in the recent _professions_ of the -Tammany corruptionists in advocating this repeal and in favoring some -other few _minor_ democratic measures, they beheld the stale expedient -of luring the bone and sinew of the country to the support of their -monopoly and banking men and measures and that they had no faith in -Tammany “usages,” policy or its incorrigible Sachems. - -The characters of most of the Wigwam nominations were so tainted that -it seemed as if the candidates were put forward in defiance of the -best public sentiment. It is not so certain that outside the Equal -Rights party the voters were repelled by the current methods of buying -legislation and dictating nominations. A low tone of public morals was -manifested. Men were bent on money-making. He who could get rich by -grace of the Legislature was thought “smart” and worthy of emulation. -The successful in politics were likewise to be envied, and, if -possible, imitated. A large part of the community bowed in respect to -the person of wealth, no matter whence came his riches; and the bank -lobbyists were the recipients of a due share of this reverence. - -From these men the Tammany leaders selected candidates. One of the -Assembly nominees was Prosper M. Wetmore, who had lobbied for the -notorious State Bank charter. This bank, according to the charter, -was to have $10,000,000 capital, although its organizers did not have -more than a mere fraction of that sum. This was going too far, even -for Albany, though upon modifying their application, the charter was -granted.[26] Reuben Withers and James C. Stoneall, bank lobbyists; -Benjamin Ringgold, a bank and legislative “go-between,” and Morgan -L. Smith, preeminent among lobbyists, were other Tammany nominees. -Notwithstanding the low standards of public morals, these men were -so unpopular, that when the form of submitting their names for -ratification to the great popular meeting at the Wigwam on November -1, was carried out, a hostile demonstration followed. The names of -Wetmore, Smith and Ringgold especially were hooted. But the leaders had -groups of “whippers-in” brought in hurriedly to vote affirmatively, and -the presiding officer declared all the nominees duly accepted by the -people. - -Only six of the organization’s thirteen Assembly nominees survived -the popular wrath, and the nominees for nearly all the other offices -were beaten, notwithstanding the expectation that the Presidential -election would carry them in on the party ticket. A number of Tammany -men of principle refused to vote. The Whigs, the Native Americans and -some “Locofocos” joined forces. They were aided by the panic, which, -breaking out shortly before election, reacted against the Democrats. -The Equal Rights men as a rule voted for Van Buren. Tammany Hall and -the Whigs both committed frauds. Van Buren received 1,124 majority in -New York City, which in 1832 had given Jackson nearly 6,000 majority. - -Made wiser by defeat, the organization leaders realized the importance -of the Equal Rights movement, and caused, as a sop, the passage, in -February, 1837, of the bill repealing the Restraining act. The Common -Council likewise modified the Pawnbrokers’ act by cutting down the -interest to a more reasonable percentage.[27] - -Their providence stopped at this point, however,[28] and during the -panic Winter following neither Legislature nor Common Council did -anything to alleviate the miseries of the poor. On the contrary, -the poor complained that the tendency more and more was to use the -power of the law to make the rich richer. While the suffering was -greatest, Alderman Aaron Clark, a Whig, who had made his fortune from -lotteries, proposed that the city spend several millions of dollars to -surround its water front with a line of still-water ponds for shipping -purposes, his justification for this expenditure being that the North -River piers would “raise the price of every lot 25 × 100 feet west -of Broadway $5,000 at a jump.”[29] “Millions to benefit landowners -and shippers, but not a dollar for the unemployed hungry!” exclaimed -the Anti-Monopolists. Alderman Bruen, another Whig, at a time when -the fall in the value of real estate in New York City alone exceeded -$50,000,000, suggested the underwriting by the city to the speculators -for the sum of $5,000,000, to take in pledge the lands they had bought -and to give them the bonds of the city for two-thirds their value. -To the Equal Rights men there was not much difference between the -Tammany Hall and the Whig leaders. Both, it was plain, sweated the -people for their own private interests, although the Whigs, inheriting -the Federalist idea that property was the sole test of merit, did not -flaunt their undying concern for the laborer so persistently as did the -Wigwam. - -The city in 1837 was filled with the homeless and unemployed. Rent was -high, and provisions were dear. Cattle speculators had possession of -nearly all the stock, and a barrel of flour cost $12. On February 12 -a crowd met in the City Hall Park, after which over 200 of them sped -to the flour warehouse of Eli Hart & Co., on Washington street. This -firm and that of S. B. Herrick & Son, it was known, held a monopoly -in the scarce supply of flour and wheat. The doors of Hart’s place -were battered down, and nearly 500 barrels of flour and 1,000 bushels -of wheat were taken out and strewed in the street. Herrick’s place -likewise was mobbed.[30] On May 10, when the banks suspended specie -payments, a vast and excited crowd gathered in Wall Street, and a riot -was narrowly averted.[31] - -The Equal Rights party could not be bought out or snuffed out. -To deprive it of its best leaders Tammany Hall resorted to petty -persecution. Jacques and Slamm had headed a petition to the Legislature -protesting against the appointment of a certain suspicious bank -investigating committee. The Wigwam men in the Legislature immediately -secured the passage of a resolution for the appointment of a committee -to investigate this petition, and this committee instantly haled -Jacques and Slamm to appear at Albany and give testimony.[32] The -purpose was plain. The Tammany men sought to have the Equal Rights -leaders at Albany, which was not as accessible from the city as now, -and there keep them under various pretexts while the Spring campaign -for Mayor was going on. Jacques and Slamm did not appear and were -adjudged guilty of contempt. When they were most needed in New York -City they were arrested and arraigned before the Legislature. William -Leggett also was threatened, but escaped arrest. - -The Equal Rights party, however, was soon to demonstrate its capacity -to do harm to Tammany. The organization nominated John J. Morgan for -Mayor; the Whigs named Aaron Clark, and the Equal Rights party opposed -them with Jacques. The 3,911 votes Jacques received were enough to -defeat Morgan, with his 12,974 votes, against Clark’s 16,140. Worst -blow of all, Tammany Hall lost the Common Council. When the new body -came in it removed all of the Wigwam’s office-holders that it could. -The spoils in the form of annual salaries paid by the city, amounting -to $468,000; the perquisites and contracts--such as that for the Croton -Aqueduct, in favor of which the people had voted some years before--and -other improvements, all went to the Whigs. - -The Tammany men, regarding the Equal Rights men responsible for this -loss of power, were now disposed to treat with them and willing enough -to throw over the banker-corporation element. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] The minutes of the Common Council covering these years show -continuous records of petitions from imprisoned debtors, praying for -fuel and the patching up of windows in the dead of Winter. Charitable -societies were in existence to supply the jailed debtors with food. - -[2] This singular provision, by which non-residents were liable to -imprisonment for debt, while the natives of the city were exempted, was -erased in 1840. - -[3] _Journal of the Senate and Assembly_, 1805, pp. 351 and 399. - -[4] _Ibid._, 1812, p. 134. - -[5] _Journal of the Senate and Assembly_, 1812, pp. 259-60. - -[6] Stock given at par value meant an almost immediate rise in value -to the legislator. Most stocks went upward from 10 to 15 per cent. on -the passage of the charter, and in the case of the more profitable and -exploitative corporations, far higher advances were scored in a short -time. - -[7] _Journal of the Senate_, 1824, pp. 498-532. - -[8] _Journal of the Senate_, 1826, Vol. 6, Appendix B. A considerable -part of the money and stock promised the members of the Legislature for -their votes was withheld owing to the expected investigation. - -[9] _Ibid._ - -[10] _Ibid._ - -[11] _Senate Documents_, 1834, No. 47, and _Ibid._, No. 94. Walter -Bowne was the bank’s president. - -[12] _Ibid._, No. 94. - -[13] _Ibid._, No. 47. - -[14] _Journal of the Senate_, 1833, p. 396. - -[15] _Documents of the Senate_, 1834, No. 108. - -[16] Lee was the last Mayor elected by the Common Council (1833-34). - -[17] Lawrence had a curious habit of strolling the streets carrying his -spectacles in his hand behind his back, and ogling all the pretty girls -he met, a habit which was broken later when one winsome lass tangled -him in a plot, much to his financial and mental distress. - -[18] The next day the Equal Rights men were dubbed “Locofocos,” a name -afterward applied by the Whigs to the entire Democratic party. - -[19] _Documents of the Board of Aldermen_, 1836, Nos. 65 and 100. - -[20] _Ibid._, 1837, No. 48. - -[21] _Ibid._, 1837, No. 32. - -[22] _Documents of the Senate_, 1836, Vol. II, No. 94. - -[23] A short time before, at an Anti-Monopolist meeting, Chairman -Job Haskell had represented that the Tammany Society--the secret -body, responsible to no one and enforcing its demands through the -Tammany Hall political organization--was to blame for the political -corruption. Resolutions were then passed setting forth that whereas -the self-constituted, self-perpetuating Tammany Society had assumed a -dictatorial attitude and by usages made by itself endeavored to rule -the people as with a rod of iron; and, as they (the Equal Rights men) -believed the people were capable of managing their own affairs without -the aid of said inquisitorial society, “that we deem the Tammany -Society an excrescence upon the body politic and dangerous to its -rights and liberties.” - -[24] _Proceedings of the Board of Aldermen_, Vol XI, p. 16. - -[25] These resolutions were published officially in the New York -_Evening Post_, June 8, 1836. - -[26] Cornelius W. Lawrence, the Tammany Mayor, became the bank’s first -president. - -[27] _Documents of the Board of Aldermen_, 1837, No. 48. - -[28] Excepting some instances of private charity by Tammany leaders. - -[29] _Documents of the Board of Aldermen_, 1836, No. 80. - -[30] _Documents of the Board of Aldermen_, 1839, No. 29. - -[31] _Ibid._ - -[32] _Documents of the Assembly_, 1837, Nos. 198 and 327. - - - - -CHAPTER XIII - -TAMMANY “PURIFIED” - -1837-1838 - - -One of the important changes in the composition of Tammany Hall came in -1837. The United States Bank dependents, lobbyists and supporters had -left the Wigwam, as has been noted, in 1832, but the State Bank men, -well satisfied with the destruction of the great rival corporation, had -remained. Finding the organization no longer subservient to them they, -in turn, quit Tammany during Van Buren’s administration. - -This happened in the Fall of 1837. The Tammany General Committee, whose -membership had recently been increased from thirty-six to fifty-one -members, held a meeting on September 7, thirty-six members being -present. Resolutions were offered upholding Van Buren’s scheme of -placing the United States funds in sub-treasuries. This was a bitter -dose to the State Bank men who, wanting to retain Government deposits, -opposed the sub-treasury plan. The “bank conservatives” vainly tried -to put off a vote on the resolutions, but being repeatedly outvoted, -all but one of them left the room before the main question was put. -Nineteen members remained. As seventeen formed a quorum, the question -was put and the resolutions were adopted by a vote of 18 to 1. The bank -men pretended that the resolutions were passed clandestinely, and they -so deviously managed things that in a few days they regained control of -the general committee, which at their behest refused to call a public -meeting to act on the resolutions. - -But the Democratic-Republican Young Men’s Committee was saturated with -Equal Rights ideas and rebelled at the policy which allowed the acts -of the bankers to antagonize Democrats of principle and bring defeat -to Tammany Hall. This committee met in the Wigwam on September 11 and -passed a series of resolutions with which the Anti-Monopolists were -as pleased as the bankers were angry. The resolution declared the -public satisfaction in anticipating the separation of bank and state, -and welcomed the approach of an era when legislation should not be -perverted to the enrichment of a few and the depression of the many. -The Young Men resolved that the crisis was sufficient reason for their -committee assuming to recommend a public meeting of those who approved -Van Buren’s recent message, to be held in Tammany Hall, on September 21. - -The bank men were angry that the Young Men’s committee should dare to -act independently of the elder, the general committee. The latter, -meeting on September 14, disapproved of the manner in which the Young -Men’s meeting had been called, declined cooperation with it, and by a -vote of 21 to 16 ordered the Young Men’s General Committee to withdraw -the recommendation for that meeting. The Young Men ignored the order -and held their meeting. Van Buren and his prospective sub-treasuries -were indorsed and fiery resolutions adopted denouncing the incorporated -banks. - -Coming, as this denunciation did, from Tammany Hall, which had a -far-reaching influence over the Union, the “bank conservatives” -grew even more exasperated, for they had come to look upon the -organization as almost their private property. As two-thirds of the -Sachems belonged to their clique, they held a meeting in the Wigwam, -on September 25, to disapprove of the sub-treasury scheme. In rushed -the progressive Democrats in overwhelming force, and for an hour the -place was a fighting arena. The bank men were forced to leave, and the -progressives organized and carried out the meeting. - -Regarding Tammany as having ceased to be the tool of the exploiting -interests, the Anti-Monopolists were disposed to a union with the -advanced organization party. When the Equal Rights men met at -Military Hall on October 27, Col. Alexander Ming, Jr., one of the -party’s organizers, said that one of the chief purposes of the Equal -Rights party was to effect reform in Tammany Hall; this having been -accomplished, it was the duty of every Democrat to unite on one ticket -against the “high-toned Federalists, Whigs and aristocrats.” A fusion -Assembly ticket was made up, composed of both Tammany and Equal Rights -men, each Tammanyite subscribing in writing to the Equal Rights -principles. A small contingent of the Equal Rights party, however, -accused their comrades of selling out to the Wigwam, and nominated -their own candidates--Job Haskell, Daniel Gorham, William E. Skidmore -and others. - -The “bank conservatives” allied themselves with the Whigs. They were -credited with raising an election fund of $60,000, a sum which at that -time could do great execution. By raising the cries of “agrarianism” -and “infidelity,” ascribing the effects of the panic of 1837 to the -Democrats, coercing laborers and using illegal votes, the combined -conservatives wrested nearly 3,000 majority out of a total of 33,093 -votes. - -Stimulated by this victory, the bank men attempted to regain control -of Tammany and called a meeting for January 2, 1838, at 7 o’clock, in -the Wigwam. The Anti-Bank Democrats then issued a call for a meeting -on the same night, but one hour earlier. The Council of Sachems were -mostly either “bank conservatives” themselves or sympathizers; but they -feared to alienate the dominant progressives. As the best solution, -they agreed that neither party should meet in the Wigwam. On January -1 they resolved that both calls were unauthorized and that neither -had been sanctioned by any act of the general committee. “The lease -of Tammany Hall,” read their resolution, “reserves to the Council of -Sachems of the Tammany Society the right to decide on all questions of -doubt, arising out of the rooms being occupied by or let to a person -or persons as a committee or otherwise for political purposes!” The -Council sent a copy of these resolutions to Lovejoy and Howard, the -lessees[1] of Tammany Hall, forbidding them to “rent, hire to, or allow -either of the assemblages named on the premises.” Identical with this -decree, Lovejoy and Howard issued a notice (which was published in the -public prints) that their lease of Tammany Hall “contained covenants” -that they would not permit any persons to assemble in the hall “whose -political opinions the Council of Sachems of Tammany Society should -declare not to be in accordance with the political views of the general -committee of said Tammany Society,” and they (Lovejoy and Howard) -therefore could not permit either meeting.[2] The conservatives then -met in the City Hall Park, where they were assaulted and maltreated.[3] - -The Anti-Bank men won over the general committee, which gave the -necessary permission for their meeting in the Wigwam on January 9. The -policy of Jackson and of Van Buren was upheld, and it was set forth -that while the Democracy, unlike its calumniators, did not arrogate to -itself “the possession of all the decency, the virtue, the morals and -the wealth of the community,” it felt no more disturbed at being called -“Agrarians,” “Locofocos” or “Radicals” than it did at being abused in -the days of Jefferson. - -That foremost Equal Rights advocate, the _Evening Post_, now -acknowledged the purification of Tammany Hall;[4] saying that -the spurious Democrats who had infested the party for their own -selfish purposes had either been drummed out of the ranks, had left -voluntarily, or had acquiesced sullenly in the decision of the majority. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] It will be remembered that in 1828 the Sachems had bought back a -lease on the building in order to shut out the Adams men. The lease had -again been let, but under restrictions which left the Sachems the power -to determine what faction should be entitled to the use of the hall. - -[2] These details are of the greatest importance as revealing the -methods by which the society asserted its absolute ascendency over -the organization. They proved the absurdity of the claim that the two -bodies were distinct and separate from each other. - -[3] The _New Yorker_ (magazine), January 13, 1838. This journal was -edited and published by Horace Greeley. - -[4] January 11, 1838. The credit for this temporary purification must -in considerable measure be given to the _Evening Post’s_ editors, -William Cullen Bryant and William Leggett. - - - - -CHAPTER XIV - -WHIG FAILURE RESTORES TAMMANY TO POWER - -1838-1840 - - -The course of the Whig city administration served only to strengthen -Tammany and was responsible for the conviction, which later so often -prevailed, that if Tammany Hall was bad the Whigs were no better, and -were perhaps worse. At this time of general distress complaints were -numerous that the sum of $1,300,000 was exacted from the rentpayers in -a single year. In the early part of 1838 one-third of all the persons -in New York City who subsisted by manual labor was substantially or -wholly without employment.[1] Not less than 10,000 persons were in -utter poverty and had no other means of surviving the Winter than those -afforded by the charity of neighbors. The Almshouse and all charitable -institutions were full to overflowing; the usual agencies of charity -were exhausted or insufficient, and 10,000 sufferers were still uncared -for. The great panic of 1837 had cut down the city’s trade one-half. -Notwithstanding the fall of prices, the rents for tenements in New -York were greater than were paid in any other city or village upon -the globe.[2] So exorbitant were the demands of the landlords that -the tenants found it impossible to meet them. The landowners were the -backbone of the Whig party; it was not unnatural, therefore, that -their rapacity developed among the people at large a profound distrust -of Whig men and principles. - -The Whig officials, so far as can be discovered, took no adequate steps -to relieve the widespread suffering. The Tammany ward committees, on -the other hand, were active in relief work. This was another of the -secrets of Tammany Hall’s usual success in holding the body of voters. -The Whigs made fine speeches over champagne banquets, but kept at a -distance from the poor, among whom the Wigwam workers mingled, and -distributed clothing, fuel and food and often money. The leaders set -the example. One of these was John M. Bloodgood,[3] who frequently went -among the charitable citizens, collecting, in a large basket, cakes, -pies, meat and other eatables, and distributing them among the needy. - -In the Spring of 1838 Tammany nominated Isaac L. Varian for Mayor, -and the Whigs renominated Aaron Clark. The Whigs used the panic as an -example of the result of Democratic rule. Controlling the city, they -employed all its machinery to win. It was reasonably certain that they -did not stop at fraud. In some wards canvassing was delayed until -other wards were heard from. In still other wards the Whigs refused -to administer the oath to naturalized citizens. With all this they -obtained a plurality of only 519 out of 39,341 votes. Had it not been -for dissensions in the tumultuous Sixth Ward, Tammany would have won. - -In the Fall election of 1838 the Whig frauds were enormous and -indisputable. The Whigs raised large sums of money, which were handed -to ward workers for the procuring of votes. About two hundred roughs -were brought from Philadelphia, in different divisions, each man -receiving $22. Gen. Robert Swartwout, now a Whig, at the instance -of such men as Moses H. Grinnell, Robert C. Wetmore and Noah Cook, -former Wigwam lights, who left the Hall because the “destructionist” -Anti-Monopolists captured it, arranged for the trip of these fraudulent -voters. After having voted in as many wards as possible, each was to -receive the additional compensation of $5. They were also to pass -around spurious tickets purporting to be Democratic. The aggregate -Whig vote, it was approximated, was swelled through the operations of -this band by at least five to six hundred.[4] One repeater, Charles -Swint, voted in sixteen wards. Such inmates of the House of Detention -as could be persuaded or bullied into voting the Whig ticket were set -at large. Merritt, a police officer, was seen boldly leading a crowd -of them to the polls. Ex-convicts distributed Whig tickets and busily -electioneered. The cabins of all the vessels along the wharves were -ransacked, and every man, whether or not a citizen or resident of New -York, who could be wheedled into voting a Whig ballot, was rushed to -the polls and his vote was smuggled in. The Whigs were successful, -their candidate for Governor, William H. Seward, receiving 20,179 -votes, to 19,377 for William L. Marcy. - -Departing from its custom of seeking local victory on national issues, -Tammany, in April, 1839, issued an address expatiating on the increase -of the city expenses from a little over $1,000,000 in 1830 to above -$5,000,000 in 1838. Deducting about $1,500,000 for the Croton works, -there would still remain the enormous increase of $2,500,000. The -city population had not trebled in that time, nor had there been any -extraordinary cause for expenditure. Where had all this money gone? - -Tammany further pointed out that, unlike the Whigs, it had never -stooped so low as to discharge the humble laborers in the public -service, when it (Tammany) held the Common Council. Nor had it ever -been so abject as to provide them with colored tickets, as the Whigs -had done, so that the laborers might be detected if they voted contrary -to their masters. Tammany further charged that the Whigs in the -previous election had taken the Almshouse paupers, with embossed satin -voting tickets in their hands, to the polls, and were planning to do it -again. - -Tammany made good use of this charge. But the practise was not -exclusively a Whig industry. In those years both Democrats and Whigs, -according to which held power, forced Almshouse paupers to vote. For -a fortnight before the election the paupers were put in training. On -the morning of election they were disguised with new clothing, so that -the public might not see their gray uniforms. They were given tickets -to vote “and tickets for grog, silver coin and also good advice as to -their conduct at the polls.” Then they were carried to the polls in -stages, with an officer on each step to see that none escaped. Many -would return to the Almshouse drunk and with torn clothing, or after -having exchanged their new garments for liquor.[5] There were usually -about 300 paupers. In the Fall and Winter of 1838 a quarter of the -population was relieved at the Almshouse. - -Clark and Varian were both renominated for Mayor in the Spring of 1839. -Preparations for fraud on a large scale were made by both parties. The -newspapers supporting Varian admitted that Tammany thought proper to -follow the Whigs’ example, and to counteract its effects, by colonizing -the doubtful wards with Democratic voters. On both sides repeating was -general. An Albany police officer named Coulson brought twenty-three -persons, one of whom was only seventeen years old, to New York City, -where they voted the Whig ticket in the different wards. For this they -received $5 in advance, and $1 a day. - -Of the 41,113 votes Varian[6] received 21,072, and Clark 20,005. The -Wigwam secured a majority of 12 in the Common Council. - -Fearing that Tammany in power would use the administration machinery -in elections even more than had the Whigs, the latter now made a great -outcry for a registry law,[7] proclaiming it the only fraud preventive. -The sudden conversion of the Whig leaders to civic purity called forth -derision. But the people at large, the non-politicians, ashamed of such -barefaced frauds in their city, took up the agitation. The Registry -bill was introduced in the Legislature in May, 1839. It provided for -the registration of voters in New York City, and made fraudulent voting -a felony, with severe penalties. - -After the frauds of 1834 the Wigwam leaders had given out that they -would take serious steps to obtain from the Legislature a law causing -voters to be registered, but had done nothing. They now opened a -campaign against the Whig bill. In the Spring of 1840 the ward -committees declared against it on the pretext that it interfered with -constitutional rights; that it was an insidious attempt to take from -the poor man either his right of suffrage or to make the exercise of -that right so inconvenient as practically to debar him from voting. -The Common Council, on March 16, 1840, denounced the proposed law as -inquisitorial, tyrannical and disfranchising in its effect, as well -as unjust, because they (the Aldermen) “know of no sin which she (New -York City) has committed to make her worthy of the signal reproach now -sought to be cast upon her.”[8] A few days later the Common Council -on joint ballot delivered itself of a solemn protest against the -constitutionality of the Registry bill, and on the night of March 24 -an assemblage in the Wigwam did likewise. It was in this year that the -full account of the Whig frauds of 1838 was made public. Commenting -upon this, the Tammany Nominating Committee, with characteristic -naïveté, said in its address: “It is with shame that we record these -dark transactions and proclaim them to the people. We would, if we -could, blot out their existence, for it brings disgrace on our whole -country and will make the enemies of civil freedom laugh with joy.” - -The Registry bill became a law, but Tammany continued to protest -against it. When, in 1841, the Legislature increased the penalties -for its violation, Acting Mayor Elijah F. Purdy commented upon it -severely.[9] - -The able, sincere and high-minded William Leggett, the guiding spirit -of the Equal Rights party, died on May 29, 1839, not quite forty years -old. The Tammany Young Men’s General Committee eulogized his virtues -and talents, proclaimed him amongst the purest of politicians and -announced the purpose of raising a monument to his memory. Of this -committee, curious to relate, the chairman was Fernando Wood and the -secretary Richard B. Connolly--two men who became known for anything -but devotion to the virtues they here exalted. - -Leggett, some years before this, had become a radical Abolitionist. By -this time the anti-slavery movement in the city and State had grown to -considerable proportions, though as yet it had exercised but little -influence on politics. Several riots had taken place in the streets of -the city, two rather serious ones happening on July 9 and 10, 1834, -and June 21, 1835, and Lewis Tappan, an anti-slavery propagandist, had -been mobbed. The local movement gradually acquired new adherents, and -constantly increased its propaganda. At this period, however, it was -more in the nature of a growing moral force. - -During this period another great series of disclosures regarding -Tammany chieftains was made public. Samuel Swartwout, whom Jackson -had made Collector of the Port shortly after coming into office in -1829, fled from the city late in 1838. He had long been a power in the -organization. His name had been mentioned unpleasantly when he, with -M. M. Noah and Henry Ogden,[10] contrived by means of their official -positions to get $10,000 reward for the recovery of the jewels stolen -from the Prince of Orange, though the recovery had been made by others. -And in 1833 he had threatened, as Collector of the Port, to remove the -Custom House uptown because the merchants would not lend him more than -$7,000 on the strength of some worthless “Jersey meadows.” Three years -later he was connected with the unsavory Harlem Railroad stock corner -and the manipulation of the funds of the Commercial Bank. Early in 1838 -he joined forces with the notorious politicians of the Seventh Ward -Bank for the defeat of William Leggett for the Democratic nomination -for Congress, securing the nomination of Isaac L. Varian in his -stead. A few months later the city was astounded to learn that since -1830 he had been systematically robbing the Government, through the -manipulation of Custom House receipts, and that the total of his thefts -amounted to nearly $1,250,000.[11] Fleeing to Europe, he wandered -aimlessly about[12] for many years.[13] The community was so impressed -with the size of this defalcation that a verb, “to Swartwout,” was -coined, remaining in general use for many years thereafter. A defaulter -was generally spoken of as having “Swartwouted.” - -A lesser figure in Tammany circles, though a person of considerable -consequence, followed Swartwout in flight. This was William M. Price, -at the time District Attorney for the Southern District of New York. It -was discovered that he had defaulted to the Government in the sum of -$75,000. Price, like so many other Tammany politicians of his time, had -been mixed up with Seventh Ward Bank politics. During the latter part -of his career he had been known as the personal representative in the -city of President Van Buren. - -During the following Spring, William Paxen Hallett, a member of the -“Big Four” against whom the Equal Rights party had so energetically -protested in 1836, was made the defendant in a civil suit involving -grave fraud. As referee in a suit for damages of one John A. Manning -against one Charles J. Morris, Hallett had wrongfully reported that -only trifling judgments remained outstanding against Morris, and the -court had accordingly given the latter a year’s time in which to make -good a judgment for $3,496 rendered in favor of Manning. It appeared, -however, in the proceedings before the Superior Court, May 20, 1839, -that Hallett knew, or should have known, of a previous judgment -against the defendant for $15,014.44 in favor of one Nathan Davis, who -during the year of grace seized upon all of Morris’s property, thus -defrauding Manning. The testimony was so convincing that Hallett was -forced to compromise the suit by paying the damages asked for. Through -the influence of the organization, however, he escaped prosecution. - -The “ring” of Police Justices had for several years been a crying -scandal. Whig and Tammany magistrates were equally involved. Public -clamor fixed upon John M. Bloodgood, despite his private charities, -as the first victim. The Assistant Aldermen impeached him in January, -1839,[14] and submitted the case to the Court of Common Pleas, by -whom he was tried.[15] Testimony was brought out tending to show that -the Police Justices, by means of an understanding with policemen and -jailers, extorted money from prisoners and shielded counterfeiters, -thieves, street walkers and other malefactors from arrest or -conviction. The charges were dismissed.[16] Stronger testimony of the -same kind was brought out in May, 1840, on the trial of Police Justice -Henry W. Merritt, and other testimony involved in the same way Special -Justice Oliver M. Lowndes. The case, however, was dismissed.[17] - -A strong public agitation had been waged for the reorganization of the -criminal courts. The _Weekly Herald_ of February 1, 1840, had made the -statement that the farce of conducting the correctional machinery of -the city involved a yearly sum of $1,360,564--this sum being the total -of judges’, policemen’s and court attendants’ salaries (about $50,000), -added to the blackmail exacted from offenders, and various “pickings -and stealings.” The statement was an extravagant one; $700,000 would -have been nearer the mark. But whatever the sum, the acquittal of the -Police Justices by their fellows in judicial evil-doing indicated that -the carnival was to continue. The Tammany leaders had been “out” for -the two years 1837-38, and were now vigorously making hay while the sun -shone, while such of their Whig contemporaries as still held office -were vying with the chiefs in systematic and organized plundering. - -The Manhattan Bank scandals were made public in February, 1840. This -was the bank whose charter Aaron Burr had so ingeniously secured in -1799. It had been a Tammany institution from the beginning, and Tammany -politicians had ruled its policies. It was now generally regarded as -the leading financial institution in the city, rivaled only by the Bank -of America. It carried $600,000 of Government funds on deposit, and, of -course, a large city and State fund. - -It was now shown that for years it had loaned large sums to Tammany -leaders and to family connections of its directors and officials, and -that it had spent other large sums for political purposes. The total -of its worthless loans and political expenditures reached the enormous -sum of $1,344,266.99. Cashier Campbell P. White, tried on the technical -charge of stealing several of the bank’s books, was freed through the -disagreement of the jury,[18] but on a second trial, charged with -assaulting Jonathan Thompson, a Tammany director of the bank who had -criticized his management, he was fined $250 and imprisoned for fifteen -days.[19] In the midst of the excitement Colin G. Newcomb, the teller, -disappeared with $50,000. That the bank weathered the storm well-nigh -reaches the dimensions of a miracle. Paulding, twice a Tammany Mayor; -Bowne, another Tammany ex-Mayor; and Robert H. Morris, at that time -Recorder, appeared as the defendant’s witnesses in the first trial. -White was an influential Wigwam chief, and in 1832 had been elected to -Congress on the Tammany ticket. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] The _New Yorker_, January 20, 1838. - -[2] _Ibid._, February 17, 1838. James Parton, in his biography of -Horace Greeley, attributes the latter’s conversion and life-long -devotion to Socialist principles in large part to the frightful -sufferings which he witnessed in New York City, in the Winter of 1838. - -[3] Bloodgood was the son of Abraham Bloodgood, one of the earliest -Tammany politicians. The son likewise achieved considerable influence -in the organization. He was for a long time a Police Justice. He will -be met with again toward the end of this chapter. - -[4] Confession of Hart Marks, one of the leaders, before Justice -Lowndes in the lower Police Court, November 6, 1838, and of Jonathan D. -Stevenson and others in the Recorder’s Court, October 20, 1840. - -[5] _Documents of the Board of Aldermen_, 1844-45, XI, No. 51. - -[6] Varian was a rugged, popular, but not over-educated man. Sir -Charles Lyell, the noted British geologist, once asked him questions -as to the formation of Manhattan Island. Varian said he had dug a well -on his farm at Murray Hill and after going through “a stratagem of -sand and a stratagem of clay they struck a stratagem of red rock.” At -another time, while reading a New York newspaper at the Stanwix House -in Albany, Varian remarked to Walter Bowne, then Mayor, that they had a -new Street Inspector in New York City. “Indeed! who is he?” “A perfect -stranger,” replied Varian; and he read from the paper: “‘Last evening -the wind suddenly changed to the north, and this morning, thanks to Old -Boreas, our streets are in a passable condition.’ Old Boreas,” said -Varian, reflectively, “I thought I knew every Democrat in New York, but -I never heard of him.” - -[7] In 1834 the Board of Assistant Aldermen had passed a resolution in -favor of the registry of voters, and the Native American Association, -early in 1838, had petitioned the Legislature similarly. The Whigs -seized hold of the movement as political capital for themselves. - -[8] _Proceedings of the Board of Aldermen_, Vol. XVIII, pp. 404-5. - -[9] _Ibid._, Vol. XX, pp. 229-30. - -[10] Ogden was a Tammany politician of considerable importance. At the -time of Swartwout’s flight he was the Cashier of the Custom House, a -post which he had held for several years. He was also a director of the -Seventh Ward Bank. - -[11] The exact amount was $1,222,705.69. _House Executive Document, No. -13, Twenty-fifth Congress, Third Session_; also _House Report, No. 313_. - -[12] A pathetic tale is told of an American meeting Swartwout in -Algiers, several years after this episode, and of the defaulter crying -like a child over his enforced exile from the land of his birth. - -[13] Jesse Hoyt, another Sachem, succeeded Swartwout as Collector of -the Port. Hoyt was charged, about this time, with having defaulted in -the sum of $30,000 in dealings with certain Wall street brokers. The -Superior Court Judgment Roll for 1839-40 records two judgments against -him, secured by Effingham H. Warner, one for $10,000 and one for -$5,747.72. Both judgments were satisfied within a few years after his -assumption of the Collectorship of the Port. - -[14] See “Articles of Impeachment,” _Journal and Documents of the Board -of Assistant Aldermen_, 1839, Vol. XIII, No. 12 and No. 25. - -[15] _Court Minutes, New York Common Pleas_, record of February 19 and -20, 1839. (These records are neither paged nor indexed.) The Common -Pleas of this time was popularly known as the Mayor’s Court; and the -Judges were the Mayor, Recorder and certain Aldermen. The later Court -of Common Pleas was not established until 1856. - -[16] A curious reason for the dismissal was given in the decision of -the Judges. It was that the charges had not been individually sworn to. -It appeared, therefore, that the Board of Assistant Aldermen, acting in -its official capacity in formulating impeachment proceedings, was not a -recognizable party before the Court of Common Pleas. - -[17] _Journal and Documents of the Board of Assistant Aldermen_, -1839-40, Vol. XV, No. 71. The reason for dismissing these charges was -identical with that given in the case of Bloodgood. A statement of the -case is given in the report of District Attorney James R. Whiting to -the Board of Aldermen during this year. See _Proceedings of the Board -of Aldermen_, 1840, Vol. XIX, pp. 135-37. The Common Pleas volume for -1840 is missing from its place in the County Court Building. - -[18] _Session Minutes_, 1840. - -[19] _Ibid._ - - - - -CHAPTER XV - -RISE AND PROGRESS OF THE “GANGS” - -1840-1846 - - -About the year 1840 the change in the personnel and the policy of the -Wigwam became distinctly evident. After its absorption of the Equal -Rights party, the organization had remained “purified” for a year or -so, and then, as usual, had relapsed. But a new power and new ideas -prevailed. No longer did the bankers and merchants who once held -the Wigwam in their grasp, venture to meet in the secret chamber of -the hall and order nominations, command policies or determine the -punishment of refractory individuals. Tammany from this time forward -began to be ruled from the bottom of the social stratum, instead of -from the top. - -Something had to be done to offset the disclosures of 1838-40. -Accordingly, the policy of encouraging the foreigners, first rather -mildly started in 1823, was now developed into a system. The Whigs -antagonized the entrance of foreign-born citizens into politics, and -the Native American party was organized expressly to bar them almost -entirely from the enjoyment of political rights. The immigrant had -no place to which to turn but Tammany Hall. In part to assure to -itself this vote the organization opened a bureau, a modest beginning -of what became a colossal department. An office was established in -the Wigwam, to which specially paid agents or organization runners -brought the immigrant, drilled into him the advantages of joining -Tammany and furnished him with the means and legal machinery needed -to take out his naturalization papers. Between January 14 and April 1, -1840, 895 of these men were taken before Tammany Marine Court Judges -and naturalized. Judges of other courts helped to swell the total. -Nearly every one of these aliens became and remained an inveterate -organization voter. Tammany took the immigrant in charge, cared for -him, made him feel that he was a human being with distinct political -rights, and converted him into a citizen. How sagacious this was, -each year revealed. Immigration soon poured in heavily, and there -came a time when the foreign vote outnumbered that of the native-born -citizens.[1] - -The Whigs were bewildered at this systematic gathering in of the -naturalized citizens. After the election of April, 1840,[2] when -Tammany reelected Varian Mayor and carried the Common Council, the -Committee of Whig Young Men[3] issued a long address on the subject. -After specifically charging that prisoners had been marched from their -cells in the City Prison by their jailers to the polls to vote the -Tammany ticket, the address declared that during the week previous to, -and on election day, naturalization papers had been granted at the -Marine Court on tickets from Tammany Hall, under circumstances of great -abuse. - -In the campaign of 1840 the so-called best elements of the town -were for General Harrison. The Wigwam men had much at stake in Van -Buren’s candidature and exerted themselves to reelect him. Tammany now -elaborated its naturalization bureau. A committee sat daily at the -Wigwam, assisting in the naturalization process, free of charge to the -applicant. The allegiance of foreign-born citizens was further assured -by humoring their national pride in the holding of Irish, German and -French meetings in the hall, where each nationality was addressed in -its own language. The more influential foreigners were rewarded with -places on the Assembly or local ticket, and to the lesser workers of -foreign birth were given petty jobs in the department offices, or -contract work. - -The outcome was, that in the face of especially strong opposition -Tammany harvested 982 plurality in the city for Van Buren, though -the vote of the Western counties gave Harrison the electoral vote -of the State. It was such instances as this--demonstrating its -capacity of swaying New York City even if the rest of the State voted -oppositely--that continued to give Tammany Hall a powerful hold on the -Democratic party of the nation, notwithstanding the discredit that so -often attached to Tammany men and measures. - -Another example of the change in the personnel of Tammany was shown in -the rise and progress of the “ward heeler” and his “gangs.” The “gangs” -were not conspicuous in 1841, when the organization elected Robert H. -Morris Mayor.[4] In April, 1842, when Morris was reelected,[5] the -“gangs” were still modestly in the background. But in the Fall of that -year they came forth in their might. - -One of their leaders was “Mike” Walsh, who became a sort of example -for the professional “ward heelers” that followed in his wake. Walsh -had no claim at all on the ruling politicians at the Wigwam, and would -have been unnoticed by them. But he was ambitious, did not lack ability -of a certain kind, and had a retinue of devoted “plug-ugly” followers. -He spoke with a homely eloquence, which captivated the poor of his -ward. The turbulent he won over with his fists. On November 1 the -Tammany Nominating Committee reported to the great popular meeting. -Walsh, with the express purpose of forcing his own nomination for the -Assembly, went there with such a band of shouters and fighters as -never before had been seen in the hall. His “shoulder-hitters”--men, -as a rule, of formidable appearance--did such hearty execution and so -overawed the men assembled there, that upon the question being put -to a vote the general committee decided in his favor and placed his -name on the regular ticket. While in the ensuing election he received -not quite 3,000 votes to the nearly 20,000 cast for his opponent (the -nominee first reported by the committee), he eventually was successful -in his aim. Seeing how easy it was to force nominations at the Wigwam -if backed by force, other men began to imitate him and get together -“gangs” of their own. - -This was the kind of men who, with their “gangs,” superseded the former -Democratic ward committees, nearly every member of which kept a shop or -earned his living in some legitimate calling. By helping one another -in introducing “gangs” of repeaters from one ward to another at the -primary elections, the “ward heelers” became the masters of the wards -and were then graduated into leaders, whose support was sought by the -most dignified and illustrious politicians. - -In fact, the city was frequently in a state of turmoil. Since 1834 -there had been half a dozen riots.[6] There were constant fights -between rival volunteer engine companies, to which lawless and -abandoned characters attached themselves. Engines were stolen, clubs, -pipes, wrenches and other weapons were used, and the affrays generally -closed with stabbings and broken skulls.[7] There was no police -force to speak of; even Mayor Morris, whom the “gangs” called “Bob” -and tapped familiarly on the shoulder, described it as “lamentably -defective.”[8] One out of every twenty-one white persons in the city -could not read and write.[9] From so large a population of illiterates, -the “ward heelers” easily recruited great numbers of followers. Morris -allowed the “gangs” full sway, and was popular accordingly. Naturally, -with this encouragement, the “gangs” grew and became ever bolder. - -General disgust at the low character of politics was felt by the -independents, who rightly held both Tammany and the Whigs responsible. -During the time each party held power affairs had gone from bad to -worse. A joint special committee of Aldermen, appointed under public -pressure, reported, in 1842, that dishonest office-holders had -recently robbed the city of little short of $100,000.[10] A street -cleaning contract was awarded for $64,500 a year, for five years, when -other responsible persons offered to take it for not quite $25,000 -a year.[11] The fraudulent selling of city land to cover up the -increasing debt was continued.[12] The city office-holders sold real -estate for unpaid assessments, frequently without giving notice to the -owner, and bought it in themselves and so “possessed themselves of -estates.”[13] Heavy and oppressive assessments for improvements never -actually made were laid on the taxpayers.[14] Hundreds of thousands of -dollars were expended uselessly and extravagantly.[15] Mayor Morris -complained that he had no power over expenditures; that he knew nothing -of legislative action on public works until the warrants for payment -were sent to him.[16] In violation of the charter, the Aldermen -participated in all the profitable “jobs.”[17] - -Convicts were allowed to escape from Blackwell’s Island on condition -that they voted as their keepers ordered them.[18] Prisoners whose -terms had expired were kept at the public expense until election day, -to get their votes. The inmates of the Almshouse and the Penitentiary -were forced to manufacture articles for the use and profit of the -officers of those departments. “It is a well-known fact to all who -have been familiar with those establishments,” declared the Almshouse -Commissioners, “that large quantities of cabinet furniture, clothing -and sometimes elegant carriages, cut-glass decanters, punch-bowls, and -other articles have been made at the expense of the city; and this has -been carried on more or less for years.”[19] It was the custom of the -officers “to expend large sums in sumptuous and costly dinners for the -entertainment of partizans.” Persons confined in the City Prison were -frequently swindled out of their money or effects by the officers, or -by “shyster” lawyers, acting in connivance with the jailers; and to -get a mere note or message delivered to friends they had to pay an -exorbitant price.[20] - -Despite the disclosures, Tammany again elected Morris, in April, 1843, -by nearly 5,000 plurality, he receiving 24,395 votes to 19,516 for -Robert Smith, the Whig candidate. The storm, however, was gathering, -both in and out of Tammany. Inside the organization, charges were -common of monstrous frauds in the primaries. Frauds against the Whigs -were acceptable enough, but by Democrats against Democrats were -intolerable. So pronounced was the outcry over these frauds that the -Tammany General Committee, in the Fall of 1843, directed that in -future the ward meetings should be held on the same night and that -only those whose names appeared on the poll lists should be allowed to -vote.[21] - -Outside criticism materialized in an independent reform movement. It -found a rallying point in the Native American or American Republican -party, which previously had polled about 9,000 votes. It resented -the intrusion of foreigners into politics, large numbers of whom had -secured office. It was partially industrial in its character and -following; numbers of American workingmen believed that with 100,000 -immigrants[22] pouring into this country every year they would soon -have to be satisfied with a shilling or twenty cents a day for their -labor, instead of $1.50 they were receiving. The native element also -complained of the organization of the Irish into a distinct and -separate element, with a high Roman Catholic prelate at its head, in -order to get part of the public school funds. The discussion of the -public school question only the more accentuated hatreds, bringing to -the surface the most delicate questions touching the religious feelings -and prejudices of the major part of the community. - -Tammany nominated Jonathan I. Coddington for Mayor, and placed very few -naturalized citizens on its ticket. The Native American candidate was -James Harper, and the Whig, Morris Franklin. - -Mayor Morris called a meeting in Tammany Hall at which resolutions -were passed denouncing the Common Council for its corruption and its -failure to carry out reform. The advocates of the new party declared -that they were not to be deceived. Their campaign was carried on with -vigor. Honest men generally were roused against both Tammany and the -Whigs. Religious and racial vituperation were partially cast aside and -forgotten for the time when the reform men took hold of the movement; -not wholly so, however, for we find one of the chief native orators -declaring in a campaign speech that “the American Republicans will not -be found with Roman Catholics in the same ranks.” This bigotry was -overlooked, inasmuch as the Native Americans promised city reform, good -police, reductions in taxes, clean streets and economical expenditure -of the public money. The community was pervaded by a profound sense -of the corruption and inefficiency of the old parties, and ordinary -political lines were forgotten. - -Tammany made desperate efforts to carry the election. On the preceding -night, convicts in batches of twenty and thirty were taken from -Blackwell’s Island to New York, where they were lodged, and the next -day given Democratic ballots, free lunch and in some instances were -employed to electioneer.[23] - -The Native Americans won, however, the vote standing: Harper, 24,606; -Coddington, 20,726; Franklin, 5,207. - -The new administration was a distinct disappointment. Though it had -a majority in the Common Council, it accomplished few or none of -the reforms its supporters had promised. The scramble for office -continued as before; municipal improvements progressed slowly, and -though salaries and appropriations were cut to some extent, taxes -and expenditures increased. A part of this increase was doubtless -justified, but the people had been promised reduction, and they refused -to take into account the fiscal needs of a rapidly growing city. The -administration further weakened its hold by passing and enforcing -stringent “blue laws.” Not only were the unfortunate women of the -streets warred upon and quiet drinking places raided, but irritating -measures, such as the prohibiting of fireworks on the Fourth of July -and the driving of apple women and other vendors from the streets, were -taken. The result was a public reaction. - -Mayor Harper was a quaint character, and his odd rulings when presiding -in Special Sessions were the talk of the town. If a shoemaker, for -instance, was arraigned before him, he would say: “Well, we want -shoemakers on the island, so we’ll send you up for three months, and be -smart while you _last_, John, be smart.” Or, in the instance of a man -who claimed to be “a sort of carpenter”: “Well, we’ll send you up for -two months to round your apprenticeship, and the city will take care of -your lodging and board, Matthew.” - -In the reaction that set in, many voters swung back to Tammany on -the general belief that it was no worse than the other parties. This -change of sentiment put the organization in good form to carry the -city for James K. Polk in November, 1844. A short time before this -there had come into distinction one of the most effective auxiliaries -of the Wigwam. This was the Empire Club,[24] of No. 28 Park Row. Its -chief was Captain Isaiah Rynders, and its membership was made up of a -choice variety of picked worthies who could argue a mooted point to a -finish with knuckles. Rynders had a most varied career before entering -New York politics. A gambler in New Orleans, he mixed in some bowie -and pistol fights there in which he was cut severely on the head and -elsewhere, and his hat was perforated by a bullet. On a Mississippi -steamboat he drove O’Rourke, a pugilist, out of the saloon with a -red-hot poker, after O’Rourke had lost at faro and had attempted to -kill the winner. These were but a few of his many diversions. In -Washington he was arrested with Breedlove and Jewell on suspicion of -being connected with the theft of a large sum in Treasury notes, though -no proof was found against him. He was a very considerable power in -the Wigwam for over twenty years, frequently officiating at meetings -there. Chief among the club’s other members of like proclivities were -such noted fighters and “unterrified Democrats” as “Country McCleester” -(McClusky), “Bill” Ford, “Manny” Kelly, John Ling, “Mike” Phillips, -“Bill” Miner, “Denny” McGuire, “Ike” Austin, “Tom” McGuire, “Tom” -Freeman and “Dave” Scandlin. After the nomination of Henry Clay, -“Johnny” Austin--a common report of the day had it--was offered the -sum of $2,000 to bring himself and five of his associates--McClusky, -Kelly, Ford, Scandlin and Phillips--into the Unionist Club (a Whig -organization) with the hope that they could secure success to the Whigs -in the city. Offices also were promised, but the offers were refused; -whether because the Wigwam held forth greater inducements is not clear. - -Aided by these worthies, and by the popular indignation against the -reform administration, the Wigwam men grew confident. They were now -heard boasting that they intended electing their entire ticket. There -being no longer fear of the Registry law (which the Wigwam had recently -influenced a friendly Legislature to repeal on the ground of its -discriminative application to New York City alone), fraud was open and -general. The vote on its face proved this; since, while New York City -could claim a legitimate vote of only 45,000, the Polk electors were -credited with 28,216, and the Clay electors with 26,870 votes. For -James G. Birney, the Abolition candidate, but 118 votes were polled, or -at least counted. - -The Tammany General Committee, on January 13, 1845, passed resolutions -favoring the annexation of Texas and calling a public meeting. With a -view of glorifying John Tyler--to whom they owed their positions--and -at the same time of winning the good will of the incoming -administration, the Custom House officers tried to anticipate the -committee’s action, but were not allowed to use the hall. Resolved, -at any rate, to control the meeting regularly called, they crowded two -thousand of their creatures, under the leadership of Rynders, into -the Wigwam. The meeting was soon one of uproar, turbulence and some -fighting. Rynders had his resolutions adopted “amid yells, shouts, -screams, oaths, cheers, blasphemy, hisses and an uproar never before -known in the pandemonium of politics.” It was the generally expressed -opinion that the time had come when the proceedings of a meeting at -Tammany Hall were no longer to be considered as any certain indication -of the opinions of the Democratic party; that a class of men who -chose to organize themselves for the purpose, by being early on the -ground, acting in concert and clamoring according to certain understood -signals, could carry any set of resolutions they pleased, in the very -teeth of the large majority of the Democratic party. - -In the local campaign of 1845 Tammany acted sagaciously. It nominated -William F. Havemeyer for Mayor, laying stress on the fact that he was -a “native New Yorker.” The Native Americans renominated Harper, and -the Whigs, Dudley Selden. The vote stood: Havemeyer, 24,183, Harper, -17,472; Selden, 7,082. Tammany secured a majority of 26 on joint ballot -in the Common Council--the real power. - -Mayor Havemeyer sincerely tried to effect reforms. In the beginning -of his term he urged the fact that the Common Council united in -itself nearly all the executive with all the legislative power, -and declared that its main business was to collect and distribute, -through the various forms of patronage, nearly a million and a half -dollars a year.[25] His attacks upon the arbitrary powers and corrupt -practises of the Common Council made so little impression upon that -body that on May 13, the very first day of convening, the Aldermen, -immediately after the reading of the Mayor’s message, removed not -less than seventy officials, from the heads of departments to Street -Inspectors;[26] and on subsequent days the process was continued until -every post was filled with a Tammany man. - -But the effect upon the public mind was such that in 1846 a new charter -was drafted and adopted, which deprived the Common Council of the power -which it hitherto had enjoyed of appointing the heads of departments, -and gave their election direct to the people. - -Mayor Havemeyer not being pliable enough for the Wigwam leaders, they -nominated and elected, in the Spring of 1846, Andrew H. Mickle, by a -vote of 21,675, the Whigs receiving 15,111, and the Native Americans -8,301.[27] Mayor Mickle was regarded as “one of the people.” He was -born in a shanty in the “bloody ould Sixth,” in the attic of which a -dozen pigs made their habitation. Marrying the daughter of the owner of -a large tobacco house, he later became its proprietor. He improved his -opportunities, business and official, so well that he died worth over a -million dollars. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] The statement was made at a reform meeting in City Hall Park on -April 11, 1844, that from 1841 to 1844 not less than 11,000 foreigners -had been naturalized at $1 a head, though the legal fee was $5. The -Judges, the speaker said on the authority of Judge Vanderpoel, signed -their names to the papers without asking questions. - -[2] This was the first election in the city occupying only one day. -Before 1840 three days were used. The vote stood: Varian, 21,243; J. -Phillips Phoenix (Whig), 19,622; scattering, 36; total, 40,901. - -[3] The Whigs had formed committees in imitation of the Tammany -organization. - -[4] Election of 1841: Robert H. Morris (Tammany), 18,605; J. Phillips -Phoenix (Whig), 18,206; Samuel F. B. Morse, 77; scattering, 45; total, -36,93. - -[5] Election of 1842; Morris, 20,633; Phoenix, 18,755; total, 39,388. - -[6] _Documents of the Board of Aldermen_, 1839, No. 29. The _Weekly -Herald_, February 15, 1840, stated that official documents showed, -for the previous ten months, a total of nineteen riots, twenty-three -murders and nearly 150 fires, the latter involving a loss of about -$7,000,000. - -[7] See _Documents of the Board of Aldermen_, Vol. VIII, No. 35, and -No. 41, 1843-44, for extended accounts. - -[8] Mayor Morris’s _Message_, July, 1842. - -[9] _Documents of the Board of Aldermen_, Vol. VIII, No. 22. - -[10] _Ibid._, 1842-43, No. 5. - -[11] _Ibid._, Vol. IX, No. 69. - -[12] _Ibid._, Vol. X, part 1, No. 46. - -[13] _Senate Documents_, 1842, Vol. IV, No. 100. - -[14] _Ibid._ - -[15] _Message_ of Mayor Morris, 1843. - -[16] _Message_ of Mayor Morris, 1843. - -[17] _Ibid._ - -[18] _Report of Commissioners of the Almshouse_, _Documents of the -Board of Aldermen_, Vol. XI, No. 40. - -[19] _Ibid._: 400. - -[20] _Ibid._; see also _Presentment of Grand Jury_, _Ibid._, Vol. X, -part 1, No. 53. - -[21] About this time the general committee was enlarged. Until now the -delegates had been selected from each ward. In 1843 the practise was -begun of sending them from each election district. - -[22] Sixty thousand of these entered the port of New York yearly. The -total immigration rose to 154,000 in 1846 and to 427,000 in 1854. - -[23] _Documents of the Board of Aldermen_, 1844-45, Vol. XI, No. 40. - -[24] Within a few months after its organization the Empire Club had -thirty-three parades and had been hired to go to Albany, Trenton, -Tarrytown and other cities to help the Democracy. Whenever the Empire -Club met a rival political club, a fight was sure to follow. - -[25] _Annual Message_, 1845. - -[26] _Proceedings of the Board of Aldermen_, Vol. XXIX, pp. 1-55. - -[27] Tammany won by a minority vote both in 1845 and in 1846. That -neither Tammany nor the Native Americans had enacted any competent -reforms in the matter of the taxation of property was conclusively -shown in an Aldermanic report of 1846. It appeared from this report -that thirty million dollars’ worth of assessable property escaped -taxation every year, and that no bona fide efforts were being made by -the officials to remedy this state of affairs. _Proceedings of the -Board of Assistant Aldermen_, Vol. XXIX, Document No. 24. - - - - -CHAPTER XVI - -“BARNBURNERS” AND “HUNKERS” - -1846-1850 - - -Two factions had lately arisen in Tammany Hall--the “Barnburners” -and the “Hunkers.” Differences in principle had at first caused the -division, but it was characterized, nevertheless, by a lively race for -office. - -The “Barnburners” were the radical Democrats who believed, among other -things that slavery should not be extended to free territory. The -nickname was occasioned by the saying of a contractor, a few years -before: “These men are incendiaries; they are mad; they are like the -farmer, who, to get the rats out of his granary, sets fire to his own -barn.” - -The “Hunkers” were the office-holding conservatives, very unwilling -to have anything disturb their repose, and above all, opposed to the -agitation of the slavery question. Their influence was thrown wherever -possible with the slaveholding States. The term “Hunkers” arose from -their characteristic of striving to keep their offices to the exclusion -of everybody else--“to get all they can and keep all they can get.”[1] - -The quarrel was as sharply defined throughout the State as in New -York City. Such men as Samuel J. Tilden, C. C. Cambreleng, William -F. Havemeyer and Minthorne Tompkins were the local leaders of the -“Barnburners”; John McKeon, Lorenzo B. Shepard,[2] a brilliant young -leader who was a noted orator at the early age of 19; Edward Strahan -and Emanuel B. Hart were some of the chiefs of the “Hunkers.” This -factional struggle, together with the dissatisfaction given by the city -administration, weakened Tammany, whose nominee, in the Spring election -of 1847, J. Sherman Brownell, was defeated by the Whig candidate, -William V. Brady. The vote stood: Brady, 21,310; Brownell, 19,877; -Ellis G. Drake (Independent), 2,078. This was the first time in nine -years that the city had been carried by the Whigs proper, though they -were aided somewhat by the Native Americans. - -“Barnburners” and “Hunkers” laid aside their differences momentarily -when President Polk visited the city in June, 1847, one of his objects -being to be initiated a member of the Tammany Society. On June 26 he -was waited upon at the Astor House by a deputation of the society, -headed by Elijah F. Purdy. Quite worn out after a torrid day of -handshaking, Polk accompanied his escorts to the large room in the -Wigwam, where members of the society were usually initiated. Later, -the President emerged, looking happy at having availed himself of -membership in a political society which could sway Presidential choices -and elections and perhaps determine his own future political fate. - -This incident past, the factions resumed their quarrel and warred so -effectually that in the general election of November, 1847, the Whigs -again won, by more than 3,000 votes. But Tammany, in its darkest -moments, was fertile in expedients. It now arranged a great meeting for -February 5, 1848, in commendation of the Mexican War. Sam Houston and -General Foote made speeches, and one of the Tammany orators assured -the audience that though Tammany Hall “erred sometimes,” its “patriotic -ardor was never cooled.” The success of this war brought thousands of -voters back to the Democratic ranks in the city. Besides, “Barnburners” -and “Hunkers” were tiring of defeat. Neither relished exile from office -all the time. They agreed on the nomination of former Mayor Havemeyer, -who personally was popular, though the Wigwam leaders had caused his -administration to be discredited. Havemeyer was elected by the slender -majority of 928 over the Whig candidate, Mayor Brady. The Native -American party had now about gone out of existence. - -But the factions soon disagreed again on national questions, and -sent conflicting Tammany delegations to the national convention in -Baltimore, in May, 1848. After tedious debate and much acrimony both -were allowed a half vote to each delegate. When, however, it was -seen that the “Barnburners” voted with some other States in support -of the principle against the extension of slavery to free territory, -a movement was started to reject them. The prospect of losing the -all-important electoral vote of New York State was not pleasant to the -convention. To avoid the arbitrary rejection of either faction the -committee on credentials suggested a compromise by which it refused -to open the discussion as to which faction ought to be accepted until -both had pledged themselves to abide by the decision of the convention. -Knowing that this would be pro-slavery, the “Barnburners” declared that -“the Democracy of New York must be admitted unconditionally or not at -all,” and withdrew. The “Hunkers” took the required pledge. - -Arriving home, the “Barnburner” delegates issued an address saying -that a faction existed among them whose object was the perpetuation -and the extension of human servitude. Bold, unscrupulous and active, -it wielded to a great degree the patronage of the Federal Government. -It addressed itself to the fears of some, to the cupidity of others. -By these means it had got possession of the late national convention -and had proclaimed a candidate for the Presidency--a man who obtained -his nomination only as the price of the most abject subserviency to -the slave power. The “Barnburners” then took steps to name candidates -in opposition to Lewis Cass and Gen. W. O. Butler, the Baltimore -nominees, who had been promptly approved by the “Hunker” element in the -Wigwam. Calling Martin Van Buren from obscurity, they nominated him -for President, anticipating the action of the Free Soil convention at -Buffalo in August. - -Throughout the slavery agitation up to the firing on Fort Sumter, -the South had no firmer supporter than Tammany. In the hall Southern -representatives spoke and spread broadcast their doctrines on every -available occasion; however ultra those doctrines might be, the Wigwam -audiences never missed applauding them enthusiastically. - -The “Hunkers” immediately opened a series of Cass meetings. “All the -South asks,” said Gen. Stevenson at one of them in Tammany Hall, on -June 9, 1848, “is non-interference.” He was cheered wildly. As usual, -the “regular” Democratic nominations were supported by the backbone -of the Democracy in New York City--those who clung to the mere name -and forms of the party as well as the active men who lived in office -and luxuriated on the spoils. The “Barnburners,” otherwise now styled -the Free Soilers, were quite as active as the “Hunkers,” and their -defection on election day enabled Gen. Taylor to carry the city--the -supposed Democratic stronghold--by 9,883 votes. - -The dissensions in the Wigwam were as pronounced in the Spring of -1849--at least outwardly. The two factions held separate Mayoralty -conventions on the same night. The “Barnburners” were naturally -eager for Havemeyer, one of themselves, but he would not have the -honor. Hearing that the “Hunkers” were proposing Myndert Van Schaick, -an extremely popular man, the “Barnburners” resolved to steal the -“Hunkers’” thunder by nominating him themselves. This they accordingly -did, and the bewildered public was treated to the spectacle of Van -Schaick standing as the candidate of both the recriminating factions. -There were not wanting those who professed to see in this action an -agreement between the leaders on the matter of the local offices. The -Whigs elected Caleb S. Woodhull by 4,121 plurality, and secured over -two-thirds of the members of the Common Council. The Democrats of the -“Old School,”--the unyielding “Hunkers”--would not vote for a candidate -the Free Soilers approved of; they either did not vote at all or voted -for Woodhull. - -The “Barnburners,” practically driven out of Tammany Hall by the -“Hunkers,” had been meeting elsewhere. Tiring of defeats, however, -overtures for reunion were made during the Fall campaign. A fusion -resulted, not only in the city but in other parts of the State, and -candidates were agreed upon.[3] But no sooner had the reunion been -declared than a number of irreconcilable “Hunkers” and certain other -politicians--including Daniel E. Sickles, James T. Brady, “Mike” Walsh -and John M. Bloodgood--formed a self-constituted “Democratic-Republican -Executive Committee” to oppose the deal. On the day before election -they sent out a circular denouncing the fusion, and declaring that -though it promised much it was really only a means of engrafting upon -Democratic time-honored principles a set of abolition doctrines, -“hostile to the peace and welfare of the Republic and repugnant to the -sympathies and intelligence of the Democratic party.”[4] - -This circular was misleading. Neither the “Barnburners” nor the -“Hunkers” had imposed any sacrifice of principle upon the other. They -merely agreed for the time being to suspend their differences in order -to get a controlling influence over the disbursement of municipal -finances. The opinion of each voter on the slavery question was left -untouched. - -The election was hotly contested, for by the new State constitution -the selection of minor State offices had been taken from the Governor -and Legislature and given to the people.[5] Owing to this defection of -a strong Tammany group the Whigs carried the city. The excitement in -the Wigwam, when the result became known, was intense. Four thousand -Tammany men, looking either for office or party triumph, were in a -frenzy. W. D. Wallach, a politician of some note, mounted the rostrum, -and under the stimulus of disappointment, held forth in a long and -remarkable harangue, to which his auditors listened in comparative -silence, though the same utterances at another time might have provoked -a riot in the Wigwam. Men of downright dishonesty, Wallach said, had -crept into the organization by the aid of bullies and loafers. These -men of late years had managed to wield great power at Tammany primary -elections, where, as everybody knew, matters long had been arranged -“upon the assumption that by a free application of money, violence and -roguery, the people could and should be controlled.” What wonder was -it, he asked, that thousands of quiet and respectable Democrats had -ceased to bow to the authority of regular nominations, however worthy -the candidates, when they found more or less of the Tammany nominating -committees returned in part notoriously by violence, if not by fraud? - -The breach between the “Barnburners” and the extreme “Hunkers” was -reopened and widened by this self-constituted committee’s action. It -led to the formation of two bodies, each claiming to be the genuine -general committee of Tammany Hall. One was led by Fernando Wood, who -was suspected of being a “Hunker,” but was too much of a politician -to be active against the “Barnburners.” This general committee was of -a compromising disposition. In brief, it was composed mainly of what -were known as political “trimmers”--men willing to make any sacrifices -of principle for individual or party success. The other committee, of -which Henry M. Western was the head, was composed of “Hunkers” and took -up the interests of the self-formed “Democratic-Republican Executive -Committee.” It was the first body in the North to call a meeting to -denounce the Wilmot proviso. To all intents standing for principle, -each committee sought the tremendous advantages of the possession of -Tammany Hall and its political machinery. By being recognized as the -“regular” general committee, its nominations would be “regular” and as -such would command the votes of the great mass of Democrats. To obtain -that recognition both committees realized the necessity of obtaining a -majority of the Council of Sachems, which, in critical moments, had so -thoroughly demonstrated its legal right to eject from the Wigwam any -man or body of men it pleased. - -The opening struggle between the factions for mastery took place at -the annual election of the society on April 15, 1850. Each body made -desperate efforts to elect its list of Sachems. The ticket in favor of -a union of the factions and of reorganizing the “Wood committee” was -headed by Elijah F. Purdy, then Grand Sachem, and contained the names -of Isaac V. Fowler, John A. Bogert, John J. Manning and others. Former -Mayor Mickle, Charles O’Conor, Francis B. Cutting and M. M. Noah led -the rival ticket. - -The “Hunkers” brought to the polls many men, who, though still members -of the society, long since had gone over to the Whigs and had lost the -habit of attending the society’s meetings. These men claimed the right -to vote, and it was unquestionably theirs. In law the Tammany Society -was merely a charitable and benevolent corporation. No member in good -standing could be debarred from voting. With cheerful alacrity these -Whig members lent their aid in distracting the Democratic party into -keeping up a double organization. Office-holders and other men openly -attached to the Whig party voted.[6] When it seemed that most of the -Purdy ticket was elected, the two “Hunker” inspectors suddenly found -three more “Hunker” tickets in the ballot box. Previously this box had -been examined, emptied and exposed publicly. These three ballots, if -counted, would have elected one more Sachem of the “Hunker” stripe, -giving that faction six of the thirteen Sachems--one short of a -majority. The two “Barnburner” inspectors refused to count them. The -result of the election being disputed, Purdy promptly took possession -of the books and papers of the society. - -As the best solution of the troubles, the Sachems, on April 26, -determined to forbid both committees admittance to the Wigwam. The -Sachems did not acknowledge accountability to any one for their -actions, not even to the society which elected them.[7] Representing -themselves as the supreme judges of which was the real Democratic -General Committee or whether there was any,[8] the Sachems let it be -understood that they would act as mediators. By a vote of 10 to 1,[9] -they “recommended”--an action equivalent to an arbitrary order--that -the “Wood committee” provide for the election of delegates to a -convention in Tammany Hall “to reorganize the New York City Democracy.” -From the substance of the invitation sent out by the society to various -conspicuous personages it was evident that, though the “Wood committee” -had been favored, somehow a majority of the “Hunker,” or pro-slavery -Sachems was installed.[10] - -The plan of a convention was accepted by both factions. But by -manipulating the primary elections for delegates Fernando Wood -succeeded in filling the convention with his own creatures, allowing, -for form’s sake, a sprinkling of opponents. Wood, whose aim was to get -the nomination for Mayor, was the chief “trimmer,” though each side -made concessions. Various equivocal resolutions touching the slavery -question were adopted, and a new Tammany General Committee, comprising -“Barnburners,” mild “Hunkers” and ultra-“Hunkers,” was formed. - -The “Barnburners” and “Hunkers” then agreed upon a coalition in -State and city, uniting on Horatio Seymour for Governor. Despite -the diplomacy of Wood, who had arranged this pact, an explosion was -narrowly averted a few weeks later. Finding themselves in a majority at -a slimly attended meeting of the general committee in the latter part -of September, 1850, the uncompromising “Hunkers” denounced parleying -with Free Soilers, and by a vote of 16 to 11 refused to sustain -Seymour. As soon as their action became known there was a burst of -indignation. The threat was made that if the committee did not rescind -it, the Council of Sachems, most of whom, it seems, Wood had won over -to his plans, would turn it out of Tammany Hall. The members of the -committee hastened to meet, the ultra-“Hunkers” were routed, and the -State candidates strongly indorsed. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] The Century Dictionary derives the word from the Dutch _honk_, -post, goal or home. The transition in meaning from “goal” to “office” -is easy and natural. - -[2] Shepard became Grand Sachem at an early age. He was one of the very -few influential men achieving prominence in the society or organization -against whose character, public or private, no charges were ever -brought. - -[3] New York _Weekly Herald_, November 3, 1849. James Gordon Bennett, -editor and owner of this newspaper, “was a recognized member of the -Tammany party.” (“Memoirs of James Gordon Bennett and His Times,” -1855, p. 80.) When Bennett first contemplated starting a newspaper, it -was to the Young Men’s General Committee that he applied for funds. -Though professing to be independent, the Herald nearly always supported -Tammany Hall. In 1837-39, however, it had supported Aaron Clark. - -[4] The committee advertised the stand it had taken in the Democratic -journals of the city on November 5. - -[5] The city charter of 1846 had likewise increased the number of -elective offices in the municipality. - -[6] New York _Evening Post_ (Democratic), April 16, 1850. - -[7] New York _Weekly Herald_, May 4, 1850. - -[8] _Ibid._ - -[9] _Evening Post_, May 2, 1850. - -[10] Seven Sachems signed the letter of invitation, which read in -part: “Brothers of this society look with deep concern at the present -critical state of the country and are not unmindful of the services -of those who are laboring to thwart the designs of the fanatics -and demagogues who are waging an unholy crusade against a union of -independent sovereignties, which union has done much to advance -and perpetuate the principles of American liberty throughout the -world.… We have no sympathy with those who war upon the South and its -institutions.” - - - - -CHAPTER XVII - -DEFEAT AND VICTORY - -1850-1852 - - -Under a new charter the Mayor’s term was extended to two years, and the -time of election, with that of the other city officers, was changed to -November. The latter change gave great satisfaction to the leaders, for -it enabled them to trade votes. Trading grew to such an extent that -charges became common of this or that nominee for President, Governor, -State Senator and so on being “sold out” by the leaders to insure their -own election. - -The Tammany organization, too, had made a change. It had adopted -the convention system of nominating. This new method was much more -satisfactory to the leaders, because the election of delegates to -the conventions could easily be controlled, and the risk of having -prearranged nominations overruled by an influx of “gangs” into the -great popular meeting was eliminated. - -A show of opposition to the proposed program was, however, still -necessary. The first general convention was held in October, 1850. -Fernando Wood was the leading candidate for Mayor, and it was certain -that he would be nominated. But the first ballot showed a half-dozen -competitors. The second ballot, however, disclosed the real situation, -and Wood was chosen by 29 votes, to 22 for John J. Cisco. - -Wood was a remarkable man. As a tactician and organizer he was the -superior both of his distant predecessor Burr and of his successors -Tweed and Sweeny. He was born in Philadelphia, in June, 1812, of Quaker -parents. At the age of thirteen, he was earning $2 a week as a clerk. -Later, he became a cigarmaker and tobacco dealer, and still later, a -grocer. As a lad he was pugnacious; in a Harrisburg bar-room he once -floored with a chair a State Senator who had attacked him. But he -seems to have been amenable to good advice; for once when a Quaker -reprimanded him for his excessive use of tobacco with the observation, -“Friend, thee smokes a good deal,” he at once threw away his cigar, and -gave up the habit. - -Coming to New York, he engaged in several business enterprises, all -the while taking a considerable interest in politics. He was elected -to Congress in 1840, serving one term. Gradually he came to make -politics his vocation. Political manipulation before his day was, at -the best, clumsy and crude. Under his facile genius and painstaking -care, it developed to the rank of an exact science. He devoted himself -for years to ingratiating himself with the factors needed in carrying -elections.[1] He curried favor with the petty criminals of the Five -Points, the boisterous roughs of the river edge, and the swarms of -immigrants, as well as with the peaceable and industrious mechanics and -laborers; and he won a following even among the business men. All these -he marshaled systematically in the Tammany organization. Politics was -his science, and the “fixing” of primaries his specialty; in this he -was perhaps without a peer. - -His unscrupulousness was not confined to politics. During this brief -campaign he was repeatedly charged with commercial frauds as well -as with bribery and dishonest practises at the primaries. A year -later he was shown to have been guilty before this time of having -defrauded a partner of $8,000, and he escaped conviction by the merest -technicality.[2] - -Political standards in the fifties were not high. But the rowdy -character of a great part of Tammany’s membership, and the personal -character of many of its nominees, particularly that of Wood, proved -too much to bear, even for those days, and a strong revulsion followed. -Former Mayors Havemeyer and Mickle; John McKeon, a leader of note, and -other prominent Democrats revolted. The election resulted in a Whig -victory, Ambrose C. Kingsland securing 22,546 votes to 17,973 for Wood. -A great Democratic defection was shown by the fact that Horatio Seymour -carried the city by only 705 plurality. - -So general were the expressions of contempt for the character of -the Wigwam that the Sachems resolved to invoke again the spirit of -patriotism, and consequently fixed upon a revival of the old custom of -Independence Day celebrations. In 1851 the ruling Council of Sachems -was a mixture of compromise “Barnburners” and “Hunkers.” The committee -of arrangements--Elijah F. Purdy, Daniel E. Delavan, Richard B. -Connolly, Stephen C. Duryea and three others--sent invitations, filled -with lofty and patriotic sentiments, to various national politicians. -“Barnburners” also were invited, the conciliatory Sachems being -sincerely tired of a warfare which threatened to exile them all from -the sinecures of city and State offices. - -The Society of Tammany, or Columbian Order, the circular said, had -originated “in a fraternity of patriots, solemnly consecrated to -the independence, the popular liberty and the federal union of the -country.” Tammany’s councils were “ever vigilant for the preservation -of those great national treasures from the grasp alike of the -treacherous and the open spoiler.” It had “enrolled in its brotherhood -many of the most illustrious statesmen, patriots and heroes that had -constellated the historic banners of the past and present age.… And it -remained to the present hour,” the glowing lines read on, “instinct -with its primitive spirit and true to the same sacred trust.” - -The rhetoric delivered at the celebration was quite as pretentious and -high-flown. But the phrases made no impression on the public mind. No -impartial observer denied that the Wigwam’s moral prestige with the -State and national party was for the time gone. Throughout the country -the belief prevailed that the politicians of the metropolis deserved -no respect, merit or consideration; and that they were purchasable and -transferable like any stock in Wall street. - -If before 1846 nominations were sold it was not an open transaction. -Since then the practise of selling them had gradually grown, and now -the bargaining was unconcealed. Upon the highest bidder the honors -generally fell. Whigs and Tammany men were alike guilty. If one -aspirant offered $1,000, another offered $2,000. But these sums were -merely a beginning; committees would impress upon the candidate the -fact that a campaign costs money; more of the “boys” would have to -be “seen”; such and such a “ward heeler” needed “pacifying”; a band -was a proper embellishment, with a parade to boot, and voters needed -“persuading.” And at the last moment a dummy candidate would be brought -forward as a man who had offered much more for the nomination. Then the -bidder at $2,000 would have to pay the difference, and if the office -sought was a profitable one, the candidate would be a lucky man if -he did not have to disgorge as much as $15,000 before securing the -nomination. Some candidates were bled for as much as $20,000, and even -this was a moderate sum compared to the prices which obtained a few -years later. - -The primaries were attended by “gangs” more rowdy and corrupt than -ever; Whig ward committees often sold over to Tammany,[3] and Whig -votes, bought or traded, swelled the ballot boxes at the Wigwam -primaries. Nearly every saloon was the headquarters of a “gang” whose -energies and votes could be bought. In Tammany Hall an independent -Democrat dared not speak unless he had previously made terms with the -controlling factions, according to a relatively fixed tariff of rates. -The primaries of both parties had become so scandalously corrupt as to -command no respect. - -The discoveries of gold in California and Australia created in all -classes a feverish desire for wealth. Vessel after vessel was arriving -in the harbor with millions of dollars’ worth of gold dust. Newspapers -and magazines were filled with glowing accounts of how poor men became -rich in a dazzlingly short period. The desire for wealth became a -mania, and seized upon all callings. The effect was a still further -lowering of the public tone; standards were generally lost sight of, -and all means of “getting ahead” came to be considered legitimate. -Politicians, trafficking in nominations and political influence, found -it a most auspicious time. - -This condition was intensified by the influx of the hordes of -immigrants driven by famine and oppression from Ireland, Germany and -other European countries. From over 129,000 arriving at the port of -New York in 1847, the number increased to 189,000 in 1848, 220,000 -in 1849, 212,000 in 1850, 289,000 in 1851 and 300,000 in 1852. Some -of these sought homes in other States, but a large portion remained -in the city. Though many of these were thrifty and honest, numbers -were ignorant and vicious, and the pauper and criminal classes of -the metropolis grew larger than ever. The sharper-witted among them -soon mended their poverty by making a livelihood of politics. To them -political rights meant the obtaining of money or the receiving of -jobs under the city, State or national government, in return for the -marshaling of voters at the polls. Regarding issues they bothered -little, and knew less. - -The effects of the Whig and Native American denunciation of the alien -vote were now seen. The naturalized citizens almost invariably sided -with Tammany Hall, although there were times when, by outbidding the -Wigwam, the Whigs were enabled to use them in considerable numbers. - -Despite an unusual degree of public condemnation, Tammany managed, by -a temporary pacification of the factions and a general use of illegal -votes, to carry the city in the Fall of 1851 by nearly 2,000 majority. -But it could not hold the regular Democratic strength, for Wright, -the candidate for Governor, received over 3,000 majority. Frauds were -notorious. In one of the polling places of the Nineteenth Ward, the -Wigwam’s candidates for Alderman and Assistant Alderman were counted in -after a mob invaded it and forced the Whig inspectors to flee for their -lives. When the votes for the Assembly ticket were counted 532 were -announced, although there were only 503 names on the poll list. This -was but an instance of the widespread repeating and violence. - -With its large majority in the Common Council Tammany at first made -a feint at curtailing city expenses. The taxpayers complained that -the taxes were upwards of $3,500,000, for which there was little -apparent benefit. The new Common Council made professions of giving a -spotless administration; but before its term was over it had generally -earned the expressive title of “the Forty Thieves.”[4] This was the -body that with lavish promises of reform replaced the Whig Common -Council. William M. Tweed, an Alderman in the “Forty Thieves” Common -Council, was busy in the Fall of this year indignantly defending, in -speeches and public writings, the Aldermen from the numerous charges -of corruption; but, as will be seen, these charges were by no means -groundless. - -Since the passings of the Equal Rights party, the mechanics and -laborers had taken no concerted part in politics, not even as a -faction. But at this period they were far from being lethargic. The -recent discoveries of gold and silver had given a quickened pulse to -business, enormously increasing the number of transactions and the -aggregate of profits. The workers were determined to have their share -of this prosperity, and acted accordingly. Old trade-unions were -rapidly strengthened and new ones formed. More pay and shorter hours of -work were demanded. Between the Spring of 1850 and the Spring of 1853 -nearly every trade in the city engaged in one or more strikes, with -almost invariable success. - -Having now no sincere leaders to prompt them to concerted political -action, the workers oscillated listlessly between the two parties. -They had lost the tremendous influence secured in the thirties, -and the business element had again become dominant. Legislature -and Common Council vied with each other in granting exploitative -charters, and the persons who secured these, generally by bribery, -were considered the leaders of public opinion. Every company demanding -special privileges of the State maintained its lobby at Albany. The -City Council was more easily reached, and was generally dealt with -personally. Fortunes were made by plundering the city and State, and -while the conduct of the agents and actual performers in this wholesale -brigandage--the lobbyists, Legislators and Aldermen--was looked upon -somewhat doubtfully, their employers stood before the world as the -representatives of virtue and respectability. The one force which might -have stood as a bulwark against this system of pillage had been so -completely demoralized by its political experiences that it could now -only look on and let matters drift as they would. - -In the Baltimore Democratic convention the Wigwam was represented by so -boisterous a delegation that its speakers were denied a hearing. Among -the delegates were Capt. Rynders, “Mike” Walsh and a number of the same -kind. Cass was their favorite, and they shouted for him lustily; but on -attempting to speak for him they were invariably howled down, despite -the fact that Cass had a majority of the convention almost to the end -of the balloting. - -The Wigwam, however, lost no time in indorsing the nomination of -Franklin Pierce. In this ratification the “Barnburners” joined, -ardently urging the election of candidates on a platform which held -that Congress had no power under the Constitution “to interfere with -the domestic institutions of the States”; which advocated compromise -measures, the execution of the Fugitive Slave law, and which opposed -all attempts to agitate the slavery question. - -The election of November, 1852, was not only for President and -Congressmen, but for a long list of officials, city and State. Each of -the Wigwam factions began playing for advantage. On July 16 a portion -of the general committee met, apparently to accept an invitation to -attend the funeral of Henry Clay. The “Barnburners,” finding themselves -in a majority, sprang a trick upon the “Hunkers” by adopting a plan -of primary elections favorable to their side. Later the general -committee, in full meeting, substituted another plan, and a great -hubbub followed. A “committee of conciliation,” composed of members of -both factions, was appointed. When it met, on August 20, the halls, -lobbies and entrances of Tammany Hall were filled with a vicious -assortment of persons, chiefly inimical to the general committee. “The -bar-room,” wrote a chronicler, “was the scene of several encounters -and knockdowns. It was only necessary for a man to express himself -strongly on any point, when down he went, by the hammer-fist of one of -the fighting men.” Even members of the committee, while passing in and -out of the room, were intimidated. Daniel E. Sickles was threatened -with personal violence, and it might have gone hard with him had he -not taken the precaution of arming himself with a bowie and revolver. -Members’ lives were constantly threatened; the scenes of uproar and -confusion were indescribable. Mr. Sickles, for his own safety, had to -jump from a window to Frankfort street, and other members were forced -to retreat through secret byways.[5] It was near day-break when the -factions consented to leave the Wigwam. - -The anxiety of each was explained by the proceedings at the primaries. -The faction having a majority of the inspectors secured by far the -greater number of votes, and consequently the delegates who had the -power of making nominations. At the primaries of August, 1852, fraud -and violence occurred at nearly every voting place. In some instances -one faction took possession of the polls and prevented the other from -voting; in others, both factions had control by turns, and fighting -was desperate. One party ran away with a ballot box and carried it off -to the police station. Many ballot boxes, it was alleged, were half -filled with votes before the election was opened. Wards containing less -than 1,000 legal Democratic voters yielded 2,000 votes, and a ticket -which not a hundred voters of the ward had seen was elected by 600 or -700 majority. Whigs, boys and paupers voted; the purchasable, who -flocked to either party according to the price, came out in force, and -ruffianism dominated the whole. - -The police dared not interfere. Their appointment was made by the -Aldermen and Assistant Aldermen, with the nominal consent of the Mayor, -exclusively on political grounds and for one year. The policeman’s -livelihood depended upon the whims of those most concerned in the ward -turmoils. A hard lot was the policeman’s. On the one hand, public -opinion demanded that he arrest offenders. On the other, most of the -Aldermen had their “gangs” of lawbreakers at the polls, and to arrest -one of these might mean his dismissal.[6] But this was not all. The -politics of the Common Council changed frequently; and to insure -himself his position the guardian of the peace must conduct himself -according to the difficult mean of aiding his own party to victory and -yet of giving no offense to the politicians of the other party. Hence, -whenever a political disturbance took place the policeman instantly, it -was a saying, became “deaf and blind, and generally invisible.”[7] - -The necessity of uniting to displace the Whigs from the millions of -city patronage and profit brought the factions to an understanding. -Jacob A. Westervelt, a moderate “Hunker,” and a shipbuilder of wealth, -who was considered the very essence of “respectability,” and a -contrast to Wood, was nominated for Mayor. Tammany planned to have its -candidates swept in on the Presidential current. National issues were -made dominant, and the city responded by giving the Pierce electors -11,159 plurality, and electing the whole organization ticket.[8] Fraud -was common. No registry law was in force to hinder men from voting, as -it was charged some did, as often as twenty times. On the other hand, -80,000 tickets purporting to be Democratic, intended for distribution -by the Whigs, but not containing the name of a single Democrat, were -seized at the post-office and carried in triumph to the Wigwam. - -Tammany once more had full control of the city. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] Wood’s was an attractive personality. He was a handsome man, six -feet high, slender and straight, with keen blue eyes, and regular -features. His manner was kindly and engaging. - -[2] Wood was charged with having obtained about $8,000 on false -representations from his partner, Edward E. Marvine, in a transaction. -Marvine brought suit against Wood in the Superior Court, and three -referees gave a unanimous decision in the plaintiff’s favor. The Grand -Jury, on November 7, 1851, indicted Wood for obtaining money under -false pretenses, but he pleaded the Statute of Limitations. A friendly -Recorder decided that as his offense had been committed three years -previously (on November 7, 1848), the period required by the statute -had been fully covered. The indictment, therefore, was quashed, and -Wood escaped by _one_ day. - -[3] New York _Tribune_, May 5, 1852. (This admission on the part of a -Whig journal caused a great stir.) - -[4] There was another “Forty Thieves” Council five or six years later, -which must not be confounded with the earlier and more notorious one. - -[5] The _Herald_, which, as usual, supported Tammany this year, -described (August 24, 1852) these violences in detail. - -[6] The political lawbreaker had a final immunity from punishment in -the fact that Aldermen sat as Justices in the Mayor’s Court, which -tried such culprits, if ever they happened to be arrested. - -[7] See Report of Chief of Police Matsell, _Documents of the Board of -Aldermen_, Vol. XXX, part 1, No. 17. The extreme turbulence of the city -at this time may be judged from the fact that, despite the comparative -immunity of political lawbreakers, during the eight years 1846-54, -200,083 arrests were made, an average of 25,010 a year. - -[8] The vote on Mayor stood: Westervelt, 33,251; Morgan Morgans, -23,719; Henry M. Western, 861; blank and scattering, 227; total, -58,058. - - - - -CHAPTER XVIII - -“HARDSHELLS” AND “SOFTSHELLS” - -1852-1853 - - -The “Barnburner”-“Hunker” factional fight was succeeded by that of the -“Hardshells” and “Softshells.” How the ludicrous nicknames originated -it is not possible to say. The “Softshells” were composed of a remnant -of the “Barnburners”[1] and that part of the “Hunkers” who believed in -a full union with the “Barnburners,” especially in the highly important -matter of distributing offices. The “Hardshells” were the “Old Hunkers” -who disavowed all connection with the “Barnburners,” or Free Soilers, -except so far as to get their votes. This division also extended to -other parts of the State, where perhaps real differences of political -principle were responsible for it; but in the city the fundamental -point of contention was the booty of office. - -The “Hardshells” boasted in 1852 of a majority of the Tammany General -Committee which met on December 2 to choose inspectors for the ward -elections of delegates to the general committee for 1853. The control -of these inspectors was the keynote of the situation, for they would -return such delegates as they pleased. Angered at the appointment of -“Hardshell” inspectors, the “Softshells” broke in the door of the -committee room, assaulted the members of the committee with chairs, -fractured some heads and forced the “Hards” to flee for refuge to the -Astor House.[2] - -Agreeable to “usages,” the departing general committee instructed the -delegates of its successor to assemble in Tammany Hall on January 13, -1853, to be installed as the general committee for the ensuing year. -Until this installation, the committee of the last year remained -in power. In the interval the Sachems, who, in the peculiar mix of -politics, were for the most part “Softshells,” decided to take a hand -in the game of getting control of the organization, and therefore -called a meeting for the same night and at the same time. - -The object of the old general committee was to allow only delegates -whose seats were uncontested to vote on the organization, or the -contest of seats, which would return a “Hardshell” committee. The -Sachems, on the contrary, favored voting by those who had the -indorsement of two of the three inspectors. - -The “Hardshells” insisted that the Sachems had unwarrantably -interfered; that this was the first time in the history of the society -of any interference as to the manner of organizing the general -committee; that the only power the Sachems had was to decide between -contending parties for the use of the hall for political meetings, and -that even then their power was doubtful. - -The Grand Sachem ordered the doors of the meeting room locked till 7:30 -o’clock, at which hour both factions streamed in. Soon there were two -meetings in the same room, each with a chairman, and each vociferously -trying to shout down the other. Neither accomplished anything, and -both adjourned, and kept adjourning from day to day, awaiting positive -action by the society. - -The “Softshell” section of the general committee called a meeting -for January 20, but it was prohibited by the Sachems. When doubt -of their authority was expressed, the Sachems produced a lease -executed in 1842 to Howard, the lessee of the property, by the Tammany -Society, in which he agreed that he would not lease, either directly -or indirectly, the hall, or any part of the building, to any other -political party (or parties) whatever, calling themselves committees, -whose general political principles did not appear to him or the Sachems -to be in accordance with the general political principles of the -Democratic-Republican General Committee of New York City, of which -Elijah F. Purdy was then chairman. Howard had also agreed that - - “if there should be at any time a doubt arising in his mind - or that of his assigns, or in the mind of the Grand Sachem - of the Tammany Society for the time being, in ascertaining - the political character of any political party that should be - desirous of obtaining admission to Tammany Hall for the purpose - of holding a political meeting, then either might give notice - in writing to the Father of the Council of the Tammany Society, - in which event it was the duty of the Father of the Council to - assemble the Grand Council, who would determine in the matter - and whose decision should be final, conclusive and binding.” - -Of the thirteen Sachems, eleven were “Softshells”--a predominance due -to the activity of the “Barnburners.” The “Hardshells,” without doubt, -were in a majority in the Tammany Society and in Tammany Hall, but -they had taken no such pains as had their opponents to elect their -men. The Sachems’ meeting on January 20, professedly to decide the -merits of the contest, called for the ward representatives in turn. The -“Hardshells” refused to answer or to acknowledge the Sachems’ authority -to interfere with the primary elections of the people. The Sachems then -named by resolution the general committee they favored, thus deciding -in favor of the “Softshell” committee. There was no little suppressed -excitement, since the members of the Tammany Society, it was naïvely -told, though allowed to be present, were not allowed to speak. - -Alderman Thomas J. Barr, a member of the Tammany Society and chairman -of the “Hardshell” committee, handed to the Sachems, on behalf of his -associates, an energetic protest. Summarized, it read as follows: - - “Tammany Society is a private association, incorporated - for charitable purposes. There is nothing in its charter, - constitution or by-laws making it a political organization in - any sense of the term. The Democrats of New York City have - never, in any manner or by any act, vested in the society the - right to prescribe the rules for their government in matters of - political organization. - - “The society comprises among its members men belonging to all - the different political parties of the day. The only political - test of admission to membership is to be ‘a Republican in favor - of the Constitution of the United States.’ It is, besides, a - secret society, whose transactions are known only to its own - officers and members, except so far as might be the pleasure - of the Council to make the proceedings public. It can never be - tolerated that a body which, in the language of its charter, - was created ‘to carry into effect the benevolent purpose of - affording relief to the indigent and distressed,’ and which is - wholly independent of the great body of the Democracy shall be - permitted to sit in judgment upon the primary organization of - the Democratic-Republican party of the city of New York; and - such a state of things, if its absurdity be not too great for - serious consideration, would amount to a despotism of the most - repugnant character and render the Democratic party of the city - an object of contempt and ridicule everywhere.… Tammany Society - owns a portion of the premises known as Tammany Hall, which is - let to Mr. Howard and forms the plant of his hotel. This fact - is all that gives to the Tammany Society any, even the least - political significance. - - “The general committee derives its powers from the people, who - alone can take them away. The committee in its objects, its - organization and its responsibilities to a popular constituency - is wholly distinct from and independent of the Tammany Society, - its council or its officers, and to be efficient for any good - purpose must always so remain, leaving to the Tammany Society - its legitimate duty of excluding from Tammany Hall those who - are hostile to the Democracy and its principles.”[3] - -In the bar-room many leaders of the excluded faction were assembled, -surrounded by their fighting men. When the Sachems’ adverse decision -was announced, their anger found vent in a sputter of oaths and -threats, and the sum of $15,000 was subscribed on the spot for the -building of a rival Tammany Hall. It is almost needless to say that -the rival hall was never built. - -The Sachems later replied to the protest with the defense that their -lease to Howard obliged them to act as they did. By that lease the -succession of Elijah F. Purdy’s committee alone was at liberty to meet -as a general committee in Tammany Hall; they (the Sachems) had not -recognized Barr’s committee as such, and moreover did not admit the -claim the “Hardshell” committee made of _their_ right to hire a room -separate from the majority in a building in which they had no property -whatever. The Council of Sachems insisted that it had exercised the -right of excluding so-called general committees before; that Tammany -was a benevolent society, and that benevolent societies had the same -right as others to determine who should occupy their property. - -The “Hardshells” attempted to rout the “Softshells” at the regular -meeting of the Tammany Society on February 12, but the Sachems’ action -was confirmed by a vote of two hundred to less than a dozen. Each -faction then strained to elect a majority of the Sachems at the annual -election on April 18. Private circulars were distributed, that of the -“Softshells” being signed by Isaac V. Fowler, Fernando Wood, Nelson -J. Waterbury, John Cochrane and others. It breathed allegiance to the -national and State administrations, the regular organization and to -the Baltimore platform. The “Hardshell” circular had the signatures of -Richard B. Connolly, Cornelius Bogardus, Jacob Brush and others styling -themselves the “Old Line Democrats.” - -The “Softshells” elected their ticket, and Isaac V. Fowler, afterward -postmaster, was chosen Grand Sachem. This vote of a few score of -private individuals decided the control of Tammany Hall and the lot of -those who would share in the division of plunder for the next year. - -“With the exception of some few quarrels,” one friendly account had -it, “which fortunately did not result in any personal damage to -the disputants, the affair passed off very quietly. While the votes -were counted upstairs some interesting scenes were presented in the -bar-room, which was crowded with anxious expectants. Language of a -rather exceptional character, such as ‘political thieves,’ ‘swindlers,’ -etc., was employed unsparingly, but as the majority was peaceably -inclined, there were no heads fractured.” - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] Many of the “Barnburners” had finally broken with the Democratic -party, and were now acting independently as Free Soilers. Afterward, in -great part, these independents gravitated to the new Republican party. - -[2] This affair was exploited in the General Courts later. Seven -rioters were arrested. - -[3] The statements of both sides were published officially in the New -York _Herald_, February 10, 1853, the bare facts covering more than an -entire page of solid print. - - - - -CHAPTER XIX - -A CHAPTER OF DISCLOSURES - -1853-1854 - - -Now came an appalling series of disclosures regarding public officials. -Acting on the affidavit of James E. Coulter, a lobbyist, charging that -there was a private organization[1] in the Board of Aldermen formed to -receive and distribute bribes, the Grand Jury, after investigation, -handed down a presentment, on February 26, 1853, together with a vast -mass of testimony. - -“It was clearly shown,” stated the presentment, “that enormous sums of -money have been expended for and towards the procurement of railroad -grants in the city, and that towards the decision and procurement of -the Eighth Avenue Railroad grant a sum so large that would startle -the most credulous was expended; but in consequence of the voluntary -absence of important witnesses, the Grand Jury was left without direct -testimony of the particular recipients of the different amounts.”[2] - -Solomon Kipp, one of the grantees of the Eighth and Ninth Avenue -Railroad franchises, admitted frequently to a member of the Grand Jury -that he had expended, in 1851, upwards of $50,000 in getting them. Five -grantees of the Third Avenue Railroad franchise swore that upwards of -$30,000 was paid for it in 1852 in bribes to both boards.[3] Of this -sum Alderman Tweed received $3,000. Chief among those who bribed the -Aldermen were Elijah F. Purdy (one of the line of Grand Sachems) and -Myndert Van Schaick, who only a few years before had been the Tammany -candidate for Mayor. A franchise for a surface railroad on Broadway, -with scarcely any provision for compensation and with permission to -charge a five-cent fare, was given to Jacob Sharp, over five profitable -bids from responsible persons. One applicant, Thomas E. Davies, had -offered to give the city one cent for every fare charged. In another -application, Davies, D. H. Haight and others had offered $100,000 -a year and the payment of a license fee of $1,000 on each car (the -prevailing fee being $20) for a ten-years’ grant, on the agreement -to charge a five-cent fare. There were two other offers equally -favorable.[4] When Mayor Kingsland had vetoed the bill[5] the Aldermen -had repassed it, notwithstanding an injunction forbidding them to do -so.[6] - -Dr. William Cockroft had to pay, among other sums, $500 to Assistant -Alderman Wesley Smith to get favorable action on his application for a -lease of the Catherine Street Ferry. After the passage of the grant, -Smith demanded $3,000 more, which Cockroft refused to pay.[7] Burtis -Skidmore, a coal dealer, testified that in the Fall of 1851 James B. -Taylor informed him that he had been an applicant for a ferry across -the East River to Greenpoint, and that “he bribed members of the -Common Council for the purpose of obtaining said grant, and that other -applicants for the same ferry gave a larger bribe than he did, and -obtained the grant, and that all members of the Common Council whom -he had bribed returned to him the money he had paid them, with the -exception of Alderman Wood, who kept the money from both parties.”[8] - -John Morrell swore that one of the applicants for the lease of the -ferry to Williamsburg applied to some of the Aldermen and was told that -it would cost about $5,000 “to get the grant through.” But a Mr. Hicks, -another applicant, was so eager to “get it through” that he gave more -than $20,000.[9] - -The lease of the Wall Street Ferry was similarly disposed of. Silas C. -Herring testified that he with others was told he could secure it by -paying a certain Alderman $5,000. Herring declined. James B. Taylor -was another applicant, in 1852. He was informed that it would cost him -$15,000. He offered $10,000, but on the same night “Jake” Sharp offered -$20,000 and got the grant. Taylor also testified that he additionally -applied for the Grand Street Ferry lease. Other parties, however, paid -more bribe money and obtained it, whereat one Alderman said that “it -was the damnedest fight that was ever had in the Common Council; it -cost them [Taylor’s rivals] from $20,000 to $25,000.”[10] - -The Aldermen extorted money in every possible way. In defiance of -the Mayor’s veto they gave a $600,000 contract for the “Russ” street -pavement, afterward found to be worthless, and which had to be replaced -at additional cost. Russ had offered one Assistant Alderman $1,000 -to help carry his election the next Fall if he voted favorably.[11] -Exorbitant prices were paid for land on Ward’s Island, several Aldermen -and officials receiving for their influence and votes bribes of -$10,000, and others even larger sums.[12] The Common Council sold to -Reuben Lovejoy the Gansevoort Market property for $160,000 in the face -of other bids of $225,000 and $300,000. Lovejoy, who, it was disclosed, -was merely a dummy for James B. Taylor and others, testified “that it -would cost from $40,000 to $75,000 to get this operation--the purchase -of the Gansevoort property--through the city government.”[13] - -A coal merchant had to pay money for a favorable vote on his -application for a lease of the Jefferson Market property, and another -merchant testified to having paid one Assistant Alderman about $1,700 -to get a pier lease.[14] The Aldermen demanded and received bribes not -only for passing measures but for suppressing them, and even invented -many “strikes,” as instanced by the case of Alderman Smith, who agreed -for $250 to silence a resolution to reduce the Coroners’ fees.[15] -They demanded a share of every contract made by any city official, -threatening, if it were not given, to stop his supplies and have his -accounts investigated.[16] If a contractor or lessee refused to meet -a “request,” the Aldermen retaliated by imposing burdens upon him and -reporting hostile resolutions.[17] - -Applicants for the police force paid the Police Captains $40, and more -to the Aldermen who appointed them. One man was reappointed Police -Captain by Alderman Thomas J. Barr for $200, and another, assistant -Captain for $100.[18] - -Every city department was corrupt. It was found that one hundred and -sixty-three conveyances were deeded to the Chief of Police, George W. -Matsell, and his partner, Capt. Norris, in about a year.[19] Matsell -was mentioned also as receiving money from about one hundred men who -patronized the odious Madame Restell’s establishment in Greenwich -street.[20] Both the police and Aldermen collected money from saloons, -though the Aldermen obtained the larger share, as they had the power of -granting licenses. - -Within three or four years William B. Reynolds received over $200,000 -from the city, under a five-years’ contract for removing dead animals, -offal and bones, though at the time the contract was made other persons -had offered to remove them free of expense, and one had even offered -to pay the city $50,000 a year for the exclusive privilege.[21] It was -owing to Controller Flagg’s action that a contract to index certain -city records at a cost of between $200,000 and $300,000, despite the -offer of a well-known publisher to do it for $59,000, was canceled.[22] -Flimsy tenement houses, causing later much fatality and disaster, -were built in haste, there being no supervisory authority over their -erection.[23] The lighting of the city was insufficient, thousands of -oil lamps still being used, and these, according to an old custom, not -being lighted on moonlit nights.[24] - -Both Tammany and Whig Aldermen and officials were implicated in these -disclosures. Such was the system of city government that, though -twenty-nine Aldermen were at one time under judgment of contempt of -court, and a part of the same number under indictment for bribery, yet -under the law they continued acting as Judges in the criminal courts. -According to Judge Vanderpoel, bribery was considered a joke. - -A new reform movement sprang up, which quickly developed into the -City Reform party. The reformers proposed, as a first step, to amend -the charter. The granting of leases for more than ten years was to be -prohibited, and the highest bidder was to get them. A two-thirds vote -was to be required to pass a bill over the Mayor’s veto. Work to be -done and supplies furnished costing more than $250 were to be arranged -for on contract to the lowest bidder. Any person guilty of bribery, -directly or indirectly, was to be sentenced, upon conviction, to not -above ten years in prison and fined not over $5,000, or both. The right -to sit as Judges of the criminal courts was to be taken away from the -Aldermen, as was also the power of appointing policemen. The Board of -Assistant Aldermen was to be abolished, and a Board of Councilmen, -consisting of sixty members, was to be instituted in its place, the -collective title of the two boards to be “the Common Council.” The -Aldermen were to be elected for two years (as determined in the charter -of 1849) and the Councilmen for one year. An efficient auditing of -accounts and claims against the city was called for, and only the more -popular branch of the Common Council was to originate appropriations of -money. - -Tammany had grown suddenly virtuous again, and responding to the -public clamor over the disclosures, had declared its devotion to pure -government. At a “reform” meeting of the Young Men’s Union Club, John -Cochrane, one of Wood’s lieutenants, who later announced that he would -vote “for the devil incarnate if nominated by Tammany Hall,” declared: -“Reform is at home in Tammany Hall. Its birthplace is Tammany Hall.” -The purification movement advanced so unmistakably that Tammany -approved the amendments, and the legislative bill embodying some of -them was supported by the Tammany delegation in the Senate and Assembly. - -The bill passed, and upon being submitted to the people of the city, -in June, 1853, was adopted by the significant vote of 36,000 to 3,000. - -One of the benefits due to the City Reform party was the reorganization -(1853) of the police under a separate department. The police were -compelled to wear a uniform against which there had been bitter -prejudice,[25] and the term of appointment was made dependent upon good -behavior. - -Fortunately for the City Reform party, the division between the -“Hardshells” and “Softshells” extending throughout the State caused -the nomination of separate Democratic tickets in the Fall of 1853. -There seemed less than ever any vital difference between the professed -principles of the two. Under the name of “National Democrats” the -“Hardshells” met in City Hall Park on September 26, and resolved: - - “We regret that the Democracy of the city are prevented from - holding this meeting in their accustomed hall.… The Democracy - of the city waged in time past a successful war against a - corporation which sought to control by money the political - destinies of the country. We now from this time forward - commence a campaign against another corporation known as the - Tammany Society--a secret, self-elected and irresponsible body - of men who have dared to usurp the right of determining who - shall and who shall not meet in Tammany Hall.… The accidental - ownership of a small equity of redemption of a small part of - the ground upon which Tammany Hall stands may continue to - enable the Sachems to prevent the Democracy from meeting within - the hall, but we can meet in the park or in the open air or - elsewhere.” - -The City Reform party nominated acceptable Whigs and Democrats pledged -to reform, and obtained a decisive majority in the next Common Council. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] William H. Cornell, a sometime Sachem, was, according to the -affidavit of Coulter, the head of this organization. - -[2] _Documents of the Board of Aldermen_, Vol. XXI, part 2, No. 55. - -[3] _Documents of the Board of Aldermen_, Vol. XXI, part 2, No. 55, pp. -1333-35, and p. 1573. See also _The History of Public Franchises in New -York City_ by Gustavus Myers in which full details are given of the -briberies attending the grants of the Eighth, Ninth and Third Avenue -Railroad franchises, and other franchises. - -[4] _Proceedings of the Board of Aldermen_, Vol. XLVIII, pp. 530-37. - -[5] _Ibid._, p. 532. - -[6] For violating this injunction one Alderman--Oscar W. Sturtevant (a -Whig)--was sentenced to a nominal fifteen days in prison and to pay a -fine of $350, and the other offending Aldermen were merely fined. The -courts afterward annulled the Sharp franchise. - -[7] _Document No. 55_, p. 1219. - -[8] _Ibid._ p. 1310. - -[9] _Ibid._ p. 1403. - -[10] _Ibid._ pp. 1426-28. - -[11] _Document No. 55_, pp. 1575-76. - -[12] _Ibid._, p. 1282. - -[13] _Ibid._ p. 1445. In 1862 the Council resolved to buy back this -same property for $533,437.50 and repassed the resolution over Mayor -Opdyke’s veto on January 3, 1863, thus, as the Mayor pointed out, -entailing a new loss to the city of over $499,000, though the property -had not increased in value. _Proceedings of the Board of Councilmen_, -Vol. LXXXVIII, pp. 723-25. - -[14] _Document No. 55_, p. 1572. - -[15] _Document No. 55_, p. 1219. - -[16] _Ibid._, pp. 1395-96. - -[17] _Ibid._, pp. 1397-98. - -[18] _Documents of the Board of Aldermen_, Vol. XXII, No. 20, pp. 52-54. - -[19] _Ibid._, No. 43, p. 79. - -[20] _Ibid._ - -[21] _Documents of the Board of Aldermen_, Vol. XX, No. 32, and Vol. -XXII, No. 41. - -[22] _Ibid._, Vol. XXX, part 1, No. 16. - -[23] _Ibid._, Vol. XX, No. 5. - -[24] _Ibid._, No. 6. - -[25] The general extent of this prejudice may be judged from the -fact that at this time a number of suits were pending in the courts, -seeking to restrain the city from enforcing an earlier order compelling -uniforms to be worn. - - - - -CHAPTER XX - -FERNANDO WOOD’S FIRST ADMINISTRATION - -1854-1856 - - -Though the City Reform party brought about some beneficial changes in -the system of city government, its Common Council did not meet public -expectations. The _Tribune_, the chief supporter of the party, admitted -this (May 3, 1854), declaring that much feeling was manifested over the -failure of the reformers to realize the public hopes, and attributing -the failure “to the power of those representing the great political -parties in the two boards to league together and sell out to each other -the interests of the city as partizan or personal considerations might -dictate.” - -Accordingly, preparations were made to overthrow the new party. -Fernando Wood now secured the “Softshell” nomination for Mayor, by -packing the convention with his henchmen. The “Hardshells” held a -separate convention, which ended in a row, a part nominating Wood, and -the rest Augustus Schell. - -Wood successfully intrigued to cause the Whigs to separate from the -City Reformers; and to further divide the opposition, Tammany nominated -sham reformers for the lesser city and State offices. The Whigs -nominated for Mayor, John J. Herrick; the City Reformers, Wilson G. -Hunt, and the Native Americans, or “Know-Nothings,” springing to life -again, put forward James W. Barker. Schell, Wood’s Tammany opponent, -withdrew in favor of Hunt. - -The disreputable classes, believing that his success meant increased -prosperity to themselves, energetically supported Wood, and the -liquor-dealers formally commended him. In the city at this time were -about 10,000 shiftless, unprincipled persons who lived by their wits -and the labor of others. The trade of a part of these was turning -primary elections, packing nominating conventions, repeating and -breaking up meetings. Most of these were Wood’s active allies. - -He needed them all on election day. With every resource strained to -the utmost, he won by a close margin. He was credited with 19,993 -votes; Barker with 18,553; Hunt, 15,386, and Herrick, 5,712. Tammany, -therefore, succeeded, though in a minority of over 17,000 votes. - -Upon assuming office, Wood surprised his followers by announcing that -he would purge all offices of corruption and give good government. His -messages were filled with flattering promises and lofty sentiments. -At the outset he seemed disposed for good. He closed the saloons on -Sunday, suppressed brothels, gambling houses and rowdyism, had the -streets cleaned, and opened a complaint book. The religious part of the -community for a time believed in him. He assumed personal charge of the -police, and when a bill was introduced in the Legislature to strip him -of this power, the foremost citizens called a mass meeting to support -him. - -The troubles between the “Hardshells” and “Softshells” continued -throughout the year 1855. When the latter held their county -ratification meeting in the Wigwam and the name of their nominee for -Street Commissioner was announced, the “Hardshells,” who had come -thither with a nominee of their own, raised an uproar, whereupon “the -factions on both sides went to work and pummeled each other pretty -soundly and highly satisfactorily to the lookers, for at least ten -minutes.” - -The election of 1855 was of little consequence. All eyes were now -turned to the coming contest of 1856. Before the end of a year Wood -had begun to reveal his real nature. Many of the decent element that -had for a time believed in him began to turn against him. He had also -made himself unpopular with certain powerful Sachems by not giving -them either a share, or a large enough share, in the spoils. His -appointments were made wholly from a circle of personal friends who -were more attached to him than to the Tammany organization. Knowing -the folly of expecting a renomination from Tammany, as it was then -constituted, he set about obtaining it by trickery. - -Inducing Wilson Small, a Custom House officer holding a seat in the -general committee, to resign, Wood had himself substituted. Then he -personally assumed control of the primary election inspectors in every -ward, so as to manipulate the election of convention delegates. He -caused the appointment of an executive committee, which was to have -the entire choice of inspectors in every instance in which the general -committee failed to agree. This new committee was composed mainly of -his friends, and he named himself chairman. - -His henchmen incited divisions in such of the wards as were not under -the control of his inspectors, and the contests, upon being referred to -the “executive committee,” were of course decided in Wood’s favor. Thus -he appropriated a great majority of the delegates to the nominating -convention. - -“It is well known,” wrote Peter B. Sweeny and J. Y. Savage, secretaries -of the Tammany General Committee, in a long statement denouncing Wood’s -thimble-rigging “that for many years this [primary] system has been -degenerating until it has become so corrupt as to be a mere machine in -the hands of unprincipled men, by which they foist themselves before -the people as the nominees of a party for office in defiance of public -sentiment.”[1] Sweeny and Savage charged further than when the primary -elections took place under this patent process for cheating the people, -the ballot boxes were stuffed and detachments of police were stationed -at every poll to aid Wood’s agents and bully his opponents. A sickening -mass of evidence of corruption was at hand, Sweeny and Savage recounted. - -Wood was renominated by the city convention, and at an hour when most -of his opponents on the general committee were absent, he had that -body endorse his nomination by a vote of 56 to 26, nearly all of those -voting being office-holders by his grace. - -He also arranged a reconciliation between the “Hardshells” and -“Softshells.” With a show of traditional Tammany custom, the “Softs” -marched in Indian file to the Stuyvesant Institute, the headquarters of -the “Hards,” and the reunited leaders marched back to Tammany Hall--in -pairs, arm-in-arm. The “Hardshell”-“Softshell” contention thus became a -thing of the past. - -But Wood’s personal enemies in the Wigwam were not to be appeased, -and they nominated a candidate to oppose him--James S. Libby. Bitter -feelings were aroused. At the Wood ratification meeting in the -Wigwam, October 22, both Wood and Anti-Wood men crowded in, and then -ensued another of those clashes for which Tammany Hall had become so -celebrated. When John Kelly mentioned Wood’s name the Anti-Wood men -raised a din and smothered the speaker’s voice. The Wood men, growing -enraged, “pitched into the Anti-Woodites hot and heavy, and for a -time a scene of the wildest clamor ensued. A general fight took place -in front of the speaker’s stand and all round the room. Blows were -given and exchanged with great spirit, and not a few faces were badly -disfigured.” After a few planks had been plucked from the stand and -wielded with telling effect, the Wood men won. “The great body of -the Libbyites were kicked out of the room and down the stairs with a -velocity proportionate to the expelling force behind.” - -The City Reform party was far from being satisfied with Wood’s -administration. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that by the -time of his second year in office the blackness of his administration -exceeded anything known before. Seasoned men fancied they knew -something of corruption, extravagance and malfeasance in the City Hall, -but by 1856 they better understood the growth of these under a reckless -and unprincipled Mayor. - -The saloon power had grown until it controlled the politics of the -city. In every groggery could be found a crowd of loafers and bruisers -who could always be relied upon to pack a primary or insure or defeat -the election of certain nominees. In these saloons the ward politicians -held their meetings, and the keepers were ready at all times to -furnish persons to parade, carrying partizan banners they could not -read, or to cheer at mass meetings at the drop of a handkerchief. The -saloon-keepers also furnished cheap illegal voters, ballot-box stuffers -and thoroughbred “shoulder-hitters,” to intimidate peaceable citizens, -or as a last resort, to smash the ballot boxes. - -The saloon-keepers were largely above the law. A disingenuous bill, -passed in 1855, ordered the saloons to be closed on Sunday, but made -no provision for enforcement. They were accordingly kept open, likely -enough through assurances from Wood that the owners would not be -molested. Their support of the Mayor was well-nigh unanimous. - -It was the domination of politics by this element that caused great -irritation and disgust. But the opposition to Wood was hopelessly -divided. It had to contend, moreover, with the adverse factor of the -introduction into the campaign of national issues. The fear of the -new Republican party was sure to bring out a heavy vote for Buchanan -and Breckinridge, and on the strength of this wave Tammany reasonably -expected to be again swept into power. - -The City Reformers had greatly declined in numbers, but they again -came forward for the contest, nominating Judge James R. Whiting.[2] -The Native American party, still maintaining its bitterness against -the control of politics by foreigners, chose Isaac O. Barker, and the -Whigs, Anthony J. Bleecker, making, with Wood and Libby, five Mayoralty -candidates. - -Though backed by the dregs of the city on the one hand, Wood did not -neglect to secure some “respectability” on the other. During the -campaign he received a testimonial signed by some of the leading -bankers and merchants, praising him and his administration and -expressing the hope of his reelection. Nearly all of the signers, it -was afterwards disclosed, profited by Wood’s placing of city funds or -buying of city goods. - -Wood sought to force every man on the police force to subscribe to his -election fund, one policeman, who refused to contribute, being kept on -duty twenty-four hours at a stretch. From this source alone he gathered -in from $8,500 to $10,000. - -On election day the scum of the town shouted, repeated and bruised for -Wood. Candidates were traded openly, and bribing was unconcealed.[3] -The majority of the policemen were off on furlough, given by the -Mayor as head of the Police Department, assisting actively for his -reelection. At the polling places, so terrific was the competition for -the millions of city plunder, that the Wood and Anti-Wood men fought -savagely. In the Sixth Ward the Wood partizans, upon being attacked, -retreated for the while, and coming back, armed with brickbats, -clubs, axes and pistols, set upon and routed their foes. The police -meanwhile calmly looked on, until the riot was at its height, when -they made a show of concern by firing fifteen or more shots, all of -which fortunately went astray. The Wood partizans then broke the ballot -boxes to pieces and carried off the fragments for kindling wood. In the -Seventeenth Ward the Anti-Wood men destroyed some of the Wood boxes; -and in the First, and most of the other wards, the day was enlivened -with assaults, riots and stabbings. - -The count of the vote gave Wood, 34,860; Barker, 25,209; Bleecker, -9,654; Libby, 4,764, and Whiting, 3,646. The Buchanan electors carried -the city with 41,913 votes; Fillmore, the American candidate, and -Fremont, Republican, were allowed respectively 19,924 and 17,771 votes. -Tammany Hall obtained a serviceable majority in the Common Council. - -The Republicans maintained that 10,000 fraudulent Democratic votes -were cast in New York City and Brooklyn, and credited Wood with -having profited by the most of those cast in this city. It was not an -unreasonable contention, in view of the enormous increase over the vote -of two years before. - -A few days after the election a meeting in Tammany Hall, called to -celebrate Buchanan’s triumph, resolved that next to the success of -Buchanan and Breckinridge, “the brightest and most signal achievement -of the Democratic party, at this election, was the triumphant election -of Fernando Wood!” - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] This statement was published officially in the New York newspapers, -September 27, 1856. - -[2] Whiting, according to the testimony of James Perkins, before the -Senate Investigating Committee in 1833, had been the chief lobbyist in -the task of securing the notorious Seventh Ward Bank charter in 1831. -It is a striking commentary on political standards of the day that -unrebutted charges of such a nature formed no bar to the advancement of -a politician to such distinctions as those of Judge, District Attorney -and reform candidate for Mayor. - -[3] Josiah Quincy related, in a lecture in Boston, that while in New -York City on this election day, he saw $25 given for a single vote -for a member of Congress. Upon expressing his surprise, Quincy was -told that this man could afford to pay it. If reelected, it would be a -money-making operation. He had received $30,000 at the last session for -“getting a bill through,” and at that rate could afford to pay a good -price. - - - - -CHAPTER XXI - -WOOD’S SECOND ADMINISTRATION - -1856-1859 - - -Under Wood’s second administration city affairs went from bad to worse. -The departments reeked with frauds. The city paid Robert W. Lowber -$196,000 for a lot officially declared to be worth only $60,000 and to -two-thirds of which, it was proved, Lowber had no title. Controller -Flagg charged that both the Mayor and the Common Council were parties -to it.[1] Fraudulent computations and illegitimate contracts were -covered by false entries.[2] Amounts on the ledger were revised so -as to steal considerable sums from the city outright.[3] To Bartlett -Smith had been awarded a contract for grading certain streets. Before -beginning work, however, the Legislature created Central Park out of -that very territory.[4] Smith demanded $80,000 from the city “for -trouble in arranging to do the grading”--a claim the Common Council -allowed, but Flagg refused to pay. - -It was generally charged that Wood sold the office of Street -Commissioner to the notorious Charles Devlin[5] for $50,000 cash, with -certain reservations as to the patronage and profits. Devlin recouped -himself; for an investigation revealed that he spent half a million -dollars on contracts of which he was either the real contractor or -surety, and on which he made the prices 75 per cent higher than they -ought to have been.[6] Of how much the city was plundered it was -impossible to find out, since no reliable accounts of expenditures were -kept in the Finance Department.[7] Not a few officials, relinquishing -offices paying about $2,500 a year, retired loaded with riches and -surrounded by friends whom they had enriched. Wood himself was now -reputed to be worth $400,000. - -Even the Judiciary was held in general contempt. The Lowber fraud (see -previous page) was promptly excused and the defendant exonerated by -the courts. In November, 1855, a City Judge was tried for corruption -in having entered a _nolle prosequi_ in a certain case. The verdict -was “not guilty,” with this remarkable addition: “And the jury are -unanimously of opinion that in the entry of the _nolle prosequi_ by -the City Judge he has been guilty of irregularity, and it is the -unanimous recommendation of the jury that Judge ---- resign.” He -resigned.[8] In December, 1855, during a trial for murder in the -Supreme Court, counsel for the defendant exclaimed: “I know the jury -have too much intelligence to pay any regard to the assumptions of -the Court.”[9] A man was killed at a prize fight. The Coroner, after -stating the evidence at the inquest, concluded: “If the persons -implicated are tried before our Court of Sessions they will have reason -to congratulate themselves, as it is a difficult matter in this city -to convict a person charged with any other crime than theft.”[10] In -January, 1856, the seat of one of the Judges of the Supreme Court was -contested by two candidates, both claiming to have been elected by -popular vote. Both asserted the right to sit; in opposition to the -opinions of the Judges sitting, one of the contestants took and kept -his seat by pure “nerve.”[11] - -A new city charter, adopted in 1857, changed the date of municipal -elections to the first Tuesday in December, and provided for an -election for Mayor and Common Council in December, 1857. The change was -aimed partly at Wood. He had probably expected severe opposition of -some kind, for he had early begun planning for the continued control of -the Tammany General Committee, so as to secure a renomination. - -In the primary elections, late in 1856, for delegates to this committee -for 1857, a majority favorable to Wood had been elected, after violence -and ballot-box stuffing in every ward. The Wood men took possession of -the Wigwam and elected Wilson Small chairman. The rival party met in -another place and organized a general committee. Each put forward the -claim of “regularity.” - -As the “usages” of the party required that the “regular” committee -should have legal possession of Tammany Hall, it was necessary to -determine which that committee was. Then the Sachems stepped in. Seven -of them--a majority of one--were Wood’s personal enemies. By a vote -of seven to five the Sachems concluded to order the election of a new -general committee, which was to have all known Democrats enrolled into -associations. - -“Tammany Society,” said the “seven Sachems’” report, - - “is the undisputed owner of Tammany Hall; and the right to - control the use of that building which is inherent in its - ownership has been fully secured by the lease. The Council is - determined that their action shall vindicate fully the rights - and powers of the venerable society of which they are officers; - and also, prove a safe and efficient barrier against the tide - of corruption and fraud which is sapping the power of the great - party to which the society has adhered during the whole period - of its existence.” - -At the society’s annual election, on May 20, the Isaac V. Fowler, or -“reform” ticket, had the names of some men of note--Samuel J. Tilden, -Elijah F. Purdy, Peter B. Sweeny, Edward Cooper, William H. Cornell, -John McKeon and Emanuel B. Hart--while Wood’s candidates were inferior -hack politicians and nonentities. The “seven Sachems” had previously -managed to get into the Wigwam unobserved by the Wood men, and had -rapidly elected nearly sixty new members, all their own partizans, to -the society.[12] These voted at the election, enabling Wood’s opponents -to beat him by a majority of sixty.[13] Then the “seven Sachems” turned -Wood and his men out of the Wigwam. - -In a public address, the Wood men thereupon declared the society an -irresponsible body of less than four hundred members, one-third of -whom held no communication with the Democratic party, and that of -its thirteen Sachems seven were “Libby bolters.” “What, then, is -the issue?” asked the address. “Shall the Sachems rule the people; -or shall the people rule themselves? Shall the Sachems of this -close corporation, to procure offices for themselves and friends, -be permitted, unrebuked by the people, to exercise this omnipotent, -dictatorial, supervisory power over the great Democratic party, its -organization and interests, to rule out or rule in your general -committees whenever it suit their caprice or selfish purposes?” - -The control of the police force was considered as necessary as ever -to success at the election. The changes of 1853, from which much -was hoped, had proved of little benefit. The force was in a chaotic -state. Political and pecuniary reasons alone guided the appointment -of policemen. No record of merit was kept; there was no systematic -instruction of policemen in their duties except as to drill. Some -Captains wore uniforms, others refused. When an applicant appointed to -the force was tested for qualifications in reading, a large newspaper -was given to him, and he was told to read the title. Murder abounded, -and the city was full of escaped convicts.[14] One of the most -important provisions of a special act of 1857 was the transfer of the -police from city control to that of the State. Unwilling to surrender -so effective a hold, Wood resisted the Legislature’s action. For a time -there were two police departments--the Metropolitan force, under the -State Commissioners, and the municipal police, under the Mayor--each -contending for supremacy. One day a part of the two forces came into -collision in the City Hall, and twelve men were wounded. It was found -necessary to summon the militia to quell the disturbances, and Wood was -arrested. Finding resistance useless, he submitted grudgingly to the -new order.[15] - -The police being so disorganized, the criminal classes ran the town. -Chief among Wood’s supporters were the “Dead Rabbits” or “Black -Birds,”--a lawless “gang” who overawed certain portions of the city -and who had a rival in the “Bowery Boys,” whose sole profession seems -to have been to pack primaries, break ballot boxes and fight the “Dead -Rabbits.” On July 4, 1857, the “Dead Rabbits,” presumably having -nothing else to do, attacked a body of police in Jackson street. A band -of “Bowery Boys” hurried to the front, and a pitched street battle -ensued, pistols and muskets being procured from neighboring places. -Barricades were thrown up in the most approved Parisian style. The -result was the killing of ten and the wounding of eighty persons, some -of whom were innocent bystanders. This was the most deadly of the -numerous collisions of these “gangs.” As they had a powerful political -influence, the police did not molest them.[16] - -As a member of the Metropolitan Police Commission, Mayor Wood about -this time was instrumental in giving out a contract for 4,000 glass -ballot boxes, at $15 apiece. It was disclosed in James Horner’s -affidavit before Judge Davis, in the Supreme Court, in November of this -year, that the city needed no more than 1,200 of the boxes; that Wood’s -brother had secured the 4,000 boxes at a cost of less than $5 apiece -and that the Mayor was to share in the $40,000 of expected profits. - -Wood neglected no means of ingratiating himself with the masses. The -panic of 1857 suddenly deprived over 30,000 mechanics and laborers in -the city of employment. Wood proposed the employment of the idle on -public works, and the buying by the city of 50,000 barrels of flour -and an equal amount of other provisions to be disposed of to the -needy at cost.[17] The Common Council failed to see the value of this -plan, but did appropriate a sum for public works in Central Park, the -better share of which went to contractors and petty politicians. To -win the good will of the Roman Catholics, becoming more and more a -power, the Common Council gave over to the Roman Catholic Orphan Asylum -a perpetual lease of the entire plot from Fifth to Fourth avenue, -Fifty-first to Fifty-second street, at a rental of $1 a year.[18] - -So resourceful was Wood and so remarkable his political ingenuity that -though he and his general committee were driven out by the Tammany -Society, he nevertheless brought things about so that the Democratic -convention in Tammany Hall, on October 15, renominated him for Mayor, -by 75 votes to 12. The Tammany General Committee thereupon openly -repudiated him, and the curious complication was presented of a -candidate who was the Tammany “regular” nominee, yet opposed by both -the society and the general committee. - -Instantly a determined citizen’s movement to defeat him sprang up. -The city taxes had nearly doubled in the three years of Wood’s -administration and were now over $8,000,000, of which over $5,000,000 -had already been signed away in contracts or spent in advance of -collection. Yet the Common Council had recently resolved to spend the -exorbitant sum of $5,000,000 on a new City Hall. The Mayor vetoed the -resolution only when the most intense public opposition was manifested. - -A committee of citizens, representative of the Republicans, Democrats -and Native Americans, nominated Daniel F. Tiemann, a paint dealer, and -a member of Tammany Hall, but who was an Alderman and as Governor of -the Almshouse had made a good record. - -To Wood’s support there concentrated the preponderance of the foreign -born, the native rowdies and the usual mass blinded into voting for -the “regular” ticket. The gamblers, brothel-keepers, immigrant runners -and swindlers of every kind bought and cheated for him in the belief -that the reformers would drive them from the city. Wood had taken -the precaution to manufacture thousands of voters. From the Wigwam, -where the Wood partizans backed up their right to meet with fists, -drummers-up were sent to bring in prospective citizens. Upon promising -faithfully to vote the Tammany ticket, a card, valued at fifty cents, -was furnished gratuitously to each. It was addressed to a Judge who -owed his election to Tammany, and read: - - “Common Pleas: - - “Please naturalize the bearer. - - “N. Seagrist, chairman.”[19] - -From 3,000 to 4,000 voters, it was estimated, were turned out by this -process. - -The sentiment of certain politicians may be taken from John -Cochrane’s[20] remark that “he would vote for the devil incarnate if -nominated by Tammany Hall.” Meanwhile they took care to make out Wood -to be a much-abused man. At the ratification meeting in Tammany Hall, -on November 23, long resolutions were passed, fulsomely flattering Wood -and asking voters to remember that if Wood was assailed, so Jefferson, -Jackson and Daniel Webster were pursued to their graves by harpies. The -voters were asked not to be deceived by the abuse of the graceless, -godless characters and disappointed demagogues. - -Wood and his partizans strained every nerve for success. But it was a -futile effort. The opposition won, Tiemann receiving 43,216 votes, to -40,889 for Wood. His large vote, however, showed the dangerous strength -of the worst classes of the city, and boded ill for the years to come. - -The opposition of the Tammany Society and the general committee having -been responsible for his defeat, Wood made renewed efforts to regain -sway over both. On their part, elated at his supposed downfall, the -Anti-Wood members of the general committee decided to expel Daniel E. -Sickles and C. Godfrey Gunther, two of his supporters, and met for that -purpose in the Wigwam on December 9, 1857. - -Wood’s followers thought proper to impress upon the general committee a -sense of their strength. Accordingly, their fighting men were present -in full force, awaiting an opportunity to mingle in the proceedings. -The probability of a violent row increasing momentarily, the -Metropolitan police were summoned to Tammany Hall. For a time they kept -the hostiles within bounds; but the bar was well patronized, and large -delegations of the “Dead Rabbits” and “shoulder-hitters” from the wards -were flowing in constantly. - -At 9 o’clock a desperate fight was begun in the center of the bar-room, -amid intense excitement. By using their clubs unsparingly, the forty -policemen succeeded in separating the combatants, though not before a -young man, Cornelius Woods, had been shot in the shoulder with a slug. -Unwilling to draw upon themselves the resentment of the influential -ward politicians, the police made no arrests. The meeting broke up -without definite action being taken in the matter of expelling the two -supporters of Wood. - -The first and chief point in the struggle for the control of the -organization was, as usual, the control of the Tammany Society. Both -factions were alive to this necessity. On April 13, 1858, 150 members -of the society met at the Westchester House, Bowery and Broome streets, -where it was announced that 212 members were pledged to vote for -Anti-Wood Sachems. Some of these members were seeking the ascendency -for their own benefit, while others were not active in politics at all, -but had become disgusted with Wood’s methods and men. At the election, -six days later, the Anti-Wood ticket, headed by Isaac V. Fowler and -Nelson J. Waterbury, won by a majority of nearly 100, 378 members -voting. More than twenty members who had not been at an election of the -society for twenty years or more, and a large number who had eschewed -voting for ten years, hastened, some from distances, to deposit -their votes. Three came from Hudson, a number from Albany, two from -Washington, and one from Cincinnati. - -The result was Wood’s forced withdrawal from the organization. He -immediately started a Democratic organization opposed to Tammany and -upon the same lines. It was known generally as “Mozart Hall,” from the -name of the assembly room in which it met. Wood denounced Tammany, -declaring that its nominees were chosen by five members of the Tammany -Society, in a parlor, and ferociously expressed his determination to -wage war upon the society as long as he lived until (this reservation -was added) “it opened its doors.” - -Each hall, as a matter of political business, made the most virtuous -and the strongest claims of being the true Democratic organization. -Each execrated the other and announced itself as the sole, valiant, -sincere upholder of Democracy. - -Wood’s enemies made haste to guarantee their ascendency when, on -December 28, the Sachems ordered elections for the committees to be -held on December 30, thus giving but _one day’s_ notice of the event. -Moreover, they forced upon all persons accepting membership in the -committees, a pledge that in case of their election they would support -the Tammany organization and all nominations made under its authority, -and disclaim allegiance to any other organization, party or clique. - -The election of delegates to the various nominating conventions, in the -Fall of 1858, was attended by the customary disorder. Wood’s partizans -were everywhere inciting trouble. At O’Connell’s Hall, on Mulberry -street, a crowd, seeing that the result was unfavorable to their side, -split the ballot boxes and threw them into the street. The “Dead -Rabbits,” scenting trouble, appeared hastily, and a fight ensued on -Hester street, in which two of them were shot. - -This municipal election was the first in which the Democratic voters -of Irish nativity or lineage insisted on a full share of the best -places on the party’s ticket. Previously they had seldom been allowed -any local office above Coroner. Their dominance on the Tammany ticket -again roused the “Know-Nothing” sentiment, and a combination of Native -Americans, Republicans and independents resulted. The combination -secured 16 of the 24 Councilmen. - -The politicians were now confronted with a registry act, which omitted -the blunder of that of 1840 in applying only to New York City. This -measure became a law in 1859, despite the stubborn opposition of -Tammany, some of whose leaders, Isaac V. Fowler and others, issued an -address asking Democrats to arise and defeat it. Failing to defeat it, -they resolved to circumvent it by means of the Board of Supervisors, -which was required to appoint the registry clerks. This body was by -law divided equally as to politics, the Legislature calculating that -this would insure fair dealing. But by the purchase of the vote of one -of the Republican Supervisors for $2,500,[21] the Tammany members -were enabled not only to redistrict the city to their own advantage, -but to appoint trusted tools as registrars. For appearances’ sake -they allowed a Republican registry clerk here and there. Of 609 -registrars appointed, the Republicans secured about 75; and of the -whole 609, 68 were liquor-sellers, 92 were petty office-holders, 34 -were supposed gamblers, and 50 of the names were not in the city -directory. The Tammany leaders held daily private caucuses, and made -a list of henchmen with extreme care, in order to exclude Wood from -any influence with the registry clerks. William M. Tweed, a member of -the board, generally named the men, and Elijah F. Purdy boasted that -Tammany demanded the appointment of none but Democrats, and that they -(the Tammany Supervisors) meant to sustain their party at any and all -hazards. Having the registry clerks, Tammany Hall could revel in false -registry and repeating. Good citizens, dejected at the outlook, were -sure of a repetition of the frauds of former years. - -Seeking to satisfy all parties, Mayor Tiemann failed to satisfy any. -He was accused of using the official patronage for the advantage of -Tammany Hall, in the hope of getting a renomination from it in 1859. He -and his chief office-holders appointed to the office the most notorious -fighting men and ruffians in the city. The Tammany leaders did not -favor him, possibly because they thought William F. Havemeyer a man of -more weight, popularity and respectability. - -Accordingly they nominated the latter. Wood had himself nominated by -Mozart Hall, and the Republicans chose George P. Opdyke, a millionaire. -In this triangular contest the Tammany men felt that the force of -Havemeyer’s good record would put them in power. Singularly, however, -with all its manipulation of the registry lists, and the excellent -character of its nominee, Tammany lost. The Irish voters sided almost -solidly with Wood, and the lowest classes of the city, fearing the -election of a man so distasteful to them as Havemeyer or Opdyke, used -all their effectiveness for Wood, who received 29,940 votes, against -26,913 for Havemeyer, and 21,417 for Opdyke. - -It was conceded that much of the worst part of Tammany’s strength had -gone over to Wood. This fact was suggestive, to a degree, of Wood’s -assurance, considering the declaration in his letter of acceptance of -the nomination that he favored “excluding the bullies and rowdies from -public employment and of dealing summarily with that class of outlaws.” - -Although Tammany had nominated a good man, for the sake of sliding into -power upon the strength of his reputation, its lesser candidates were -generally incompetent or of bad character; half a dozen of its nominees -for Councilmen were under indictment for various crimes. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] _Documents of the Board of Aldermen_, 1859, No. 16. The courts -decided later in favor of Lowber. As Controller Flagg refused to -pay the claim on the ground of no funds being “applicable,” Lowber -caused the Sheriff to sell at auction, in October, 1858, the City Hall -with its equipment and paintings to satisfy a judgment of $228,000, -including damages, costs and interest. Mayor Tiemann bid the City -Hall in for the sum of $50,000, and turned it over to the city when -reimbursed. _Documents of the Board of Aldermen_, 1859, Vol. XXVI, No. -1. - -[2] _Ibid._, Vol. XXIII, No. 42; also _Ibid._, Vol. XXV, No. 10. - -[3] _Ibid._ - -[4] The Act was passed July 21, 1853. This was one of the very few -public-spirited measures of the time. Tammany, however, immediately -began to utilize the measure, through contracts for the clearing and -improvement of the park, to the profit of its leaders and followers. - -[5] Devlin was appointed by Mayor Wood to succeed Joseph S. Taylor, -deceased. At the same time Daniel D. Conover was selected for the post -by the Governor, who claimed the right of appointment. The Mayor used -inflammatory language, a turbulent mob gathered, and the militia had -to be ordered out to prevent serious violence between the partizans of -each. (_Assembly Documents_, 1858, No. 80.) The courts later decided in -favor of Devlin. - -[6] Devlin was removed from office by Mayor Tiemann in April, 1858. - -[7] _Report of Special Common Council Committee_, October 22, 1857. - -[8] _Harper’s New Monthly Magazine_, November, 1856. - -[9] _Ibid._ - -[10] _Ibid._ - -[11] _Ibid._ - -[12] Statement to the author by Douglas Taylor, one of the “seven -Sachems.” - -[13] Of this action Talcott Williams (_Tammany Hall_, G. P. Putnam’s -Sons, 1898) says: “For the first time, the Tammany Society, which -is only the landlord of the political body which leases its hall, -exercised its singular power of deciding between rival organizations.” -This, of course, is a decided error. Repeated instances of the activity -of the society in this direction have been given in this work. - -[14] _Assembly Documents_, 1857, II, part 2, No. 127. - -[15] _Assembly Documents,_ 1858, No. 80. The chaos produced during this -dispute was extreme. Members of one force would seize and liberate -prisoners taken by the other force, combats were frequent, and -peaceable citizens were often unable to secure protection. - -[16] This riot is briefly treated in Document No. 80. - -[17] _Proceedings of the Board of Aldermen_, Vol. LXVII, pp. 157-60. - -[18] _Ibid._, Vol. LXVIII, p. 140. - -[19] This reference to Seagrist was handed down in an Aldermanic -committee’s report some years before: “… Thomas Munday, Nicholas -Seagrist, Captain Norris, Mackellar and others were charged with -_robbing the funeral pall of Henry Clay_, when his sacred person passed -through this city.” _Documents of the Board of Aldermen_, Vol. XXII: -No. 43. - -[20] Cochrane later followed Wood into Mozart Hall, but subsequently -returned to Tammany Hall. He was elected to Congress, serving one term. -He raised a regiment at the outbreak of the Civil War, and in June, -1862, was made a Brigadier-General. He was elected Attorney-General -of the State in 1863. In 1872 he joined the Greeley movement. He held -various local offices, both in 1872 and in 1883 being elected to the -Presidency of the Board of Aldermen. As late as 1889 he was a Sachem. -He died in 1898, in his 85th year. - -[21] Statement of William M. Tweed before a special investigating -committee of the Board of Aldermen, 1877 (_Document No. 8_, _Documents -of the Board of Aldermen,_ Vol. II, pp. 15-16). Isaac V. Fowler, Tweed -testified, furnished the $2,500 which was paid to Peter R. Voorhis, a -Republican member. Tweed further stated, that besides himself there -were in the conspiracy Elijah F. Purdy, William C. Conner, Isaac Bell, -Jr. (a Sachem) and John R. Briggs. - - - - -CHAPTER XXII - -THE CIVIL WAR AND AFTER - -1859-1867 - - -The stirring years of the Civil War were drawing near. In this -crisis, Tammany, ever pro-slavery, dealt in no equivocal phrases. On -November 1, 1859, at a meeting called to order by Isaac V. Fowler, -James T. Brady, acting as president, referred to John Brown’s raid as -“riot, treason and murder.” Brady and others spoke dolefully of the -dire consequences of a continuation of the abolition agitation and -prophesied that if the “irrepressible conflict” ever came, it would -result in an extermination of the black race. - -But Grand Sachem Fowler was not to officiate at any more meetings. He -had been living for several years at a rate far beyond his means. In -one year his bill at the New York Hotel, which he made the Democratic -headquarters, amounted to $25,000.[1] He had spent $50,000 toward the -election of Buchanan. A social favorite, he gave frequent and lavish -entertainments.[2] President Pierce had appointed him Postmaster, but -the salary was only $2,500 a year, and he had long ago exhausted his -private means and much of the property of his family. It was therefore -a source of wonder whence his money came. The problem was cleared -up when, on May 10, 1860, he was removed from office, and an order -was issued for his arrest under the accusation of having embezzled -$155,000.[3] The filching, it appeared, had been going on since 1855.[4] - -Isaiah Rynders, then United States Marshal at New York, upon receiving -orders to arrest Fowler, went to his hotel, but tarried at the bar -and by his loud announcement of his errand, allowed word to be taken -to Fowler, who forthwith escaped. He subsequently made his way to -Mexico. His brother, John Walker Fowler, who upon recommendation of -the “seven Sachems” had been appointed clerk to Surrogate Gideon J. -Tucker, subsequently absconded with $31,079.65 belonging to orphans and -others.[5] - -In 1860 Tammany was greatly instrumental in inducing the Democrats -of New York State to agree upon a fusion Douglas-Bell-Breckinridge -electoral ticket. On the registration and election days the frauds -practised against the Lincoln electors surpassed anything the city -had known. In the Third Ward 63 fictitious names were registered -in a single election district. Five hundred of the 3,500 names -of the Twelfth Ward register were found to be fraudulent. In the -Seventeenth Ward 935 names on the registry books were spurious, no -persons representing them being discoverable at the places given as -their residences. An Irish widow’s two boys, six and seven years old -respectively, were registered, mother and sons, of course, knowing -nothing of it--and so on _ad libitum_. Fictitious names, accredited to -vacant lots or uninhabited buildings, were voted by the thousands. -The announcement of the result gave the Fusionists 62,611 votes, and -Lincoln 33,311. - -At the outbreak of the war, Mozart Hall, for purposes of political -display, took a prompt position in favor of maintaining the Union, -although Wood, its master spirit, advocated, in a public message, the -detaching of New York City from the Union and transforming it into a -free city on the Hamburg plan.[6] Tammany, perforce, had to follow the -lead of Mozart Hall in parading its loyalist sentiments. The society -raised a regiment, which was taken to the field in June, 1861, by Grand -Sachem William D. Kennedy.[7] Tammany long dwelt upon this action as a -crowning proof of its patriotism. - -The real sentiments of the bulk of Tammany and of Mozart Hall were to -the contrary. Both did their best to paralyze the energies of Lincoln’s -administration. In a speech to his Mozart Hall followers at the Volks -Garden, on November 27, 1861, Wood charged the national administration -with having provoked the war, and said that they (the administration) -meant to prolong it while there was a dollar to be stolen from the -national Treasury or a drop of Southern blood to be shed. At the -Tammany celebration of July 4, 1862, Grand Sachem Nelson J. Waterbury, -though expressing loyalty to the Union, averred that it was the -President’s duty “to set his foot firmly upon abolitionism and crush it -to pieces, and then the soldiers would fight unembarrassed, and victory -must soon sit upon the National banners.” Declarations of this kind -were generally received with enthusiasm in both halls. - -At times, however, under the sting of severe public criticism, Tammany -Hall made haste to assert its fealty to the Union cause. In September, -1861, Elijah F. Purdy, chairman of its general committee, issued a -statement that “Tammany Hall had maintained an unswerving position -upon this great question from the time the first gun was fired to the -present hour. It has been zealously devoted to the Union, in favor of -upholding it with the utmost resources of the nation, and opposed to -any action calculated to embarrass the Government or to prevent all -loyal men from standing together in solid column for the country.” -Tammany put forth the claim that “three-fourths of the volunteer -soldiers enlisted in this city and at the seat of war, are Democrats -attached to Tammany Hall”; and on October 3, 1861, resolved that with -a deep sense of the peril in which the Union and the Constitution were -involved by the reckless war being waged for their destruction by armed -traitors, it (Tammany Hall) held it to be the first and most sacred -duty of every man who loved his country to support the Government. - -The war, which so engaged and diverted the popular mind, served as a -cover for the continued manipulation of primaries and conventions, -and the consummation of huge schemes of public plunder. Wood himself -pointed out that from 1850 to 1860 the expenses of the city government -had increased from over $3,200,000 to $9,758,000, yet his tenure of -office from 1860 to 1862 was characterized by even worse corruption -than had flourished so signally in his previous terms. After his -installation, in 1860, it was charged that he had sold the office of -City Inspector to Samuel Downes, a man of wealth, for $20,000; that -Downes had paid $10,000 to certain confederates of Wood, and that he -had afterward been cheated out of the office. Another charge, the facts -of which were related in a presentment by the Grand Jury, accused Wood -of robbing the taxpayers of $420,000. The Common Council had awarded a -five-years’ street-cleaning contract to Andrew J. Hackley, at $279,000 -a year, notwithstanding the fact that one among other responsible -persons had bid $84,000 a year less. Afraid to submit the contract to -the ordeal of public opinion, which might give rise to injunctions, -the Common Council sped it through both boards on the same night. -Waiting in his office until nearly midnight for the express purpose -of signing it, the Mayor hastily affixed his signature the moment it -reached him. The Grand Jury found that the sum of $40,000 in bribes had -been raised and paid for the passage of the contract. It was asserted -that the equivalent Wood received for signing the bill was one-fourth -the amount of the contract, or $69,750 a year, for five years, free of -any other consideration than his signature, the other beneficiaries -of the contract supplying all the money needed to protect the fraud. -Spurred on by public opinion, the police--when the work was not done in -compliance with the contract--had reported to the Controller, who had -refused to pay the monthly bills. Then the contractors reduced the pay -of their laborers from $1.25 to 95 cents a day in order to make good -their payments to Wood.[8] - -Hiram Ketchum, in November, 1861, publicly accused Wood of promising -two men--Woodruff and Hoffman--Mozart Hall nominations for Judgeships, -upon which they each paid $5,000 in checks to Wood’s account for -“election expenses.” Pocketing the money, Wood then made an agreement -with Tammany to unite on two other men--Monell and Barbour--for Judges, -on condition that Tammany should not unite with the Republicans against -him in the December Mayoralty election. - -S. B. Chittenden, a citizen of wealth and standing, charged, in Cooper -Institute, November 26, 1861, that the signature of the Street Cleaning -Commissioner necessary for certain documents could be bought for -$2,500, and intimated that Wood was not dissociated from the procedure. - -Wood had spent an enormous amount in his political schemes. He himself -admitted, according to the testimony of A. W. Craven, Chief Engineer of -the Croton Aqueduct Department, before a committee of Aldermen, “that -his object in removing heads of departments was to get control of the -departments, so that he could put in those who would cooperate with him -and, also, could pay off his obligations.”[9] - -It is possible to give only an outline of the “jobs” stealthily put -through the Common Council. Newspaper criticism was, in a measure, -silenced by appropriations of from $10,000 to $20,000 a year for -“advertising,” though occasional exposures were made in spite of this. -One of these related to the appropriation of $105,000 in July, 1860, -for a few days’ entertainment of the Japanese Embassy in New York. Of -this sum only a few thousand dollars were used for the purpose, the -rest being stolen.[10] - -Never more than now was patriotism shown to be the last refuge of -scoundrels. Taking advantage of the war excitement, the most audacious -designs on the city treasury were executed under color of acts of the -purest patriotism. At a special meeting of the Common Council, on -August 21, 1861, called ostensibly to help the families of the poor -volunteers, a measure providing for the appointment of twenty-two -Street Opening Commissioners was hurriedly passed, upon motion of -Alderman Terence Farley, against whom several untried indictments -were pending. Without entering into details, it can be said that this -action represented a theft of $250,000, in that the Commissioners were -superfluous, and their offices were created merely to make more places -for a hungry host of political workers. - -If the city was a richer prize than ever to the politicians, the -Legislature was no less desirable. Alien members of both branches of -that body were under the complete domination of political managers. -It was notorious that the Democratic and the Republican lobby lords -exchanged the votes of their respective legislative vassals, so that it -mattered little to either which political party had the ascendency in -the Legislature. One celebrated lobbyist declared that it was cheaper -to buy, than to elect, a Legislature. The passage of five franchises by -the Legislature, on April 17, 1860, over Gov. Morgan’s veto, cost the -projectors upwards of $250,000 in money and stock.[11] - -Apparently hostile, the leaders of Tammany and of Mozart Hall soon saw -that it was to their mutual benefit to have a secret understanding -as to the division of the spoils. While Mozart had supremacy for the -moment, Tammany had superior advantages. It could point to a long -record; its organization was perfect; it had a perpetual home, and -the thousands of its disappointed ward-workers and voters who had -transferred their allegiance to Mozart, in the hope of better reward, -would certainly flow back in time. This changing about was an old -feature of New York politics. A successful political party was always -depleted by thousands of office-seekers who left its ranks because -disappointed in their hopes. Most important of all, Tammany had dealt -the decisive blow to Mozart Hall at the Charleston convention, in 1860, -and at the Syracuse convention, in September, 1861, when its delegation -secured the recognition of “regularity.” - -Hence Mozart Hall, to avoid losing the State offices, willingly -bargained with Tammany, and in the Fall of 1861 the two combined on -nominees for the Legislature. They could not agree on the Mayoralty, -Wood determining to stand for reelection. But true to their agreement -not to ally themselves with the Republicans, the Tammany leaders -nominated independently, selecting C. Godfrey Gunther. Once more a -non-partizan movement sprang up to combat the forces of corruption. -The People’s Union, composed of Republicans and Democrats, succeeded, -despite the usual frauds, in electing George P. Opdyke, a Republican, -by less than 1,000 plurality, he receiving 25,380 votes; Gunther, -24,767; and Wood 24,167. In violation of the law, returns in ten -districts were held back for evident purposes of manipulation. When the -figures showed Opdyke’s election, attempts were made to deprive him -of his certificate on the pretense that the returns as published in -the daily newspapers were inaccurate. After much counting by the Board -of Aldermen, whose attempt at “counting out” Opdyke was frustrated by -the vigilance of his friends, the latter was declared elected by 613 -plurality. - -Newspaper accounts described a lively time, quite in keeping with a -long line of precedents, in Tammany Hall on election night. The crowd -was in unpleasant humor because of Gunther’s defeat. When “Jimmy” -Nesbit, a good-natured heeler of the Sixth Ward, was called upon to -preside, he tried to evoke cheers for Gunther. Chafing at the lack -of enthusiasm, he swore fiercely at his hearers. A shout was heard, -“Three cheers for Fernando Wood,” whereupon the eminent chairman lost -his equanimity and let fly a pitcher at the offender’s head. He was -on the point of heaving another missile, a large pewter pitcher, -but a bystander caught his hand. Cries of “Tammany is not dead yet,” -were heard, and then Chauncey Shaeffer regaled the crowd with the -information that he got his first meal, with liquor thrown in, at -Tammany Hall, sixteen years before, and he would never desert her. -Shaeffer told the Tammanyites how he had gone to the White House and -advised the President to let out the job of putting down the rebellion -to Tammany Hall. Cries broke forth of, “You’re drunk, Shaeffer!” -“You’re a disgrace to Tammany Hall.” After trying to sing “The Red, -White and Blue,” Shaeffer stumbled off the platform. Isaiah Rynders -then arose, and after denouncing the leaders for not being there, -assured his hearers that there were many respectable gentlemen present -and some d--d fools. This edifying meeting ended by “the chairman -jumping from the platform and chasing a Wood man out of the room.” - -Though no longer in office, Wood was still a powerful factor, since -Mozart Hall, of which he was the head, could poll, or pretend to poll, -25,000 votes. Further overtures were made between him and the leaders -of Tammany in 1862, with the result that an understanding was reached -to divide the nominations equally. The partition was conducted amicably -until the office of Surrogate was reached. Besides this there was an -odd member of the Assembly not accounted for. The leaders could not -agree as to how these two offices should be disposed of, and on the -evening of October 2 the general committee met in the Wigwam to discuss -the profound problem. Crowds were gathered inside and outside the hall, -in the lobby, bar-room and on the stairs. The excitement was such that -a squad of police was sent to the scene to maintain peace. - -Their services were needed. Heated discussions had been going on all -the evening. Richard B. Connolly had his “party” on hand, eager for the -fray. Francis I. A. Boole mustered his retainers by the score--“fine -strapping fellows, with upturned sleeves and significant red shirts -that told of former battles and hard-earned laurels.” At 11 o’clock the -fighting began. It had not progressed far, however, when the police -charged, and wielding their clubs right and left, drove the combatants -in disorder into the street. The committee was in session nearly all -night, but a renewal of the scrimmage was not attempted. - -After much haggling, the factions finally agreed. Nominations -brought such great sums that the severe contention of the leaders -is easily explainable. A hint of the enormous sums wrung from this -source was given by Judge Maynard, when addressing a meeting of the -“Representative Democracy,” in Cooper Union, on October 27, 1863. He -stated that one man in Mozart Hall (doubtless referring to Fernando -Wood) was the chief of all the “strikers” in New York City, and that -this person made from $100,000 to $200,000 every year marketing -offices.[12] Nominations and appointments went to the highest bidders, -and some of the leaders held as many as thirteen different offices -each. At the same meeting W. R. Ranken stated that “the manner in -which these two organizations--Tammany and Mozart Hall--have packed -their preliminary conventions and organizations, has been of such a -character as to bring the blush of shame to every man of principle in -the party. No man, were he to poll 10,000 votes, under those primary -elections, could be admitted within the precincts of Tammany Hall -unless he came with the indorsement of the Election Inspectors who were -under the influence of the two or three men who held the reins of power -there.”[13] - -The State and Congressional elections in November showed the power of -the combined halls. Seymour, for Governor, carried the city by 31,309 -plurality. Among the Democratic Congressmen elected was Fernando Wood, -who, evidently despairing of again filling the Mayor’s chair, had -determined to employ his activities in another field. - -The city election for minor officers occurred in December, and the two -halls again won. The apportionment of the offices, however, caused a -number of clashes. One of the offices filled was that of Corporation -Counsel, the nomination to which fell to the lot of Mozart Hall. Wood -had promised it to John K. Hackett, subsequently Recorder, but gave it -to John E. Devlin, a Sachem, supposed to be one of Wood’s bitterest -opponents. By way of smoothing Hackett’s ire, Wood promised to have him -appointed Corporation Attorney. This promise was also broken. Hackett -went to Wood’s house and was shown into his parlor. “Mr. Wood,” said -Hackett, as soon as the man who had been thrice Mayor of the metropolis -of America appeared, “I called to say to you, personally, that you are -a scoundrel, a rascal and a perjured villain.” Wood threatened to put -him out and rang the bell. As the servant was on the point of entering, -Hackett drew a revolver from his pocket and went on: “If that man comes -between us, I shall blow out his brains and cut off your ears. So you -may as well listen. On a certain night, in a room of the Astor House, -were four persons, Mr. D., Mr. X., Mr. Y., and yourself. One of these -four is a scoundrel, a rascal, a perjured villain and a hound. It is -not Mr. D., nor Mr. X., nor Mr. Y. Who he is, I leave you to imagine.” - -The degraded state of politics, sinking yearly still lower, caused -unspeakable disgust, but the honest element of the citizenship seemed -powerless. The occasional election of a reform Mayor made little -difference in the situation, for either through the impotence of -his position or his personal incompetency, the spoilsmen managed to -prevail. The Common Council was the supreme power, and this body -Tammany, or Tammany and Mozart together, generally controlled. The -public money was spent as the Aldermen pleased. The Mayor’s veto became -a legal fiction, for a bare majority[14] sufficed to overcome it, and -this could generally be secured through deals and the trading of votes -on one another’s “jobs.” The veto, in the words of a later Mayor, -amounted “to nothing more than the publication of his remonstrance in -corporation newspapers, to cause a few hours’ delay and excite the -contempt of the members [of the Common Council] who have determined to -carry their measure in spite of his remonstrance.”[15] - -Public indignation resulted in another anti-Tammany demonstration of -strength in 1863. The Wigwam nominated for Mayor, Francis I. A. Boole, -generally considered as nauseating a type of the politician as Tammany -could bring forth. Independent Democrats and some Republicans thereupon -rallied to the support of C. Godfrey Gunther, nominee of a new “reform” -organization--the “McKeon Democracy.” The Republican organization, -however, stood apart, nominating Orison Blunt. Gunther was elected, -receiving 29,121 votes, to 22,579 for Boole, and 19,383 for Blunt. At -this, as in previous elections, there were unmistakable Wigwam frauds, -such as repeating and altering election returns. - -Hitherto, in Presidential conventions since Van Buren’s time, -the Democratic candidates had been nominated against Tammany’s -resistance, the organization having had each time a candidate of its -own whom it sought to force on the convention. In 1864, however, the -Wigwam shrewdly anticipated the action of the Chicago convention by -recommending McClellan as the Democratic nominee. On the night of -McClellan’s nomination, Tammany held a ratification meeting in the City -Hall Park, denounced “the imbecility of the administration of Abraham -Lincoln” in the conduct of the war and “its ruinous financial policy,” -and declared that it had “forfeited the confidence of the loyal States; -usurped powers not granted by the Constitution; endeavored to render -the executive, aided by the military, superior to the judicial and -legislative branches of the Government, and assumed to destroy life and -confiscate property by its unconstitutional proclamations.” Again, on -November 16, at a meeting of the general committee, George H. Purser, -a lobbyist and organization leader, offered a resolution, which was -unanimously approved, practically declaring the war a failure. - -In this election the Republicans took precautions to prevent repetition -of the frauds of preceding years. An investigation disclosed illegal -registration on a large scale. To hold the lawless in check, Gen. -Benjamin F. Butler was ordered to New York. He brought 6,000 of his own -troops, with artillery and a regiment of regulars, which he kept within -call outside of the city until after the election, and he established -a civilian system of surveillance in every election district. An -unusually orderly election was the result, though fraud was not -entirely suppressed, and it was charged that both sides were parties to -it. McClellan received a majority in the city of 37,023, of the total -vote of 110,433. - -In 1865 Tammany again nominated Francis I. A. Boole for Mayor. Boole, -as City Inspector, was the head of a department which embraced the -Street Cleaning and Health Bureaus. Daniel B. Badger testified before -the Senate Investigating Committee of 1865 that in the previous year -he had put in a written bid to clean the streets for $300,000, but when -it was opened, Boole announced loudly that it was $500,000, and gave -the contract elsewhere, with the consequence that it cost $800,000 to -clean the streets in 1864.[16] Many witnesses swore that they paid -various sums, ranging about $200 each, for positions under Boole, only -to be suddenly dismissed later.[17] A surprising number of men were on -Boole’s payrolls who had other business and who appeared only to draw -their salaries.[18] The filthy condition of the city entailed a fearful -sacrifice of life, the average deaths yearly being no less than 33 in -1,000.[19] Nearly all the 220 Health Wardens and special inspectors -under Boole were illiterate and unfit. One of them testified that he -thought “the term ‘hygienic’ meant the odor arising from stagnant -water.”[20] - -Boole, about this time, was engaged in other activities than the -protection of the city’s health. In a suit brought by William Elmer -against Robert Milbank in the Superior Court, in 1867, Milbank -testified that he had called upon Boole to learn how he could secure -the passage of an ordinance allowing the People’s Gas Light Company to -lay pipes in the streets. Boole referred him to Charles E. Loew,[21] -a clerk in the Common Council, and later County Clerk, and a noted -Tammany figure. Milbank gave Loew $20,000 cash[22] and $30,000 in -stock, whereupon the Common Council passed the ordinance on the same -night. - -Public criticism was so caustic that Tammany withdrew Boole and -nominated John T. Hoffman, a man of some popularity and considerable -ability. The Mozart faction nominated John Hecker, a religious and -political enthusiast of narrow views, but acceptable to the Mozart -“boys” or “strikers,” because of his willingness to supply an abundance -of money. Smith Ely, Jr., urged Hecker to withdraw, as his candidacy -was hopeless. “Mr. Ely,” said Hecker, “you form your opinions in -the ordinary way of a business man and politician, but I receive my -impressions directly from on High.” The Republicans nominated Marshall -O. Roberts, and the “McKeon Democracy” renominated Gunther. - -Frauds were as common as ever. It was well established that 15,000 -persons who had registered could not be found at the places given as -their residences. In the disreputable districts, upon which Tammany -depended for a large vote, a non-Tammany speaker was in actual danger -of his life. Hoffman received 32,820 votes; Roberts, 31,657; Hecker, -10,390, and Gunther, 6,758. - -There is little to say of Hoffman’s administration. Frauds and thefts -of every description continued as before, though it is not possible to -connect his name with any of them. His popularity grew. The Tammany -Society elected him Grand Sachem, the Democratic State Committee named -him for Governor in 1866,[23] and toward the end of his term as Mayor -he was renominated for that office. Fernando Wood again came forth -as the Mozart Hall nominee, and the Republicans selected William -A. Darling. Hoffman swept everything before him (December, 1867), -receiving 63,061 votes, to 22,837 for Wood, and 18,483 for Darling. - -The total vote was 104,481, an increase of 22,779 in two years. The -reasons for this astounding augmentation were no secret to any one. -Repeating was one cause, and false registration was another; in -one ward alone--the Eighteenth--in this election, 1,500 fraudulent -registrations were discovered. But the main cause was illegal -naturalization. In the Supreme Court and the Court of Common Pleas, -citizens were turned out at the rate, often, of about 1,000 a day. -The State census of 1865 gave the city 51,500 native and 77,475 -naturalized voters.[24] The figures were doubtless false, probably -having been swelled to allow fraudulent totals at the polls to come -within the limits of an officially declared total of eligible voters. -Nevertheless, the figures are significant of the proportion of aliens -to natives. The predominance of the former, moreover, was daily made -greater through the connivance of corrupt Judges with the frauds of -the politicians. The bulk of these aliens added to the hopelessness of -the local situation. With their European ideas and training, and their -ignorance of our political problems, they became the easy prey of the -ward “bosses” and aided in imposing upon the city a reign of unexampled -corruption. - -Heretofore the Tammany organization had been held in the control of -constantly changing combinations. Duumvirates, triumvirates and cliques -of various numbers of men had risen, prospered and passed away. The -period is now reached when the power became centralized in one man. -Fernando Wood had illustrated the feasibility of the “boss” system; -William M. Tweed now appeared to develop it to its highest pitch. The -“boss” was the natural result of the recognized political methods. -Where, as in previous times, three or four or half a dozen leaders -had put their wits together and dictated and sold nominations, Tweed, -astute, unprincipled and thoroughly versed in the most subterranean -phases of ward politics, now gathered this power exclusively in his own -hands. How he and his followers used it was disclosed in the operations -of the extraordinary Tweed, or Tammany “Ring.” - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] Statement to the author by Douglas Taylor, then his private -secretary. - -[2] Fowler was an exception to the average run of the leaders who -preceded him, in that he was a college graduate and moved in the best -social circles. With a view of bettering the “tone” of the Wigwam, he -had induced a number of rich young men to join the organization. - -[3] _Report of Postmaster-General Holt, Senate Documents, 1st Session, -36th Congress_, Vol. XI, No. 48. Also Postmaster-General Holt’s -communication to James J. Roosevelt, United States District Attorney, -at New York, _Ibid._, XIII, No. 91, p. 11. - -[4] Nelson J. Waterbury, Grand Sachem (1862), was at this time, and had -been for several years, Fowler’s Assistant Postmaster. - -[5] Statement by Mr. Tucker to the author. Confirmed by reference to -report of Charles E. Wilbour to the Board of Supervisors, May 26, 1870. - -[6] _Proceedings of the Board of Aldermen_, Vol. LXXXI, pp. 25-26. - -[7] This regiment was the Forty-second New York Infantry. Kennedy died -a few days after the arrival in Washington, and was succeeded by a -regular army officer. The Forty-second took part in thirty-six battles -and engagements. Its record stood: killed 92; wounded, 328; missing, -298. - -[8] Hackley, in fact, received $279,000 for only six months’ work. -During the two years “for which he received full pay he has not done -more than one year’s actual work in cleaning the city, as the returns -in this department abundantly prove.” _Documents of the Board of -Aldermen_, 1863, part 1, No. 4. - -[9] _Documents of the Board of Aldermen_, 1860-61, Vol. XXVII, No. 18. - -[10] The original appropriation had been $30,000. The joint Council -committee, of which Francis I. A. Boole was the head, submitted bills -for alleged expenditures aggregating $125,000. Boole explained that his -colleagues considered this sum excessive, and would therefore “knock -off” $20,000. _Documents of the Board of Aldermen_, 1861, No. 17. - -[11] For this and other instances see _The History of Public Franchises -in New York City_, by the author. - -[12] This speech was reprinted in the New York _Herald_, October 28, -1863. The _Herald_ was known as Wood’s special organ. - -[13] In a remarkable report handed down in 1862 by a select committee -of the Board of Aldermen, the admission was made that the “primary -elections are notoriously and proverbially the scenes of the most -disgraceful fraud, chicanery and violence. They are without legal -restraint or regulation, nor can such restraint or regulation be -imposed upon them. Peaceable and orderly citizens, almost without -exception, refuse to attend these meetings.” _Documents of the Board of -Aldermen_, 1862, Vol. XXIX, No. 7. - -[14] The reformers of the city had unsuccessfully sought to incorporate -in the charter of 1853, a clause requiring a two-thirds vote to -overcome a veto. - -[15] _Documents of the Board of Aldermen_, 1865, part 1, No. 1. - -[16] _Senate Documents_, 1865, Vol. II, No. 38, pp. 75-76. - -[17] _Ibid._, pp. 166-70, etc. - -[18] _Ibid._, pp. 252-56. - -[19] City Inspector’s Report for 1863. The wretched condition of -the city about this time caused the Legislature to establish the -Metropolitan Board of Health, to have jurisdiction over the counties of -New York, Kings, Westchester and Richmond and certain other territory. -This board’s first report declared that the hygienic conditions of the -city were disgusting and horrible; that epidemics were frequent, and -that one-third of the deaths occurring in New York and Brooklyn were -due to zymotic diseases. See _Report of Metropolitan Board of Health_, -1866, p. 133. - -[20] _Senate Documents_, 1865, No. 38. - -[21] Loew was several times a Sachem, holding that rank as late as 1886. - -[22] See Judgment Roll (1867) in the Superior Court docket and Exhibit -A, forming part of the bill of particulars. - -[23] He was defeated by Reuben E. Fenton. - -[24] From 1847 to 1860, 2,671,745 immigrants landed at the Port of New -York. _Documents of the Board of Aldermen_, 1861, Vol. XXVIII, No. 5. -In 1855 the native voters in New York City had numbered 46,173, and the -aliens, 42,704. - - - - -CHAPTER XXIII - -THE TWEED “RING” - -1867-1870 - - -The Tweed “Ring” was, in a measure, the outgrowth of the act of 1857 -creating the Board of Supervisors. The Whigs, and their successors, -the Republicans, had up to that year held the legislative power of -the State for the greater part of ten years, during which their chief -concern had been the devising of means for keeping down the Democratic -majority in New York City. Their legislation was directed to the -transferring of as much as they could of the government of the city to -State officials, a change generally welcomed by the honest part of the -citizenship, on account of the continuous misgovernment inflicted by -city officials. - -The real result of these transfers, however, was merely to make -two strongholds of corruption instead of one. The Republican power -in Albany and the Tammany power in New York City found it to their -interests to arrange terms for the distribution of patronage and -booty. Accordingly, as one means to that end, the Board of Supervisors -for New York County was created. It was founded strictly as a State -institution. Unlike the Boards of Supervisors of other counties, it had -no power to tax. It could only ascertain and levy the taxes decreed -by the State Legislature, which was required to pass yearly a special -act declaring the amount necessary for the maintenance of the city -government. It was to be an elective body, and each side was to have an -equal quota of the twelve members. But in the first board convened, -this delicate balance was upset, as has been shown, by the buying of a -Republican member, which in effect gave Tammany a majority. - -William M. Tweed was born in Cherry street in 1823. He spent the -usual life of a New York boy. His father was a chairmaker in good -circumstances and gave his children a fair education. Fascinated, as -were most New York boys of the period, with the life of a volunteer -fireman, he became a runner with Engine 12 before he was of age, and -in 1849 he was elected foreman of another fire company. Carrying a -silver-mounted trumpet, a white fire-coat over his arm and wearing an -old-fashioned stiff hat, he led the ropes. So popular was young Tweed -that he became a powerful factor in ward politics, and gifted with -the qualities that counted most in those circles, he was not slow in -utilizing his popularity. The Americus Club, for a long time Tweed’s -favorite quarters, and at times the place where Tammany politics were -determined, was started with him as its foremost luminary. - -Though defeated for Assistant Alderman in 1850, he was elected the next -year and served in the “Forty Thieves” Board. He was a delegate, in -1852, to the Congressional convention of the Fifth District, composed -of two East Side wards of New York City, and Williamsburg. A deadlock -ensued, through each of two candidates polling forty-four votes. -Finally the Williamsburg delegates “threw over” their favorite and -voted for Tweed, who as chairman of the convention, cast the deciding -vote for himself, with the statement that “Tweedie never goes back on -Tweedie.” He was elected, but beaten for reelection, in 1854, by the -“Know-Nothings.” The latter he fought so persistently that he became -known as the champion of the foreign element. He was made a Sachem of -the Tammany Society because of his extreme popularity, and in 1857 -he was elected to the Board of Supervisors. Selling his business of -chairmaking, he thereupon devoted his entire time to politics. - -The first “ring” was the Supervisors’ “Ring,” founded in 1859 by the -Democrats in the board for the purpose of procuring the appointment of -Inspectors of Election.[1] One member of the board, as already shown, -was bribed by a present of $2,500 to stay away from a session when the -Inspectors were appointed. Tweed was so well pleased with the success -of this scheme that he was inspired to wider efforts. Aided by two -men--Walter Roche and John R. Briggs--he began a systematic course of -lobbying before the Board of Aldermen in support of excessive bills -for supplies. He and his associates collected heavy tribute on every -successful bill. - -His prestige was not visibly lessened by his defeat for Sheriff, in -1861, by James Lynch, a popular Irishman. In the same year he was -elected chairman of the Tammany General Committee. This instantly made -him a person of great political importance. But his grasp was yet -insecure, since a hostile body of Sachems might at any time declare -the general committee “irregular.” Recognizing this, he planned to -dominate the society by having himself elected Grand Sachem. Holding -these two positions, he reckoned that his power would be absolute. -For the time, however, he thought it wise to be satisfied with the -one; but eventually he succeeded Hoffman as Grand Sachem, and in his -dual positions gained complete control of the political situation and -dictated nominations at will. - -The title of “boss” he earned by his despotic action in the general -committee. When a question was to be voted upon which he wished to have -determined in his favor, he would neglect to call for negative votes -and would decide in the affirmative, with a significantly admonishing -glance at the opposing side. Soon friends and enemies alike called him -“Boss” Tweed, and he did not seem to take the title harshly. - -He made short shrift of his antagonists. Once, when chairman of -a Tammany nominating convention, he declared the nomination of -Michael Ulshoeffer, for Judge, unanimous, amid a storm of protests. -On adjournment, thirty delegates remained behind to make a -counter-nomination. Tweed blocked their plan by having the gas turned -off. - -Meanwhile he daily increased his strong personal following. Nominally -Deputy Street Commissioner, to which place he was appointed in 1863, he -was virtually the head of that department, and could employ, when so -inclined, thousands of laborers, who could be used in manipulating ward -primaries when the ward leaders showed a spirit of revolt. The Aldermen -had to apply to him for jobs for their ward supporters. As a member -of the Board of Supervisors at the same time, he was in a position to -exercise his mandatory influence respecting the passage of resolutions -dealing with expenditures and the giving out of contracts. In 1868 he -added a third office to the list--that of State Senator, and was thus -enabled to superintend personally the “running” of the Legislature. - -The members of the “ring”--Tweed and his subordinates, Peter B. Sweeny, -Richard B. Connolly and the rest--were growing rich at a rapid rate. -According to the subsequent testimony of James H. Ingersoll, it was -in 1867 that the understanding was reached that persons who supplied -the public offices with materials would be required to increase the -percentages given to the officials, and that all purveyors to the city -must comply. The previous tax had been but 10 per cent., and it had -been somewhat irregularly levied. A few tradesmen refused to pay the -advance, but plenty there were to take their places. Ingersoll was one -of these. He was told to fix his bills so as to “put up 35 per cent.,” -and he obligingly complied with the command. Of the 35 per cent. -collected, 25 went to Tweed and 10 to Controller Connolly. - -Tweed had become dissatisfied with the old Tammany Hall building, and -a site for a new hall--the present location on Fourteenth street--was -secured. The funds in hand for the building were insufficient, -however, and had to be augmented by private subscription. It well -illustrates the liberality with which the Tammany chieftains were -supplying themselves financially, to note that when John Kelly, the -Grand Sachem, at a meeting of the society announced that a loan of -$250,000 would be needed, the sum of $175,000 was subscribed on the -spot, fifteen members alone subscribing $10,000 each.[2] A far more -astonishing incident happened in the Fall of 1867, when Peter B. -Sweeny, the City Chamberlain,[3] announced his determination to give to -the city treasury, for the benefit of the taxpayers, over $200,000 a -year, interest money, which before that had been pocketed by the City -Chamberlain. - -While the “ring” was plundering the city and plotting theft on a more -gigantic scale, the Sachems, many of them implicated in the frauds, -laid the corner-stone of the new Tammany Hall building. The ceremony -was marked by the characteristic pronouncement of virtuous-sounding -phrases. “Brothers and friends,” rhapsodized Mayor Hoffman, “in the -name of the Tammany Society, I proceed to lay the corner-stone of -a new hall which will, for the next half century at least, be the -headquarters of the Democracy of New York, where the great principles -of civil and religious liberty, constitutional law and national unity, -which form the great corner-stones of the republic, will always be -advocated and maintained.…” The “braves” then marched to Irving Hall, -where Tweed, Sweeny and Connolly had caused such inscriptions as these -to be hung about: “Civil liberty the glory of man”; “The Democratic -party--Upon its union and success depends the future of the republic. -He who would seek to lower its standard of patriotism and principle, or -distract its councils, is an enemy to the country.” Gazing approvingly -on these inscriptions from the platform sat Tweed, Sweeny and Connolly, -A. Oakey Hall and a host of Judges and office-holders of all sorts, -while Andrew J. Garvey (who will reappear in these chapters) conducted -the invited guests. The building of this hall--an imposing one for the -day--in a central part of the city, gave to the Tweed combination an -advantage of no inconsiderable significance. - -In the new Wigwam, on July 4, 1868, the Democratic national convention -was held. Tammany, in fact, forced its candidate, Horatio Seymour, -on the convention. The galleries were filled with seasoned Wigwam -shouters, cheering vociferously for Seymour. Only persons having -tickets were admitted, and these tickets were distributed by an able -young Wigwam politician, who saw to it that only the right sort of -persons gained entrance. Gaining its point on the nomination, Tammany -magnanimously allowed the Southern men to dictate the declaration in -the platform that the reconstruction acts were “unconstitutional, -revolutionary and void.” There was a general suspicion that the -organization, hopeless of the election of a Democratic President, had -forced Seymour’s nomination for the purpose of trading votes for its -State and local ticket. - -The State convention again named Hoffman for Governor, and -preparations began for a lively campaign. Tammany addressed itself -to the citizenship as the defender of the interests of the poor, and -instanced the candidacy of John A. Griswold for Governor, Edwin D. -Morgan for Governor, and “several other millionaires,” as a proof of -the plutocratic tendencies of the Republican party. On October 19 the -general committee, with Tweed in the chair, adopted an address urging -the people to stand by Seymour and Blair. Continuing, it said: - - “We are united. We believe in our cause. It is the cause of - constitutional liberty, of personal rights, of a fraternity of - States, of an economical government, of the financial credit - of the nation, of one currency for all men, rich and poor, and - of the political supremacy of the white race and protection - of American labor.… [Hoffman] is the friend of the poor, the - sympathizer with the naturalized citizen, and the foe to - municipal oppression in the form of odious excise and all other - requisitional laws.… Is not the pending contest preeminently - one of capital against labor, of money against popular rights, - and of political power against the struggling interests of the - masses?” - -Public addresses and pronunciamentos, however, formed but a small part -of the Tammany program for 1868. For six weeks the naturalization mills -worked with the greatest regularity in the Supreme, Common Pleas and -Superior Courts, producing, it was estimated, from 25,000 to 30,000 -citizens, of whom not less than 85 per cent. voted the Tammany Hall -ticket. On October 30 Tweed announced to the general committee that -“at 10 o’clock to-morrow the money for electioneering purposes will -be distributed” and that those who came first would be served first. -The chairman of the executive committee spread forth the glad tidings -that there was $1,000 ready for each election district. There being -327 election districts, this made a fund of $327,000 from the general -committee alone, exclusive of the sums derived in the districts -themselves from the saloon-keepers and the tradesmen, whose fear of -inviting reprisals by Tammany officials made them “easy marks” for -assessments. Tweed personally suggested to the twenty-four leaders the -stuffing of ballot boxes.[4] By fraudulent naturalization, repeating, -the buying and trading of votes, and intimidation, Seymour secured -a total of 108,316 votes, against 47,762 for Grant. The whole vote -of the city was swelled to 156,288, of which, it was conclusively -demonstrated, at least 25,000 were fraudulent.[5] Tweed himself -confessed, nine years later, that he thought the Inspectors of -Elections “lumped” the votes and declared them without counting, in -order to overcome the result in the rest of the State and give the -electoral vote to Seymour.[6] To prevent the Republicans from getting -the use of certain telegraph wires on election night, Tweed sent out -long, useless messages, and it was even proposed to telegraph the whole -Bible if necessary.[7] - -Hoffman was swept into the Governorship on the strength of the frauds. -His election left vacant the Mayor’s chair, and a special election to -fill it was called for the first Tuesday of December. - -It was all essential to the “ring” that its candidate, A. Oakey -Hall, should be elected. The candidacy of Frederick A. Conkling, the -Republican nominee, was not feared, but John Kelly, who controlled -a considerable part of the Irish vote, was a threatening factor. -Disappointed at not receiving a new post at the close of his term -as Sheriff, he had led a revolt against the “ring,” and had himself -nominated for Mayor at the Masonic Hall “reform” convention. -“Influences” were soon set at work; and suddenly, after Kelly had -appeared before the nominating convention and accepted the nomination, -he withdrew from the contest, on the score of ill-health.[8] Hall -won, receiving 75,109 votes, to 20,835 for Conkling. The degree in -which Tammany fraudulently increased the vote at the November election -is indicated in the fact that at the December election, despite a -repetition of frauds, the Tammany vote declined 33,000. - -The “ring” nominations, being equivalent to election, yielded a -large price. There was no Democratic opposition, Mozart Hall having -practically passed out of existence, through Wood’s resignation of its -leadership. The revenues of the various city offices were constantly -rising, and a keener competition for the places arose. In 1866, before -the really extensive operations of the “ring” began, it was estimated -that the offices of Sheriff and County Clerk were worth $40,000 a year -each. Several years later it was found that the yearly revenue of the -Register amounted to between $60,000 and $70,000, partly derived from -illegal fees. It was well known that one Register had received the sum -of $80,000 a year.[9] The yearly aggregate of the illegal transactions -in the Sheriff’s office could not be accurately ascertained; but it -was a well-authenticated fact that one Sheriff, about 1870, drew from -the office the sum of $150,000 the first year of his term. He was a -poor man when elected; upon retiring at the end of the two-years’ term, -he did not conceal the fact that he was worth $250,000, clear of all -political assessments and other deductions. - -All nominations for city, county and, too often, State offices, and -notoriously those for Judges, were dictated by Tweed. He not only -controlled all the local departments, but swayed every court below -the Court of Appeals.[10] Judges were nominated partly with a view -to the amount they could “put up,” and partly with a view to their -future decisions on political questions. Fernando Wood had frankly -presented the latter reason in his speech nominating Albert Cardozo, -one of Tweed’s most useful puppets, for the Supreme Court.[11] At -the Judiciary election of May, 1870, repeating was the order of the -day, and the registry was swelled to an enormous extent. In one of -the wards, about 1,100 negroes were registered; but when they went to -the ballot boxes, they were amazed to learn that white repeaters had -already voted upon nearly 500 of their names. Later, when a few of the -negroes tried to vote, they were arrested as repeaters. The corrupt -means used in selecting the Judiciary, and the hopelessness of securing -just verdicts in any of the courts, prompted one writer seriously -to discuss, in the pages of a standard magazine, the formation of a -vigilance committee modeled upon that of San Francisco.[12] - -Tweed had for some time recognized the importance of gaining a seat -in the State Senate. That body could at any time create or abolish -city departments or offices, or change the laws affecting them. The -Tammany officials, realizing its potentialities, had already made -terms with it, and the “ring,” which subsisted at first between the -two factions of partizans in the Board of Supervisors, had grown into -a compact “ring” between the Republican majority at Albany, the Board -of Supervisors and the Democratic officials of New York City. Tweed -saw the necessity of being at the center of political bargaining and -legislative manipulation, and accordingly had himself elected to the -upper house. - -Upon taking his seat, in 1868, he at once began to procure legislation -increasing his power in New York City. His first measure was the -“Adjusted Claims” act, which gave the City Controller power to adjust -claims then existing against the city, and to obtain money by the issue -of bonds. Payments under this act were first made by the Controller -in July, 1868, and were continued to January, 1869. During this time, -55 per cent. of the claims paid were divided among the members of the -“ring.” In July, 1869, payments under the act were resumed, but the -percentage was increased to 60 per cent., and after November, 1869, to -65 per cent. - -The conspiring contractors were led by Andrew J. Garvey, Ingersoll -& Co. and Keyser & Co. At first, 25 per cent. of the spoils went to -Tweed, 20 to Connolly and 10 to Sweeny. When the rate was subsequently -increased, others were permitted to share in the harvest, and Watson, -the County Auditor; Woodward, the clerk of the Board of Supervisors, -and the recognized go-betweens for the “ring” members, received 2½ per -cent. Five per cent. was reserved for “expenses”--in other words, the -sums necessary to bribe the requisite members of the Legislature. The -division of the spoils was a matter of daily occurrence when Tweed was -in town, and took place in the Supervisors’ room in the County Court -House. After Watson’s warrants had been cashed, Garvey would carry -Tweed’s share of the plunder to the “Boss” at the office of Street -Commissioner George W. McLean. On one such visit Garvey found McLean -present. In trying to hand the parcel secretly to Tweed, it fell on -the floor. Tweed quickly covered it with his foot, and later, with -apparent carelessness, picked it up and threw it into a drawer. The -too-ingenious Garvey was thereafter instructed to “do business” with -Woodward.[13] - -Tweed soon reached a position of general control in the State -Legislature. But it cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars. Often he -had to pay for what he wanted quite as heavily as did the corporations -who maintained lobbies there. “It was impossible to do anything there -without paying for it,” were his own words; “money had to be raised -for the passing of bills.”[14] A well-known lobbyist of the time -stated that for a favorable report on a certain bill before the Senate -$5,000 apiece was paid to four members of the committee having it -in charge. On the passage of the bill a further $5,000 apiece, with -contingent expenses, was to be paid. In another instance, when but one -vote was needed to pass a bill, three Republicans put their figures -up to $25,000 each. One of them, it is needless to say, was secured. -A band of about thirty Republicans and Democrats, shortly afterwards -becoming known as the “Black Horse Cavalry,” organized themselves -under the leadership of an energetic lobbyist, with a mutual pledge to -vote as directed.[15] Naturally their action exercised a strong “bull” -influence on the market for votes; and the sums paid by Tweed and other -“promoters” grew to an enormous aggregate. - -Honesty among legislators was at a discount. There were some honest -men in both houses who voted for several of the bills alluded to, on -their merits. The lobbyists entered these men in their memoranda to -their corporations as having been “fixed,” put the money in their -own pockets and allowed the honest members to suffer under the -imputation of having been bribed. Any corporation, however extensive -and comprehensive the privileges it asked, and however much oppression -it sought to impose upon the people in the line of unjust grants, -extortionate rates or monopoly, could convince the Legislature of the -righteousness of its requests upon “producing the proper sum.”[16] The -testimony before the Select Committee of the New York Senate, appointed -April 10, 1868, showed that at least $500,000 was expended to get -legislation legalizing fraudulent Erie Railway stock issues. - -In 1869 the “ring” opened operations in the Legislature and in -the municipal bodies on a greater scale than ever. Tweed began to -concern himself in Erie and other railroads, and to compel different -corporations to give tribute for laws passed in their interest or -for providing against hostile measures. He ordered the passage of -the Erie Classification bill, at the suggestion of “Jim” Fisk, Jr., -and Jay Gould, who for that service made him a director of the -Erie railroad.[17] At this juncture Fisk and Gould were engaged in -great stock frauds and in breeding a disastrous panic, which caused -widespread ruin and suffering. Tweed abetted their schemes. One of his -most servile tools, Judge George G. Barnard, of the Supreme Court, did -whatever Tweed directed him, especially in favor of Gould and Fisk. One -biographer of Fisk wrote quite innocently: “Jay Gould and Fisk took -William M. Tweed into their [Erie] board, and the State Legislature, -Tammany Hall and the Erie ‘Ring’ were fused in interest and have -contrived to serve each other faithfully.”[18] Once Tweed complained -that a friend “had gone back on him,” and when asked in return how it -was that he could stand such drains on his check-book, he laughed and -showed a slip of paper on which he had calculated his Erie profits for -the foregoing three months; they amounted to $650,000. - -During the campaign of 1869, for the election of members of the -Common Council and certain State officers, a legal question arose -as to whether Mayor Hall had been elected for two years or merely -for the unexpired year of Hoffman’s term. Hall claimed a two-years’ -term, and the best lawyers supported the claim. But to make sure of -the matter, Tammany, in the late days of the campaign, instructed -its members and followers to cast ballots for him, and the Police -Commissioners distributed special ballot boxes for the Mayoralty vote. -As no proclamation on the subject had been issued, the Republicans and -other opponents of Tammany Hall had no opportunity to make nominations. -Mayor Hall consequently received nearly the entire number of votes -cast--65,568, out of a total of 66,619. - -After entering the Board of Supervisors, Tweed had boasted that he -would soon be among the largest real-estate owners in the city. He made -good the boast. A comparatively poor man in 1864, he was reputed five -years later to be worth $12,000,000. This was an exaggeration, for -he was not worth anything like that sum at any one time; but he was, -nevertheless, an enormously rich man. He had investments in real estate -and iron mines; he was interested in every street opening and widening -scheme; he had a hand in all city, and in some State, contracts, and -he held directorships in many railroad and gas companies and other -corporations. Connolly, who some years before had left a position -as a book-keeper, at a moderate salary, to engage in politics “as a -financial speculation”; Sweeny, and the rest of the “ring,” suddenly -became millionaires. Many other politicians shared in the sacking of -the city. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] _Documents of the Board of Aldermen_, 1877, part 2, No. 8, pp. -15-16. This document, embodying the full confession of Tweed before -a special investigating committee, will be frequently referred to in -this and the following chapter. Its value as a support to many of the -statements made in the text of this work rests upon the credibility -of Tweed’s word. The best opinion is that Tweed told the approximate -truth. He was not a vengeful man; he was, at the time, old, and broken -in power and health; he had no reason for concealment or evasion, and -it is unlikely, considering his moral temperament, that he would have -made false statements for the purpose of involving innocent men, or of -adding to the sum of venality already proved against the guilty. - -[2] New York _Herald_, September 10, 1867. - -[3] “I heard that Peter B. Sweeny paid $60,000 for his confirmation -as City Chamberlain by the Board of Aldermen”--Tweed’s testimony, -_Document No. 8_, p. 105. - -[4] _Document No. 8_, p. 225. - -[5] It was probably at this election that a certain amusing incident in -the swearing in of the Election Inspectors occurred. No Bible being at -hand, they were sworn on a copy of Ollendorf’s _New Method of Learning -to Read, Write and Speak French_. The courts subsequently upheld the -substitution of Ollendorf for the Bible, deciding that it was not -such an act as would vitiate the election. _Documents of the Board of -Supervisors_, 1870, Vol. II, No. 12. - -[6] _Document No. 8_, pp. 133-34. - -[7] _Document No. 8_, p. 226. - -[8] Kelly left rather hastily for Europe, where he remained three years. - -[9] Report of the Bar Association Committee on Extortions, March 5, -1872. - -[10] Tilden: _The Tweed Ring_, J. Polhemus, 1873. - -[11] “The Ermine in the ‘Ring,’” _Putnam’s Magazine_ supplement (about -1869). It happened that a singular suit brought by Wood against the -city came before this very Judge, when Wood obtained by his decision a -judgment for $180,000 for the rent of premises owned by him, not worth, -for any use of the city, over $35,000. The buildings, in great part, -were so unfit for use that the city, although paying rent for them for -years, established its departments elsewhere. Wood re-leased these -unused offices, collecting a double rent. - -[12] _Ibid._ - -[13] Garvey’s testimony, _Tweed Case_, etc., Supreme Court, 1876, Vol. -I: pp. 814-16. - -[14] _Document No. 8_, p. 29. - -[15] _Document No. 8_, pp. 212-13. - -[16] New York _Sun_, February 6, 1871. - -[17] Q.--“Did you ever receive any money from either Fisk or Gould to -be used in bribing the Legislature?” - -A.--“I did, sir! They were of frequent occurrence. Not only did -I receive money, but I find by an examination of the papers that -everybody else who received money from the Erie Railroad charged it to -me.” Tweed: _Document No. 8_, p. 149. - -[18] _A Life of James Fisk, Jr._, New York, 1871. - - - - -CHAPTER XXIV - -TWEED IN HIS GLORY - -1870-1871 - - -Urged by various motives, a number of Tammany leaders combined against -Tweed: Some sought more plunder, others felt that their political -aspirations had not been sufficiently recognized, and a number were -incensed against Sweeny. They were led by Henry W. Genet, John Fox, -John Morrissey, James O’Brien, “Mike” Norton and others, and called -themselves the “Young Democracy.” Tweed had used these men in building -his power; now, combined, they believed they could retire him. The -dangerous classes joined them. Heretofore, these had stood by Tweed -under a reciprocal agreement valuable to both sides. But the “Boss” -had recently yielded to the public indignation over the leniency shown -to an influential murderer, and had given orders to the Judges to -deal more severely with flagrant criminal cases. This act constituted -a virtual breaking of the compact, and the lawbreakers with one -accord turned against him. There were at this time in the city, -it was charged, about 30,000 professional thieves, 2,000 gambling -establishments and 3,000 saloons.[1] - -The plan of the Young Democracy leaders was to induce the Legislature -to pass a measure known as the Huckleberry charter, the object of which -was to abolish the State commissions governing the city and to obtain -a relegation of their powers to the Board of Aldermen. The disclosure -was made, many years later, that Richard Croker and seven other members -of the Board of Aldermen had signed an agreement before a notary -public, on March 20, 1870, pledging themselves to take no official -action on any proposition affecting the city government without first -obtaining the consent of Senator Genet and four other Young Democracy -leaders.[2] These latter boasted that they would “put the charter -through” if it took $200,000 to do it. To save himself, Tweed opened a -half-way understanding with the Young Democracy chiefs, by which he was -to join them and abandon Sweeny. Tweed even offered--though vainly--one -of the most formidable young leaders $200,000 outright if he would -swerve the Young Democracy to his interest. - -The Young Democracy succeeded in winning over a majority of the general -committee, and influenced that majority to call a meeting to be held in -the Wigwam, on March 28. But the plotters had overlooked the society, -whose Sachems, being either in, or subservient to, the “ring,” now -exercised the oft-used expedient of shutting out of the hall such -persons as happened to be obnoxious to them. When the members of the -general committee appeared before Tammany Hall, on the night of March -28, they found to their surprise that the “ring” had caused to be -placed a guard of 600 policemen about the building, to prevent their -ingress. The gathering convened in Irving Hall, nearby, where by roll -call it was found that 187 members of the committee, later increased -by about a dozen--a clear majority of the whole number--were present. -Fiery speeches were made, and the set purpose of dethroning and -repudiating the “ring” Sachems was emphatically declared. - -But the Young Democracy failed to distribute among the members of -the Legislature the sum promised, and the country members, by way of -revenge, voted down the Huckleberry charter. Greatly encouraged by -his enemies’ defeat, the “Boss” went to Albany with a vast sum of -money and the draft of a new charter. This charter, supplemented by a -number of amendments which Tweed subsequently caused the Legislature to -pass, virtually relieved the “ring” of accountability to anybody. The -State commissions were abolished, and practically the whole municipal -power was placed in the hands of a Board of Special Audit, composed -of himself, Connolly and Mayor Hall. No money could be drawn from the -city without the permission of this board. The powers of the Board of -Aldermen, moreover, were virtually abolished.[3] - -The charter, which immediately became known as the “Tweed charter,” -was passed on April 5. The victory cost every dollar of the sum Tweed -took with him. Samuel J. Tilden testified that it was popularly -supposed that about $1,000,000 was the amount used.[4] Tweed stated -that he gave to one man $600,000 with which to buy votes, this being -merely a part of the fund. For his services this lobbyist received a -position requiring little or no work and worth from $10,000 to $15,000 -a year.[5] Tweed further testified that he bought the votes of five -Republican Senators for $40,000 apiece, giving one of them $200,000 -in cash to distribute.[6] The vote in the two houses was practically -unanimous: in the Senate, 30 to 2, and in the Assembly, 116 to 5. The -state of the public conscience in New York City may be judged from -the fact that the charter received the support of nearly all classes, -“large numbers,” according to the Annual Cyclopedia for 1871, “of the -wealthiest citizens signing the petition” [for its passage]. - -Tweed’s enemies were now crushed. At the election (April 18) of the -Sachems of the society the opposition could poll only a paltry 23 -votes, against the 242 secured by Tweed’s candidates; and even this -minority was a factitious one, Tilden declaring that Tweed had arranged -for it, to furnish the appearance of a contest. - -Tweed’s organization was wonderfully effective. The society stood ready -at a moment’s notice to expel from the Wigwam any person or group -obnoxious to him. The general committee was now likewise subservient. -In every ward he had a reliable representative--a leader, whose duty -was to see that his particular district should return its expected -majority. Under the leaders there were sub-leaders, ward clubs and -associations, and captains of every election district. The organization -covered every block in town with unceasing vigilance, acquainting -itself with the politics of every voter. The moment a leader lost his -popularity, or hesitated at scruples of any sort, Tweed dismissed -him; only vote-getters and henchmen were wanted. So large was his -personal following, that he not only caused thousands to be appointed -to superfluous offices, but had a number of retainers, to whom he paid -in the aggregate probably $60,000 a year, “letting them think they were -being paid by the city.”[7] Opposition he had no difficulty in buying -off, as in the case of one “Citizen’s Association,” whose principal men -he caused to be appointed to various lucrative positions in the city -government.[8] - -The Registry law having been virtually repealed at Tweed’s order, -election frauds were made easier, and as a result of the abolition by -the “Tweed charter” of the December city election, and the merging into -one day’s polling of national, State and city elections, the “ring” -was in a position to resume the old practise of trading candidates, if -all other resources failed. - -With the passage of the “Tweed charter” and the City and County Tax -Levy bill[9] of 1870, the stealing expanded to a colossal degree. At -a single sitting--on May 5, 1870--the Board of Special Audit made out -an order for the payment of $6,312,500 on account in building the new -County Court House. Of this sum barely a tenth part was realized by -the city.[10] From the 65 per cent. levied on supplies, at the end -of 1869, the rate was swelled to 85 per cent. “Jobs” significant of -untold millions lurked in every possible form. Great projects of public -improvements were exploited to the last dollar that could be drawn from -them. A frequent practise of Tweed was to create on paper a fictitious -institution, jot down three or four of his friends as officers, put a -large amount for that institution in the tax levy and pocket the money. -Asylums, hospitals and dispensaries that were never heard of, and -never existed except on paper, were put down as beneficiaries of State -and city. The thefts were concealed in the main by means of issues -of stocks and bonds and the creation of a floating debt, which the -Controller never let appear in his statements. - -A new reform movement appeared during the Summer and Fall of 1870. -Republicans, independents and disaffected Democrats combined forces and -nominated Thomas A. Ledwith for Mayor. The reform ticket was apparently -received with great public approval, and hopes began to be entertained -of its success at the polls. Tweed, however, had already secured, by -ways known best to himself, assurance of Republican assistance; he -had large numbers of Republican officials, Election Inspectors, and -the like, in his pay, and therefore knew that he had nothing to fear. -Besides this, Tammany was united and enthusiastic. Its candidates, -Hall, for Mayor, and Hoffman, for Governor, had seemingly lost none of -their popularity with the rank and file. A few days before the election -a popular demonstration, perhaps the largest in Tammany’s history, was -held in and about the Wigwam. August Belmont presided, and addresses -were made by Seymour, Hoffman, Tweed and Fisk (who had now become a -Democrat). All the speakers were received with boisterous enthusiasm. - -Tweed won, Hall receiving 71,037 votes, to 46,392 for Ledwith. But the -indications were plain that a reaction against the “ring” had begun, -for Hoffman’s vote exceeded that of Hall by 15,631, while Ledwith’s -vote exceeded that of Stewart L. Woodford, the Republican candidate for -Governor, by nearly 12,000. - -Partly to quiet his conscience, it was suspected, and in part to make -himself appear in the light of a generously impulsive man, Tweed gave, -in the Winter of 1870-71, $1,000 to each of the Aldermen of the various -wards to buy coal for the poor. To the needy of his native ward he -gave $50,000. By these acts he succeeded in deluding the needier part -of the population to the enormity of his crimes. Abstractly, these -beneficiaries of his bounty knew he had not amassed his millions by -honest means. But when, in the midst of a severe Winter, they were -gladdened by presents of coal and provisions, they did not stop to -moralize, but blessed the man who could be so good to them. Even -persons beyond the range of his bounty have hailed him as a great -philanthropist; and the expression, “Well, if Tweed stole, he was at -least good to the poor,” is still repeated, and furnished, in its tacit -exoneration, the prompting for like conduct, both thieving and giving, -on the part of his successors. - -One of Tweed’s schemes was the Viaduct Railroad bill, which virtually -allowed a company created by himself to place a railroad on or above -the ground, on any city street. The Legislature passed, and Governor -Hoffman signed, the bill, early in 1871. One of its provisions -authorized and compelled the city to take $5,000,000 of stock;[11] -another exempted the company’s property from taxes or assessments, -while other bills allowed for the benefit of the railroad the widening -and the grading of streets, which meant a “job” costing the city from -$50,000,000 to $65,000,000.[12] Associated with Tweed and others of the -“ring” as directors were some of the foremost financial and business -men of the day. The complete consummation of this almost unparalleled -steal was prevented only by the general exposure of Tweedism a few -months later. - -In the Assembly of 1871 party divisions were so even that Tweed, -though holding a majority of two votes, had only the exact number (65) -required by the constitution as a majority. In April “Jimmy” Irving, -one of the city Assemblymen, resigned, to avoid being expelled for -having assaulted Smith Weed. But Tweed was equal to the occasion, -for the very next day he obtained the vote and services of Orange S. -Winans, a Republican creature of the Erie Railroad Company. It was -charged publicly that Tweed gave Winans $75,000 in cash, and that the -Erie Railroad Company gave him a five-years’ tenure of office at $5,000 -a year.[13] - -Tweed neglected no means whatever to avert popular criticism. A -committee composed of six of the leading and richest citizens--Moses -Taylor, Marshall O. Roberts, E. D. Brown, J. J. Astor, George K. -Sistare and Edward Schell--were induced to make an examination of the -Controller’s books, and hand in a most eulogistic report, commending -Connolly for his honesty and faithfulness to duty. So highly useful a -document naturally was used for all it was worth.[14] - -But it was in his tender providence over the newspapers that his -greatest success in averting public clamor was shown. Both in Albany -and in this city he showered largess upon the press. One paper at the -Capital received, through his efforts, a legislative appropriation of -$207,900 for one year’s printing, whereas $10,000 would have overpaid -it for the service rendered.[15] The proprietor of an Albany journal -which was for many years the Republican organ of the State, made it a -practice to submit to Tweed’s personal censorship the most violently -abusive articles. On the payment of large sums, sometimes as much as -$5,000, Tweed was permitted to make such alterations as he chose.[16] -Here, in the city, the owner of one subservient newspaper received -$80,000 a year for “city advertising,” and to some other newspapers -large subsidies were paid in the same guise. Under the head of “city -contingencies,” reporters for the city newspapers, Democratic and -Republican, received Christmas presents of $200 each. This particular -practice had begun before Tweed’s time,[17] but in line with the -expansive manner of the “ring,” the plan was elaborated by subsidizing -six or eight men on nearly all the city newspapers, crediting each of -them with $2,000 or $2,500 a year for “services.”[18] - -The proprietor of the _Sun_, a newspaper that, from supporting the -Young Democracy, veered suddenly to an enthusiastic devotion to the -“Boss,” proposed, in March 1871, the erection of a statue to Tweed. -The “Boss’s” adherents jumped at the idea; and an association for the -purpose was formed by Edward J. Shandley, a Police Justice, and a host -of other men of local note, in professional, political and social -circles, among whom were not only ardent friends of Tweed, but also -those who, having opposed him, sought this opportunity of ingratiating -themselves into his favor. The statue was to be “in commemoration of -his [Tweed’s] services to the commonwealth of New York”--so ran the -circular letter. - -In a few days the association had obtained nearly $8,000, some -politicians giving $1,000 apiece. Other men pledged themselves to pay -any amount from $1,000 to $10,000, and were on the point of making good -their word when a letter from Tweed appeared, discountenancing the -project. It was printed in the Sun of March 14, 1871, under the heading: - - “A GREAT MAN’S MODESTY. - - “THE HON. WILLIAM M. TWEED DECLINES THE SUN’S - STATUE--CHARACTERISTIC LETTER FROM THE GREAT NEW YORK - PHILANTHROPIST--HE THINKS THAT VIRTUE SHOULD BE ITS OWN - REWARD--THE MOST REMARKABLE LETTER EVER WRITTEN BY THE NOBLE - BENEFACTOR OF THE PEOPLE.” - -“Statues,” wrote Tweed in part, “are not erected to living men, but to -those who have ended their careers, and where no interest exists to -question the partial tributes of friends.” Tweed hinted that he was -not so deficient in common sense as not to know the bad effect the -toleration of the scheme would have, and, ever open to suspicion, he -broadly asserted that the original statue proposition was made either -as a joke or with an unfriendly motive. - -One of the signers of the circular has assured the author that it was a -serious proposal. The attitude of the _Sun_ confirms this. On March 15 -that newspaper stated editorially that it thought “Mr. Tweed had acted -hastily,” and inquired whether it was too late “to realize so worthy -and so excellent an idea.” In the same issue appears an interview with -Justice Shandley, who says: - - “We had contemplated eventually making a public proposition - that the testimonial finally take the form of the establishment - of a grand charitable institution, bearing Mr. Tweed’s - honored name, and so overcome the prejudices that the - statue proposition have engendered, and passing the fame of - that statesman, philanthropist and patriot down to future - generations. Mr. Tweed has willed otherwise, and we must - submit.” - -A Chicago clergyman, reading of the suggestion, publicly declared that -Tweed was “more dangerous than were the ancient robber kings.” Copying -this expression, the _Sun_ urged editorially on May 13: - - “Now, let the friends of Mr. Tweed combine together and - answer this clergyman by erecting and endowing the Tweed - Hospital in the Seventh Ward of this city. A great monument of - public charity is the best response that can be made to such - accusations.” - -Tweed aimed at a high social place. He had removed from his modest -house on Henry street to a pretentious establishment on Fifth Avenue. -His daughter’s wedding was among the marvels of the day; from her -father’s personal and political friends she received nearly $100,000 -worth of gifts. Among the wedding presents were forty complete sets of -silver and fifteen diamond sets, one of which was worth $45,000. Her -wedding dress cost $4,000, and the trimmings were worth $1,000. - -All of his expenditures showed a like disregard of cost. In the -construction of the stables adjoining his Summer place at Greenwich, -Conn., money “was absolutely thrown away.” The stalls were built of -the finest mahogany. All told, these stables were said to have cost -$100,000. - -The Americus Club was his favorite retreat, and there his satellites -followed him. Scores of them were only too glad to pay the $1,000 -initiation fee required, in addition to the $2,000 or so charged for -sumptuously fitting the room to which each was entitled. The grandeur -of their club badges well illustrated their extravagance. One style -of the badges was a solid gold tiger’s[19] head in a belt of blue -enamel; the tiger’s eyes were rubies, and above his head sparkled three -diamonds of enormous size. Another style of badge was of solid gold -with the tiger’s head in _papier-maché_ under rock crystal. It was -surrounded by diamonds set in the Americus belt. Above was a pin with a -huge diamond, with two smaller diamonds on either side. This badge was -estimated to be worth $2,000. A third style showed the tiger’s head in -frosted gold, with diamond eyes. - -Everywhere the prodigal dissipation of the plunder was visible. Sums -of a few thousand dollars Tweed professed to hold in utter contempt. A -city creditor once appealed to him to use his influence with Controller -Connolly to have a bill paid. Twenty times he had asked for it, the -creditor said, and could get it only by paying the 20 per cent. -demanded. (This 20 per cent., it should be explained, was the sum -extorted from all city creditors by the officials in the Controller’s -office as their portion after the chiefs of the “ring” had taken the -lion’s share.) Tweed looked at the man a moment and then wrote hastily -to Connolly: - - “Dear Dick: For God’s sake pay ----’s bill. He tells me your - people ask 20 per cent. The whole d----d thing isn’t but - $1,100. If you don’t pay it, I will. Thine. William M. Tweed.” - -The “Boss’s” note being virtually a command, the bill was paid in full. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] Statement of Rev. Dr. H. W. Billings, in Cooper Union, April 6, -1871. - -[2] Testimony _Senate Committee on Cities_, 1890, Vol. II, pp. 1711-12. - -[3] The amendments to the charter of 1857 had abolished the Board of -Councilmen and reinstituted the Board of Aldermen and the Board of -Assistant Aldermen, the two constituting the Common Council. The “Tweed -charter” continued these two boards, legislating the then incumbents -out of office, and ordering a new election in May. The “ring,” of -course, secured a large majority in this new Council. - -[4] _The Tweed Case_, etc., Supreme Court, 1876, Vol. II, p. 1212. - -[5] _Document No. 8_, p. 73. - -[6] _Ibid._, pp. 84-92. - -[7] _Document No. 8_, p. 212. - -[8] _Ibid._, pp. 223-25. - -[9] For the passage of this bill Tweed paid “in the neighborhood of -$50,000 or $100,000.” _Document No. 8_, p. 154. - -[10] While this was going on Tweed maintained the most benevolent -attitude in public. At the Fourth of July celebration in the Wigwam he -“called the vast assemblage to order, and with coolness, but delighting -(_sic_) modesty, welcomed brothers and guests.” _Celebration at Tammany -Hall of the 94th Anniversary, etc., by the Tammany Society or Columbian -Order._ Published by order of the Tammany Society, 1870. - -[11] _Senate Journal_, 1871, pp. 482-83. - -[12] See _A History of Public Franchises in New York City_, by Gustavus -Myers. - -[13] Winans was unfortunate in his bargain, for after rendering the -service agreed upon, his employers failed to keep their promises. -Tweed gave him only one-tenth of the sum promised, and the Erie -Railroad Company gave him no office, nor, so far as can be learned, any -compensation whatever. - -[14] John Foley stated to the author that the six members of this -committee were intimidated into making this report under the threat -that the city officials would raise enormously the assessments on their -very considerable holdings of real estate. - -[15] _Document No. 8_, pp. 215-18. - -[16] _Ibid._ - -[17] It was city money which the reporters frequenting the City Hall -and court buildings received. The Aldermen passed in 1869 a resolution -giving them (sixteen in all) $200 apiece, for “services.” Mayor Opdyke -vetoed the resolution, but it was passed over his veto. (_Proceedings -of the Board of Aldermen_, 1862, Vol. LXXXVIII, p. 708.) The grant was -made yearly thereafter. - -[18] Statement of Mr. Foley. - -[19] The tiger as the symbolic representation of Tammany Hall doubtless -dates from this time. This animal was the emblem of the Americus -Club, and in Mr. Nast’s cartoons it frequently appears, with the word -AMERICUS on its collar. In all probability Mr. Nast was responsible for -the transference of the symbol from the club to the organization. The -author has been unable to find any earlier reference to the Tammany -tiger. - - - - -CHAPTER XXV - -COLLAPSE AND DISPERSION OF THE “RING” - -1871-1872 - - -The downfall of the “ring” was inevitable. No such stupendous series -of frauds could reasonably be expected to continue, once the proper -machinery for their exposure and for the awakening of the dormant -public conscience was put in motion. Protests and complaints and even -concerted opposition might for the time prove futile, as indeed they -did; but the wind had been sown for the reaping of the whirlwind, -and it could not be averted. One conspicuous instance of apparently -futile criticism of the “ring” was the action of the New York City -Council of Political Reform. This body, but recently organized, held a -mass-meeting in Cooper Union, April 6, 1871, to consider “the alarming -aspects of public affairs generally,” and to agree upon means for -arousing the public to some remedial action. Speeches were made by -Henry Ward Beecher, Judge George C. Barrett, William F. Havemeyer, -William Walter Phelps and William M. Evarts. It was pointed out that -the city debt had increased from about $36,000,000 in 1868 to over -$136,000,000 at the close of 1870. But amazing as were the facts, the -meeting produced no direct effect. - -The immediate causes of the exposure were fortuitous and accidental. -In December, 1870, Watson, who had become one of the chiefs in the -Finance Department, was fatally injured while sleigh-riding, and died a -week later. In the resultant change, Stephen C. Lyons, Jr., succeeded -Watson, and Matthew J. O’Rourke succeeded Lyons as County Book-Keeper. -Mr. O’Rourke gradually came upon the evidence of the enormous -robberies. In the meantime some of the evidence had also come into -the possession of James O’Brien, one of the Young Democracy leaders. -Controller Connolly was on the point of paying out the $5,000,000 -called for by the Viaduct Railroad act, as well as other sums, but -learning of O’Brien’s knowledge of the situation, resolved to defer the -payments. In the Summer of 1871 Mr. O’Rourke presented his evidence to -the New York _Times_. - -This newspaper published the figures in detail, producing fresh -disclosures day after day, and showing indisputably that the city -had been plundered on a stupendous scale. In two instances alone--in -the printing bills and the bills for the erection and repairing of -the County Court House--the _Times_ averred that over $10,000,000 -had been illegally squandered. Tweed had bought an obscure sheet, -the _Transcript_, and had made it the official organ for city and -county advertising. He had also formed the New York Printing Company, -which not only did the city printing, but claimed the custom of many -persons and corporations whom he was in a position either to aid or -injure. These two properties served as the highly useful _media_ with -which to extort millions from the city treasury. The _Times_ gave the -incontestible figures, disclosing that the sum of nearly $3,000,000 was -squandered for county printing, stationery and advertising during the -years 1869, 1870 and 1871. - -But the new County Court House, the _Times_ demonstrated, was the -chief means of directly robbing the city. All told, so far as could -be learned, the sum of $3,500,000 had been spent for “repairs” in -thirty-one months--enough, the _Times_ said, to have built and -furnished five new buildings such as the County Court House. Merely the -furnishing, repairing and decorating of this building, it was shown, -cost $7,000,000. One firm alone--Ingersoll & Co.--received, in two -years, the gigantic sum of $5,600,000 “for supplying the County Court -House with furniture and carpets.” In brief, the County Court House, it -was set forth specifically, instead of costing between $3,000,000 and -$5,000,000, as the “ring” all along had led the public to believe, had -actually cost over $12,000,000, the bulk of which was stolen. - -The members of the “ring” affected an air of unconcern regarding the -disclosures. When Tweed was questioned as to the charges, he made his -famous reply: “What are you going to do about it?” He professed not -to care for newspaper attacks. Yet Thomas Nast’s terribly effective -cartoons pierced him to the heart. “If those picture papers would -only leave me alone,” he lamented, “I wouldn’t care for all the rest. -The people get used to seeing me in stripes, and by and by grow to -think I ought to be in prison.” Mayor Hall put on an air of jocose -indifference, occasionally replying to the charges by references to the -alleged frauds in the Federal Government,[1] but oftener by wondrously -facetious jests such as: “Counts at Newport are at a discount”; -“shocking levity--the light-ship off Savannah has gone astray”; “these -warm, yet occasionally breezy days, with charmingly cool mornings and -evenings, are an indication that we are likely to have what befell -Adam--an early Fall.”[2] - -The public, however, was at last aroused, and the impudent flippancy of -Tweed, Hall and others only added to the public indignation. Though the -_Times_ was but imperfectly armed with proofs, each day’s revelations -brought the citizens to a keener realization of the unprecedented -enormity of the thefts, and the resolve was made by leading members -of both parties in the city to unite and crush the “ring.” A call for -a mass-meeting, to be held in Cooper Union, September 4, was met by a -tremendous outpouring of citizens. William F. Havemeyer, the former -Mayor, presided, and 227 vice-presidents and 15 secretaries were chosen -from among the foremost names in the community. Among the speakers -were Robert B. Roosevelt and Judge Edwards Pierrepont. Now, for the -first time, the public obtained a really definite idea of the magnitude -of the sum stolen by the “ring” and its followers. Resolutions were -reported by Joseph H. Choate, stating that the acknowledged funded and -bonded debt of the city and county was upward of $113,000,000--over -$63,000,000 more than it was when Mayor Hall took office--and that -there was reason to believe that there were floating, contingent or -pretended debts and claims against the city and county which would -amount to many more millions of dollars, and which would be paid out -of the city treasury unless the fiscal officers were removed and -their proceedings arrested. The resolutions concluded by directing -the appointment of an Executive Committee of Seventy, to overthrow -the “ring,” abolish abuses, secure better laws, and by united effort, -without reference to party, obtain a good government and honest -officers to administer it. - -The first move decided upon by the Committee of Seventy was to make -a thorough examination of the city’s accounts. A sub-committee was -on the point of doing this when, on the morning of September 11, it -was reported that the Controller’s office, in the City Hall, had been -broken into on the previous night and the vouchers, more than 3,500 in -all, stolen. The “ring” confederates pretended that the vouchers had -been abstracted from a glass case--an absurd explanation considering -that after spending $400,000 for safes the city officials should have -chosen such a flimsy receptacle. Later, the charred remains of these -vouchers were discovered in an ash-heap in the City Hall attic. - -As if to yield to public opinion, Mayor Hall at once asked Connolly -to resign as Controller. Connolly refused, on the ground that such a -step without impeachment and conviction on trial would be equal to a -confession of guilt. Secretly, however, fearing that the other members -of the “ring” intended to make a scape-goat of him, he was disposed -to make terms with the Committee of Seventy to save himself. Upon the -advice of Havemeyer, he appointed Andrew H. Green, Deputy Controller. -With Mr. Green in that post, the Committee of Seventy could expect a -tangible computation of the “ring’s” thefts. Alive to their danger, -the other members of the “ring” in terror tried to force Connolly to -resign, so as to end the powers he had delegated to the new Deputy -Controller. Mayor Hall insisted that in making Mr. Green Acting -Controller, Connolly’s action was equivalent to a resignation, and with -much bluster said he would treat it as such. - -In October the sub-committee made a hasty examination of such of the -city accounts as were available, and were enabled to report that the -debt of the city was doubling every two years; that $3,200,000 had -been paid for repairs on armories and drill rooms, the actual cost of -which was less than $250,000; that over $11,000,000 had been charged -for outlays on the unfinished County Court House,[3] the entire cost of -building which, on an honest estimate, would be less than $3,000,000; -that safes, carpets, furniture, cabinet-work, painting, plumbing, gas -and plastering, had cost $7,289,466, the real value of which was found -to be only $624,180; that $460,000 had been paid for $48,000 worth of -lumber; that the printing, advertising, stationery, etc., of the city -and county had cost in two years and eight months, $7,168,212; that a -large number of persons were on the payrolls of the city whose services -were neither rendered nor needed; and that figures upon warrants and -vouchers had been altered fraudulently and payments made repeatedly on -forged endorsements. - -These figures, though presenting nothing more than an outline of the -immensity of corruption, gave the Committee of Seventy a foundation -upon which to proceed legally. It at once obtained an injunction from -Judge Barnard, restraining for the time the payment of all moneys out -of the city treasury.[4] The order was modified subsequently to permit -the necessary payments. The city treasury had been sacked so completely -that it was found necessary to borrow nearly a million dollars from the -banks to satisfy the more pressing claims. - -The Committee of Seventy next presented Mayor Hall before the Grand -Jury for indictment. Anticipating this, the “ring” had “packed” the -Grand Jury; but such was the public outcry on this fact becoming known, -that Judge Barnard was forced to dismiss the jury and order a new -panel. The second jury, however, did not indict the Mayor, giving, as a -reason, the lack of conclusive evidence. Later, Hall was tried, but the -jury disagreed. The Committee of Seventy next procured the appointment -of Charles O’Conor as assistant to the Attorney-General, and then -engaged, as O’Conor’s assistants, William M. Evarts, Wheeler H. Peckham -and Judge Emmott, with the express view of driving the “ring” men into -prison. Through their energy, Tweed was arrested, on the affidavit -of Samuel J. Tilden, on October 26, and held to bail in the sum of -$1,000,000. - -But Tweed was not yet crushed. In a few days--on November 7--an -election for members of the Legislature, State officers, Judges of -the Supreme Court, and Aldermen and Assistant Aldermen, was to be -held. Most of the “ring” men, in the very face of the revelations of -their stupendous thefts, forgery, bribing and election frauds, came -forward as candidates for renomination and election. Once elected, they -reckoned upon their “vindication.” The Committee of Seventy naturally -aimed at the defeat of the Tammany candidates, both for political -and moral effect, and placed candidates in the field for all local, -legislative and judicial offices. - -As Grand Sachem and chairman of the Tammany General Committee, Tweed -was still “boss.” He arranged to win by his oft-used weapons of bribery -and intimidation, if not by violence. The two Republican Police -Commissioners were his hirelings, owing their offices to him. They -could be depended upon to aid their Tammany colleagues into making -the police a power for his benefit. How well, otherwise, the “ring” -was fortified, was shown when the _Times_[5] charged that sixty-nine -members of the Republican General Committee, which assumed to direct -the counsels of the Republican party in the city, were stipendiaries -of Tweed and Sweeny. One of them was quoted as saying, “I go up to -headquarters the first of every month and get a hundred dollars, but I -don’t hold no office and don’t do no work.” - -Tammany feigned to regard Tweed as a great benefactor being hounded. -Tweed carried out the comedy to his best. On September 22 a “great -Tweed mass-meeting” assembled in “Tweed Plaza.” Resolutions were -vociferously adopted, that, - - “pleased with his past record and having faith in his future, - recognizing his ability and proud of his leadership, believing - in his integrity and outraged by the assaults upon it, knowing - of his steadfastness and commending his courage, admiring his - magnanimity and grateful for his philanthropy, the Democracy - of the Fourth Senatorial District of the State of New York, - constituents of the Hon. William M. Tweed, in mass-meeting - assembled, place him in nomination for reelection, and pledge - him their earnest, untiring and enthusiastic support.”[6] - -Despite the public agitation over the frauds, the Tammany nominations -were of the worst possible character. Nominees for the State Senate -included such “ring” men as Genet, “Mike” Norton, John J. Bradley and -Walton; and for the Assembly, “Jim” Hayes, an unscrupulous tool; “Tom” -Fields, reputed to be probably the most corrupt man that ever sat in -the Legislature; Alexander Frear, who for years had engineered “ring” -bills; and “Jimmy” Irving, who had been forced to resign his seat in -the Assembly the previous Winter to avoid being expelled for a personal -assault on a fellow-member. The innumerable Tammany ward clubs, all -bent on securing a share of the “swag,” paraded and bellowed for these -characters. - -The election proved that the people had really awakened. The victory of -the Committee of Seventy was sweeping. Of the anti-Tammany candidates, -all of the Judges, four of the five Senators, 15 of the 21 Assemblymen, -and all but two of the Aldermen were elected, and a majority of the -Assistant Aldermen had given pledges for reforms. - -The one Tammany candidate for Senator elected was the “Boss” himself, -and he won by over 9,000 majority. The frauds in his district were -represented by careful observers as enormous. In many precincts it was -unsafe to vote against him. Opposing voters were beaten and driven away -from the polls, the police helping in the assaults. The reelection of -Tweed, good citizens thought, was the crowning disgrace, and measures -were soon taken which effectually prevented him from taking his seat. - -On November 20 Connolly resigned as Controller, and Andrew H. Green -was appointed in his place. On November 25 Connolly was arrested and -held in $1,000,000 bail. Unable to furnish it, he was committed to -jail. On December 16 Tweed was indicted for felony. While being taken -to the Tombs he was snatched away on a writ of _habeas corpus_ and -haled before Judge Barnard, who released him on the paltry bail of -$5,000. A fortnight later, forced by public opinion, Tweed resigned as -Commissioner of Public Works, thus giving up his last hold on power. - -The careers of the “ring” men after 1871 form a striking contrast to -their former splendor. Tweed ceased to be Grand Sachem. Almost every -man’s hand seemed raised against him. The newspapers which had profited -most by his thefts grew rabid in denouncing him and his followers, and -urged the fullest punishment for them. - -He was tried on January 30, 1873. The jury disagreed. During the next -Summer he fled to California. Voluntarily returning to New York City, -against the advice of his friends, he was tried a second time, on -criminal indictments, on November 19. Found guilty on three-fourths -of the 120 counts, Judge Noah Davis sentenced him to twelve years’ -imprisonment and to pay a fine of $12,000. Upon being taken to -Blackwell’s Island, the Warden of the Penitentiary asked him the usual -questions: “What occupation?” “Statesman!” he replied. “What religion?” -“None.” - -After one year’s imprisonment, Tweed was released by a decision of the -Court of Appeals, on January 15, 1875, on the ground that owing to -a legal technicality the one year was all he was required to serve. -Anticipating this decision, Tilden and his associates had secured the -passage of an act by the Legislature, expressly authorizing the People -to institute a civil suit such as they could not otherwise maintain. -New civil suits were then brought against Tweed, and as soon as he -was discharged from the Penitentiary he was rearrested and held in -$3,000,000 bail. - -This bail he could not get, and he lay in prison until December 4, -when, while visiting his home, in the custody of two keepers, he -escaped. For two days he hid in New Jersey, and later was taken to a -farm-house near the Palisades. He disguised himself by shaving his -beard and clipping his hair, and wearing a wig and gold spectacles. -Fleeing again, he spent a while in a fisherman’s hut near the Narrows, -visiting Brooklyn and assuming the name of “John Secor.” Leaving on a -schooner, he landed on the coast of Florida, whence he went to Cuba -in a fishing smack, landing near Santiago de Cuba. The fallen “Boss” -and a companion were at once arrested as suspicious characters--the -Ten Years’ War being then in progress--and Tweed was recognized. He, -however, smuggled himself on board the Spanish bark _Carmen_, which -conveyed him to Vigo, Spain. Upon the request of Hamilton Fish, -Secretary of State, he was arrested and turned over to the commander of -the United States man-of-war _Franklin_, which brought him back to New -York on November 23, 1876. - -In one of the civil suits judgment had been given against him for over -$6,000,000. Confessing to this, he was put in jail, to be kept there -until he satisfied it, a requirement he said he was unable to meet. The -city found no personal property upon which to levy. Tweed testified in -1877 that he held about $2,500,000 worth of real estate in 1871, and -that at no time in his life was he worth more than from that amount to -$3,000,000.[7] He had recklessly parted with a great deal of his money, -he stated. He testified also to having lost $600,000 in two years in -fitting up the Metropolitan Hotel for one of his sons,[8] and to having -paid his lawyers $400,000 between 1872 and 1875. His escape from Ludlow -Street Jail had cost him $60,000. It is reasonably certain that he had -been blackmailed on all sides, and besides this, as has already been -shown, he had been compelled to disgorge a vast share of the plunder -to members of the Legislature and others. When his troubles began he -transferred his real estate--and, it is supposed, his money--to his -son, Richard M. Tweed. - -In Ludlow Street Jail he occupied the Warden’s parlor, at a cost of $75 -a week. As he lay dying, on April 12, 1878, he said to the matron’s -daughter: “Mary, I have tried to do good to everybody, and if I have -not, it is not my fault. I am ready to die, and I know God will receive -me.” To his physician, Dr. Carnochan, he said: “Doctor, I’ve tried to -do some good, if I haven’t had good luck. I am not afraid to die. I -believe the guardian angels will protect me.” The matron said he never -missed reading his Bible. According to S. Foster Dewey, his private -secretary, Tweed’s last words were: “I have tried to right some great -wrongs. I have been forbearing with those who did not deserve it. I -forgive all those who have ever done evil to me, and I want all those -whom I have harmed to forgive me.” Then throwing out his hand to catch -that of Luke, his black attendant, he breathed his last. - -Only eight carriages followed the plain hearse carrying his remains, -and the cortège attracted no attention. “If Tweed had died in 1870,” -said the cynical Coroner Woltman, one of his former partizans, -“Broadway would have been festooned with black, and every military and -civic organization in the city would have followed him to Greenwood.” - -Sweeny settled with the prosecutor for a few hundred thousand dollars -and found a haven in Paris, until years later he reappeared in New -York. He lived to an old age. The case of the People against him was -settled--as the Aldermanic committee appointed in 1877 to investigate -the “ring” frauds reported to the Common Council--“in a very curious -and somewhat incomprehensible way.”[9] The suits were discontinued on -Sweeny agreeing to pay the city the sum of $400,000 “from the estate of -his deceased brother, James M. Sweeny.” What the motive was in adopting -this form the committee did not know. The committee styled Sweeny -“the most despicable and dangerous [of the “ring”] because the best -educated and most cunning of the entire gang.”[10] - -Connolly fled abroad with $6,000,000, and died there. Various lesser -officials also fled, while a few contractors and officials who remained -were tried and sent to prison, chiefly upon the testimony of Garvey, -who turned State’s evidence, and then went to London. Under the name of -“A. Jeffries Garvie,” he lived there until his death in 1897. - -Of the three Judges most involved--Barnard, Cardozo and McCunn[11]--the -first and the last were impeached, while Cardozo resigned in time to -save himself from impeachment. - -The question remains: How much did the “ring” steal? Henry F. Taintor, -the auditor employed in the Finance Department by Andrew H. Green -to investigate the controller’s books, testified before the special -Aldermanic committee, in 1877, that he had estimated the frauds to -which the city and county of New York had been subjected, during the -three and a half years from 1868 to 1871, at from $45,000,000 to -$50,000,000.[12] The special Aldermanic committee, however, evidently -thought the thefts amounted to $60,000,000; for it asked Tweed whether -they did not approximate that sum, upon which he gave no definite -reply. But Mr. Taintor’s estimate, as he himself admitted, was far from -complete, even for the three and a half years. It is the generally -accepted opinion among those who have had the best opportunity for -knowing, that the sums distributed among the “ring” and its allies and -dependents amounted to over $100,000,000. Matthew J. O’Rourke, who, -since his disclosures, made a further remarkable study of this special -period, informed the author that, from 1869 to 1871, the “ring” stole -about $75,000,000, and that he thought the total stealings from about -1865 to 1871, counting vast issues of fraudulent bonds, amounted to -$200,000,000. Of the entire sum stolen from the city only $876,000 was -recovered. - -The next question is: Where did all this money go? We have referred to -the share that remained to Tweed and Connolly, but the other members -of the great “ring” and its subordinate “rings” kept their loot, a few -of them returning to the city a small part by way of restitution. When -Garvey died in London, his estate was valued at $600,000. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] New York _Times_, August 29, 1871. - -[2] _Ibid._, August 30, 1871. - -[3] Later estimates put the expenditures on the Court House at -$13,000,000. The generally accepted figures were over $12,000,000. - -[4] It was John Foley who procured the injunction. Mr. Foley later -informed the author that upon the original injunction being obtained, -the “ring” made a great clamor about the thousands of laborers who -would be deprived of their wages, and ordered their hired newspaper -writers so to incite the workingmen that the chief movers against the -“ring” would be mobbed. In fact, were it not for public protection, -grudgingly given on demand, it is doubtful whether some of the -opponents of the “ring” would have survived the excitement. - -[5] August 19, 1871. - -[6] New York _Times_, November 2, 1871. - -[7] _Document No. 8_, p. 306. - -[8] _Document No. 8_, p. 372. - -[9] _Document No. 8_, p. 29. - -[10] _Ibid._, p. 30. - -[11] Barnard and Cardozo were both Sachems. Mr. Foley is the author’s -authority for the statement that when Barnard died, $1,000,000 in bonds -and cash was found among his effects. - -[12] _Document No. 8._ - - - - -CHAPTER XXVI - -TAMMANY RISES FROM THE ASHES - -1872-1874 - - -After the disclosures of 1871, the name of Tammany Hall became a -by-word throughout the civilized world, and the enemies of corruption -assured themselves that the organization was shorn of political -power for a long time to come. But the wonderful instinct of -self-preservation which had always characterized Tammany, joined with -the remarkable sagacity which its chiefs almost invariably displayed -in critical times, now conspired to keep the organization alive -despite every antagonistic influence. The Tammany Society still had -its charter, and while that charter remained intact, Tammany retained -strong potentialities for regaining power. The reformers neglected -to ask for its annulment--though it is doubtful if they could have -obtained it, since the Governor, John T. Hoffman, was a creation of the -Tammany organization. - -The urgent need of the Wigwam was a leader. In response to the demand, -two men, John Kelly and John Morrissey, stepped to the front. Both of -them were the product of local politics, and having made a science -of their experience, they knew that the Tammany Hall that now lay -prostrate and reviled could be raised and again made a political -factor, and eventually the ruler of the city. The few men of fair -character in the organization were undesirous of appearing too -prominently in its councils; but despite the general odium attached to -it, Kelly and Morrissey found that a large part of the thoughtless -mass of the Democratic voters were still willing to follow its -leadership. - -Kelly had been in Europe from 1868 to late in 1871, and had not been -directly implicated in the Tweed frauds. He had a strong personality, -and was popular among the largest and most energetic part of the voting -population--the Irish. He was called “Honest John Kelly,” and he took -care to strengthen the belief implied in that name, surrounding himself -at all times with a glamour of political probity. Born April 20, 1822, -in New York City, of poor parents, his early life was divided between -hard work and fighting, though he never appeared in the prize-ring. His -trade was that of a grate-setter and mason. His early education was -defective, but he later improved his natural talents by study at the -parochial and evening schools. - -The district in which he lived was the roughest in the city. Being a -man of aggressive ways and popular enough to control the turbulent -elements, the politicians in 1858 had him elected an Alderman, a post -which he retained during 1854 and 1855. In this body he was known as a -“bench-warmer”--that is, a member who kept his seat and followed the -orders of his political masters without question. Giving satisfaction, -he was selected to run for Congress in the district then represented by -“Mike” Walsh--who was regarded in Washington as the leader of the rowdy -element of New York City. Walsh ran independently, but Kelly beat him -by 18 votes in a total vote of 7,593. It was generally charged then and -long after that Kelly was “counted in.” Later he was reelected. During -his terms in Congress, Kelly controlled most of the Federal patronage -in New York City, and it was through his influence especially that -Isaac V. Fowler--who, as we have mentioned, was afterward found to have -embezzled over $155,000 from the Government--was reappointed Postmaster -by Buchanan. - -In 1863 Kelly, disgruntled at not being appointed a Police -Commissioner, led a portion of the Irish vote from the Wigwam over -to the Germans, helping in the election of Gunther as Mayor. Having -proved his influence, Tweed, in order to gain him over, gave him the -nomination for Sheriff, to which office he was elected. His nomination -for Mayor and his sudden withdrawal we have already related. - -At the time of his flight to Europe he was a rich man. Mayor Havemeyer -charged, in 1874, as we shall see, that some, at least, of Kelly’s -wealth was obtained by anything but proper methods. - -This was the successor of Tweed as the “boss” of Tammany Hall. His -coadjutor for a time, John Morrissey, was a professional prize-fighter -and gambler, whose boast was that he “had never fought foul nor turned -a card.”[1] When these men assumed control of the Wigwam, few persons -believed it could outlive the “ring” revelations and regain power. - -Then occurred an extraordinary happening, though quite in keeping with -Tammany shrewdness. At the society’s annual election, in April, 1872, -Kelly and Augustus Schell (who had been elected Grand Sachem after -Tweed was forced to resign) caused to be selected as Sachems some of -the identical men who had been most conspicuous in the reform movement, -such as Samuel J. Tilden, Charles O’Conor, Horatio Seymour, Sanford -E. Church and August Belmont. The best proof that the non-partizan -movement of 1871 was already dissolving was the readiness with which -these men accepted these elections. Their acceptance may have been due -to a mixed desire to make of the organization a real reform body as -well as to advance their political fortunes. - -The Tammany Society now stood before the public as a reform body, -with the boast that all the thieves had been cast out. Next it -appointed a reorganization committee to reconstruct the Tammany Hall -political organization. Under its direction the general committee was -enlarged to nearly five hundred members, and a new general committee, -of unquestionably better quality than its predecessor, was elected. -In the case of disputing district delegations, the Tammany Society’s -committee decided by selecting the best men for both.[2] Out of chaos, -within a few months of the “ring’s” overthrow, Kelly created a strong -organization, so deftly composed as to place itself before the people -as an entirely distinct set of men from the “ring” thieves--as a really -Democratic body, quite as heartily in favor of good government as the -most exacting reformer. - -Kelly acted with great shrewdness, executive force, knowledge of men, -and apparent regard for the public interests and proprieties. He -affected extreme modesty, and made it appear that the delegates chose -nominees by their own uninfluenced will. At the Judiciary convention in -Tammany Hall, in October, 1872, he insisted that each delegate vote; in -his speech he said that Tammany should have no more of the times when -tickets were made up outside of conventions. Some delegates shouting -for the nomination of a man of dubious character, he declared, with the -air of a man exerting himself for the good of his party only, that it -was time that Tammany Hall should put such a ticket in the field that -no man could hold up the finger of scorn at any individual on it. He -furthermore caused the appointment of a committee to cooperate in the -work of reform with the Bar Association, the Committee of Seventy, the -Municipal Taxpayers’ Association and the Liberal Republicans. - -At Kelly’s suggestion the Wigwam, in the Fall of 1872, nominated for -Mayor, Abraham R. Lawrence, a member of the Committee of Seventy and -its counsel, and for Judges of the Supreme and Superior Courts, men -of ability and unimpeachable name. Altogether, Tammany took on such a -new guise that thousands of voters returned to its support. But the -anti-Tammany movement had not yet dissipated its strength, even though -it presented a divided front. One wing of this opposition was the new -“reform” organization, the “Apollo Hall Democracy,” founded by James -O’Brien, who now stood forth as its candidate for Mayor. The other -wing, composed of the individuals and associations centering about the -Committee of Seventy, nominated William F. Havemeyer. - -Tammany had the advantage of a Presidential year, when the obligation -of “regularity” could be imposed upon a goodly share of the Democratic -voters, and the further advantage of a high order of personal character -in its nominees. Nevertheless, Havemeyer won, the vote standing -approximately: Havemeyer, 53,806; Lawrence, 45,398; O’Brien, 31,121. -The results from several election districts were missing and were -never canvassed by the Board of Canvassers. For Horace Greeley, the -Democratic Presidential candidate, Tammany Hall carried the city by -23,000 majority. - -Mayor Havemeyer’s administration differed greatly from most of the -“reform” administrations that had preceded it. Never since the year -1800 had the city revenue been distributed with such great care. The -utmost regard was paid to the ordinances dealing with public health -and security, and the streets were kept cleaner than ever before. The -rowdy and criminal classes were deprived of the free sway they had so -long enjoyed. The public school system was improved, and the standard -of official character was of a higher type than had been known in -many a decade. The city expenditures in 1873 were about $32,000,000, -as compared with $36,262,589.41 in 1871, and notwithstanding the -tremendous legacy of debt left by the Tweed “ring” to be shouldered by -later administrations, Mayor Havemeyer’s administration reduced the -city expenses about $8,000,000 in reality, though the bare figures on -their face did not show that result. - -Mayor Havemeyer complained, as so many of his predecessors had done, -of the perverse interference of the Legislature in city affairs--an -interference which constantly embarrassed his plans and set back the -cause of reform. - -The Mayor was not destined to serve his full term. In September, 1874, -a bitter quarrel sprang up between him on the one hand and John Kelly -and John Morrissey on the other, apparently over the appointment, at -Kelly’s request, of Richard Croker to be a Marshal. “When Croker’s -appointment was announced,” wrote the Mayor, “I was overwhelmed with -a torrent of indignation.” In a public letter addressed to Kelly, -Mayor Havemeyer charged that the former, while Sheriff, had obtained -$84,482 by fraudulent and illegal receipts, adding this further -characterization: - - “I think that you were worse than Tweed, except that he was - a larger operator. The public knew that Tweed was a bold, - reckless man, making no pretensions to purity. You, on the - contrary, were always avowing your honesty and wrapped yourself - in the mantle of piety. Men who go about with the prefix of - ‘honest’ to their names are often rogues.” - -Kelly replied that he had acted in the Sheriff’s office as had his -predecessors, and brought a libel suit against the Mayor, in the answer -to which the latter embodied his charges in full. But on the day the -suit was to come to trial Havemeyer fell dead of apoplexy in his office. - -During the two years (1872-74) various forces combined to restore -Tammany to the old power. The two great parties were struggling for -partizan advantage for future State and national elections. This -brought about the old party alignment, the reform Democrats, as a -rule, acting with the Wigwam, and the reform Republicans drifting to -the Republican side. The disreputable classes issued forth in greater -force than ever to help replace in power the Tammany that meant to -them free sway. The panic of 1873, with the consequent “hard times,” -turned great bodies of voters against the dominant party. The “ring” -had so thoroughly looted the city that Havemeyer’s administration was -forced to practise economy in the public works. The working classes -either did not understand the motive of this retrenchment, or did not -appreciate it. Out of the 24,500 mechanics in the city during the -Winter of 1873-74, 15,000, it was estimated, were unemployed. Tammany -now adroitly declared itself in favor of giving public employment to -the workers. The Wigwam agents scoured the poorer districts during the -campaign of 1874, giving aid to the needy, and gained their support. -The agitation against a third term for President Grant; the demand for -a low tariff and the denunciation of the Washington “ring,” all had -their effect, while the impression which naturally might have been -expected from Havemeyer’s charges against Kelly was entirely lost by -the former’s slurring allusions to Kelly’s humble birth and early -occupation--allusions which threw the sympathy and support of the -masses strongly to Kelly and his ticket. - -The astonishing consequence was that in November, 1874, Tammany Hall -which, in 1871, seemed buried beneath obloquy, elected its candidate -for Mayor, William H. Wickham (a diamond merchant and an anti-“ring” -Democrat and a member of the Committee of Seventy) by nearly 9,000 -majority over all, his vote being 70,071, against 24,226 for Oswald -Ottendorfer, the Independent Democratic candidate, and 36,953 for Salem -H. Wales, the Republican. At the same election, Tilden, who had also -contributed to the downfall of the “ring,” received the solid support -of Tammany, and was elected to the Governorship. - -Tammany Hall under the surface was rapidly becoming its old self. Its -candidate for Register, “Jim” Hayes, had made, it was charged, $500,000 -during the Tweed régime. Fully three-fourths of the office-seekers in -this election were connected with the liquor interests; and as many of -these were keepers of low groggeries, they were in constant conflict -with the law. Nine of the fifteen Tammany candidates for Aldermen were -former creatures or beneficiaries of the “ring,” one of them being -under two indictments for fraud. Yet the partizan currents at work -again swept almost all of them into office. - -Well realizing the value of appearances, Kelly lectured the new members -of the Common Council,[3] telling them that “there must be no bad -measures, no ‘rings,’ no getting together of a few men for the purpose -of making money and controlling patronage.” Yet Kelly himself at this -time absolutely controlled the strongest and probably the most corrupt -political organization in the Union. He dictated State, Judicial, -Congressional, Legislative and municipal nominations at will, and -continued to be the absolute “boss” until his death in 1886. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] In Tweed’s confession (1877) Morrissey is mentioned as having -introduced a system of repeating from Philadelphia, and also as having -acted as paymaster of the fund of $65,000 distributed among the -Aldermen to secure the confirmation of Sweeny as Chamberlain. - -[2] The reorganization committee reached the understanding that the -society should thereafter keep in the background and that it should not -prominently interfere in the organization’s affairs. - -[3] Amendments to the charter, passed in 1873, vested local powers in a -Board of Aldermen and a Board of Assistant Aldermen--the latter to be -abolished on and after January 1, 1875, and the Board of Aldermen to -form thenceforth the Common Council. The Common Council was not to pass -any measure over the Mayor’s veto without the vote of two-thirds of all -its members. A part of the former Aldermanic powers was restored to -this board by the amendments of 1873 and later years. - - - - -CHAPTER XXVII - -THE DICTATORSHIP OF JOHN KELLY - -1874-1886 - - -The history of the Tammany Society and of Tammany Hall during -the period from 1874 onward embraces a vast and intricate web of -influences, activities and consequences. To present this period in the -detail proportionate to that employed in the preceding chapters would -require an amount of space inconsistent with the projected volume -of this work. It will, therefore, be presented in the manner of a -COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY, in which the main movement will be outlined, -and particular treatment given only to the more important features and -events. - -Toward the end of 1874 Kelly’s rule had become supreme. Under the form -of “requests” he assessed every office-holder, even calling upon men -receiving only $1,000 a year to pay as much as $250. To systematize -these assessments, he established a regular collectorship, in charge -of the society’s Wiskinskie, a city employee drawing $1,500 a year for -apparent services. Abundant charges, some of which were proved, were -made as to corruption in many of the city departments. - -During the next year (1875) a number of disaffected Wigwam men formed -the “Irving Hall Democracy” and issued an address denouncing the -Tammany General Committee as the creature of the society. The effect of -this defection and of the charges of public corruption were such that -in the local elections Tammany lost many of the minor offices. - -The friendship between Kelly and Tilden had already been broken. Kelly -organized a bitter opposition to Tilden at the St. Louis National -convention, in 1876, but pledged himself to support the nominations, -and kept his word. - -The Presidential campaign of this year held the municipal struggle -within strict party lines. The various Democratic factions united on -Smith Ely, electing him Mayor by a majority of 53,517 over John A. Dix, -the Republican candidate. - -From December, 1876, to December, 1880, Kelly filled the position -of City Controller, and was credited with reducing the city debt. -Politics, however, rather than fiscal administration for the benefit -of the city, continued to be his main business. One of the numerous -examples of his superior sagacity in bowing to the general public -sentiment was his support, in 1878, of Edward Cooper, an anti-Tammany -nominee for Mayor, a man of recognized independence of character, who -was elected. Tammany at this time was still largely influenced by the -old Tweed conspirators, the assertion being made in 1877 that at least -fifty former office-holders under Tweed were to be found in the general -committee.[1] - -In 1879 occurred the well-known fight of Tammany against the Democrats -of the rest of the State. The Democratic State convention had assembled -at Syracuse. The roll-call had barely begun when Augustus Schell, -spokesman for the Tammany organization, stated that as there was every -prospect that Gov. Lucius Robinson would be renominated, the delegates -from New York City would withdraw, although they stood ready to support -any other name. This “suggestion,” as Schell afterwards called it, -was unheeded, whereupon the entire Tammany delegation retired. The -delegation meeting elsewhere, Kelly, with the specific object of -defeating Robinson, caused himself to be nominated for Governor. The -quarrel between Robinson and the Tammany chief was personal, arising -from the fact that the Governor had removed Henry A. Gumbleton, a -prominent Wigwam man, from the office of County Clerk. Such was the -discipline to which Kelly had reduced the organization that it obeyed -his word without a single protest. - -He succeeded in his ulterior object. His 77,566 votes caused the defeat -of Robinson, who received 375,790 votes, to 418,567 for Alonzo B. -Cornell, the Republican candidate. The significant lesson furnished by -Kelly’s making good his threat, was one generally heeded thereafter by -State and national politicians and candidates, who declined to invite -the hostility of so great a power. But for this secession, and the -consequent demoralization of the Democratic party in the State, New -York’s electoral vote, it is generally thought, would have gone to Gen. -Hancock in 1880. Mayor Cooper refused to reappoint Kelly to the office -of Controller at the expiration of his term, in December, 1880, because -of his supposed agency in the defeat of Hancock. - -In 1880 the Democrats of the city were divided into the factions of -Tammany Hall and Irving Hall, but laying aside differences till after -the election, they agreed upon an apportionment of the local offices. -The Democratic candidate for Mayor, William R. Grace, was selected -by the Tammany committee from a list of names submitted by Irving -Hall. Many of the members of the latter organization, however, were -prejudiced against Mr. Grace because of his Roman Catholic faith, -fearing that in case of his election the public school appropriations -would be diverted to sectarian uses. They joined with the Republicans -in support of William Dowd. The vote stood: Grace, 101,760; Dowd, -98,715. - -Mayor Grace’s official power was considerably limited by the action -of the Legislature, which had made the tenure of office of executives -of departments longer than his own--a law which in effect put the -department heads in a position independent of the Mayor. In frequent -messages, Mayor Grace expressed himself, as had Mayor Havemeyer, -pointedly, though vainly, on the evils of legislative interference with -the local government. - -In December, 1880, a new organization, called the “New York County -Democracy,” was formed by Abram S. Hewitt and others, to oppose both -Tammany Hall and Irving Hall. This body soon had a large enrolled -membership, and was joined later by a number of Democrats who had -unsuccessfully attempted to bring about reform in Tammany. To that end -they had made an effort, at the society’s annual election in April, -1881, to elect their candidates for Sachems, when the ticket headed by -Kelly won by an average majority of 50 in about 775 votes. The fact, or -belief, that the result was secured through repeating and other unfair -means, caused a considerable defection from Tammany. - -In the State convention of October, 1881, the Tammany delegation was -ruled out, and the County Democracy was declared “regular.” At an -earlier period this adverse decision might have entailed serious, if -not fatal, consequences to the Wigwam. But now that the organization -was in a state of absolute discipline, ruled by one hard-headed, -tireless “boss,” with each member understanding that his self-interest -required his “standing by” the organization in times of trouble, as -well as in times of triumph, the blow had no lasting effect. - -Holding the balance of power in the Legislature of 1882, the Tammany -members resolved to force the “regular” Democracy to make terms with -them. To that end they attended no party caucuses, and refused to -support men nominated by the “regular” Democrats. At Kelly’s order they -demanded, as the price of their cooperation, certain chairmanships -of important committees. Not getting them, they continued for weeks -their stubborn opposition. Finally the two houses were organized, the -Tammany men voting for the Republican candidate for clerk. Charges were -freely made of a political bargain between Kelly and Gov. Cornell. - -There were three Democratic factions in the city in 1882--Tammany Hall, -Irving Hall and the County Democracy. A movement to obtain non-partizan -government caused the independent nomination of Allan Campbell for -Mayor. The Republicans indorsed him, but their support was greatly -weakened by their nomination of a spoils politician, John J. O’Brien, -for County Clerk. The three Democratic factions agreed on Franklin -Edson, who was elected by a majority of 21,417, the vote being: Edson, -97,802; Campbell, 76,385. - -In the Chicago national convention of 1884 the Tammany delegation -bitterly opposed the nomination of Grover Cleveland, its orators -virulently assailing his private and public character. Though -professing afterward to support him as the Democratic candidate, the -Wigwam refused to unite with other Democratic organizations in any -political demonstration. The reason seems to have been Mr. Cleveland’s -publicly expressed independence of Kelly and his machine. After the -ensuing election, Tammany was generally charged with treachery. The -Wigwam nominated a separate city and county ticket, naming Hugh J. -Grant for Mayor. The County Democracy and Irving Hall agreed upon the -nomination of former Mayor William R. Grace, and elected him with -the rest of the fusion ticket, the vote being: Grace, 96,288; Grant, -86,361; Frederick S. Gibbs (Republican), 45,386. - -In these years the control of the city offices was frequently divided -among the various parties and factions. In the Board of Aldermen, as in -the departments, were Tammany and County Democracy men and Republicans, -so that no one faction or party completely swayed the city. Much of -their former power had been restored to the Aldermen by the charter -amendments of 1873, by the State constitution of 1874 and various -legislative acts. Reports arose from time to time that money was used -to secure confirmation of appointments by the Aldermen, but the nearest -approach to detail was the testimony of Patrick H. McCann before the -“Fassett Committee” in 1890. - -Mr. McCann testified that Richard Croker, a brother-in-law, came to his -store in 1884, with a bag containing $180,000, which, he said, was to -be used in obtaining Aldermanic votes to secure the confirmation, in -case of his appointment, of Hugh J. Grant as Public Works Commissioner, -and that he (Mr. Croker) was to get ten cents a barrel on all cement -used by that department.[2] Mr. McCann further testified that Mr. -Croker had told him that $80,000 of this sum was furnished by Mr. -Grant, and the remainder by the organization. Mr. Croker, according -to the same testimony, opened negotiations through Thomas D. Adams -for the purchase of two Republican Aldermen, whose votes were needed. -The alleged “deal,” however, was not consummated, and the money was -returned. Mr. Croker and Mr. Grant both swore that these statements -were untrue.[3] - -But the extraordinary corruption of the Board of Aldermen of 1884 is a -matter of public record. Twenty-one members--the exceptions among those -present and voting being Aldermen Grant and O’Connor--voted to give the -franchise for a surface railway on Broadway to the Broadway Surface -Railroad Company.[4] The rival road, the Broadway Railroad Company, -sought to bribe the Aldermen with $750,000, half cash and half bonds, -but the Aldermen thought the bonds might be traced, and considered -it wiser to accept the $500,000 cash offered by the former,[5] each -Alderman receiving $22,000.[6] Mayor Edson vetoed the resolution,[7] -but it was repassed. - -Other street railway franchises were passed by the same board. Mr. -McCann testified in 1890 that Mr. Grant had told him that Mr. Croker -strongly advised him [Grant] not to have anything to do with “that -Broadway matter,” as “they [the other Aldermen] would be caught.”[8] -Mr. Grant denied having said so.[9] The fact remains that Mr. Grant -was the only Tammany Alderman free of suspicion. Many of the accused -Tammany city fathers were members of the organization’s executive -committee, which was composed almost exclusively of leaders, and which -was supposed to direct the Wigwam’s affairs.[10] - -One Alderman, Henry W. Jaehne, was sentenced to penal servitude at hard -labor for the term of nine years and ten months; and another, “Honest” -John O’Neill, to four years and a half, and to pay a fine of $2,000; -a third, Arthur J. McQuade, was sentenced to seven years and ordered -to return $5,000 of the bribe money to the city, but on July 20, 1889, -at a new trial at Ballston, he was acquitted. Six other Aldermen -fled to Canada, and three turned State’s evidence. Ten others were -indicted, but were never brought to trial. As Col. John R. Fellows, the -District Attorney who tried the cases, stated to the Fassett Committee, -convictions could not then (1890) be secured, because public sentiment -had changed; the storm had subsided; people had grown tired of the -subject, and many former opponents of the franchise had come to look -upon it as a benefit.[11] But there were strong hints that political -influence had saved many persons from prison. - -Though the facts did not come out until the trials in 1886, public -indignation and suspicion were so strong in 1884 that Kelly insisted -that the Tammany Aldermen who had voted for the franchise should not be -renominated.[12] - -Kelly broke down with nervous and physical prostration after the -Presidential campaign of 1884. Grover Cleveland’s election, which -falsified his predictions, deeply disappointed him. He kept to his -house, No. 34 East Sixty-ninth street, but still issued his orders to -the Tammany organization. Towards the end, he could not sleep except by -the use of opiates. He died on June 1, 1886. - -Thus passed away the second absolute “boss” of Tammany Hall. For more -than ten years 50,000 voters obeyed his commands, and it was he and not -the people to whom a host of office-holders, contractors, and all who -profited directly or indirectly from politics, looked as the source of -their appointment, employment or emolument. On more than one occasion -Kelly complained of his onerous duty of providing government for New -York City. The secret of his control was the same as that of Tweed and -of the previous cliques: he knew that a large part of the voting mass -cared nothing for good government, but looked upon politics solely as -a means of livelihood; that another large part were satisfied to vote -the “regular” ticket under any and all circumstances; and, with a keen -understanding of human nature, he knew how to harmonize conflicting -interests, to allay personal differences, and to soothe with large -promises of future rewards his disaffected followers. Profiting by -Tweed’s fate, he knew the value of moderation; and he earned the -praise, not only of his interested followers, but also of a tolerant -and easy-going class in the community, through the fact that under his -rule the stealing, compared to that of the Tweed régime, was kept at -a comparatively respectable minimum. It was pointed out to his credit -that the fortune he left--reputed to be $500,000--was very reasonable -for one who so long had held real control of a great city. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] _Document No. 8_, p. 102. - -[2] _Testimony, Senate Committee on Cities_, 1890, Vol. I, pp. 682-98. - -[3] _Ibid._, 733, and _Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 1693. - -[4] _Proceedings of the Board of Aldermen_, Vol. CLXXV, pp. 237-39. - -[5] Alderman Arthur J. McQuade’s testimony before Recorder Smythe, -November 19, 1886. - -[6] Alderman Fullgraff’s additional testimony before Recorder Smythe. - -[7] _Proceedings of the Board of Aldermen_, Vol. CLXXVI, pp. 777-84. - -[8] _Testimony, Senate Committee on Cities_, 1890, Vol. I, pp. 706-7. - -[9] _Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 752. - -[10] _Ibid._, p. 744. - -[11] _Testimony, Senate Committee on Cities_, 1890, Vol. III, pp. -2667-68. - -[12] Testimony of Hugh J. Grant, _Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 739. - - - - -CHAPTER XXVIII - -THE DICTATORSHIP OF RICHARD CROKER - -1886-1897 - - -Upon the death of Kelly, the twenty-four leaders of the Assembly -Districts, comprising the executive committee of Tammany Hall, -announced individually that there would be no further “boss,” and -that the organization would be ruled thenceforth by a committee -of twenty-four. However, cliques immediately arose, and soon four -leaders--Richard Croker, who had been a sort of deputy “boss” under -Kelly; Hugh J. Grant, Thomas F. Gilroy and W. Bourke Cockran--arranged -a junta for administering the organization’s affairs. By securing the -support of 17 of the 24 leaders, Mr. Croker began concentrating power -in his own hands, and for about fourteen years remained the absolute -‘boss’ of both society and organization. - -Mr. Croker was born near Cork, Ireland, November 24, 1843. His father -was a blacksmith, who emigrated to America in 1846, and settled in a -squatter’s shanty in what is now the upper portion of Central Park. -From his thirteenth to his nineteenth year young Croker worked as -a machinist. At a very early age he distinguished himself in the -semi-social fist-fights which were a part of the life of the “gang” -to which he belonged. He became, tradition has it, the leader of -the “Fourth Avenue Tunnel Gang,” and fought a number of formal -prize-fights, in which he came out victor. - -At the beginning of the Tweed régime, according to his testimony -before the Fassett Committee, he was an attendant under Judge Barnard -and other Judges in the Supreme Court. Upon leaving that place, for -some reason not known, he served as an engineer on a Fire Department -steamer.[1] In 1868 and 1869 he was elected an Alderman. With a -majority of his fellow-members, he sided with the Young Democracy -against Tweed, and was accordingly, with the rest of the board, -legislated out of office (April, 1870). But he must have made his -peace with the “Boss” soon after, for Controller Connolly appointed -him Superintendent of Market Fees and Rents. In 1873 he was elected -Coroner. On election day, November 3, 1874, during a street row growing -out of a political quarrel between Mr. Croker and James O’Brien, John -McKenna was shot dead. Bystanders maintained that Mr. Croker fired the -shot, and the Grand Jury indicted him for the crime. The trial jury, -after being out for seventeen hours, failed to agree. Public opinion -at the time was divided, but it is the preponderance of opinion among -those who are in a position to know, that Mr. Croker did not fire the -fatal shot. - -In 1876 he was reelected Coroner. In 1883 he ran for Alderman, with -the understanding that if elected, thus establishing the fact of -his constituents’ approval, Mayor Edson would appoint him a Fire -Commissioner. During the canvass, a Police Captain, one of Croker’s -protégés, was responsible for a brutal clubbing, the feeling over which -had the effect of reducing his plurality to about 200. Mayor Edson, -however, gave him the appointment, and he was reappointed by Mayor -Hewitt. His alleged connection with the fund of $180,000 to be used in -behalf of Hugh J. Grant, in 1884, has already been mentioned. In 1885 -he caused the nomination of the latter for Sheriff. Mr. Grant, while -in that office, according to Mr. McCann’s testimony, gave $25,000, in -five presents of $5,000 each, to Mr. Croker’s two-year-old daughter -Flossie.[2] - -Neither Mr. Croker nor Mr. Grant denied this transaction, though both -declared the sum was $10,000 and not $25,000.[3] Mr. Grant furthermore -declared that he gave it in consideration of Flossie being his -god-child. - -Mr. Croker showed the sagacity common to a long line of Tammany chiefs -in the municipal campaign of 1886. It was a time of great excitement. -The labor unions, including the Knights of Labor, had reached the -highest point in organization and in solidarity of feeling ever -attained by them in the history of the city. Knowing their strength, -they were ripe for independent political action, and they were rendered -all the more ready for it by the earnest social propaganda carried on -at the time by Single-Taxers, Socialists and social reformers generally. - -The conviction of certain members of a union for carrying on a boycott -against the Thiess establishment, on Fourteenth street, proved the -one impulse needed for the massing together of all the various clubs -and unions into one mighty movement. The convictions were believed -to be illegal, and moreover to have been fraudulently obtained--and -Tammany was held responsible. Before long the nucleus of an independent -political party was formed. Henry George, then at the height of his -popularity, was looked upon as the logical leader, and he was asked to -become the new party’s candidate for Mayor. To this request he gave an -affirmative answer, contingent upon the securing of 25,000 signatures -to his nominating petition. - -Mr. Croker saw the danger, and he took immediate steps to avert it. -According to the open letter of Henry George to Abram S. Hewitt, -October 17, 1897, Mr. Croker, in behalf of Tammany Hall and the County -Democracy, tried to buy off George by offering him a nomination -regarded as equivalent to an election. George, of course, refused; -the 25,000 names, or a great part of them, were secured; a nominating -convention was held; George was formally nominated, and the United -Labor party was launched. A spirited campaign in George’s behalf was -at once begun, and was responded to by the masses with remarkable -enthusiasm. - -Mr. Croker was equal to the crisis. The agitation among the masses -must be met by the nomination of a representative of the conservative -interests, and a general appeal be made for the “saving of society.” -Accordingly he chose as the Tammany candidate the County Democracy’s -choice, Abram S. Hewitt. - -The Republicans nominated Theodore Roosevelt. His candidacy, however, -was not regarded so seriously as otherwise it might have been, for the -contest narrowed down at once to a class struggle between George and -Mr. Hewitt. Anarchy and every other social ill were prophesied by the -conservatives as the certain results of the former’s election, and -Republicans were openly urged to support the latter. - -The result proved the keenness of Mr. Croker’s foresight. The vote -stood: Hewitt, 90,552; George, 68,110; Roosevelt, 60,435. Yet it -would be difficult to name a time in recent years, if the reiterated -statements of reputable eye-witnesses are to be believed, when frauds -so glaring and so tremendous in the aggregate have been employed in -behalf of any candidate as were committed in behalf of Mr. Hewitt in -1886. There are few living men among the earnest band who supported -George’s interests at the polls on that election day who do not believe -that their candidate was grossly “counted out.” - -Mayor Hewitt revealed an independence of character that astonished -the Wigwam. Before many months he had antagonized its powerful -leaders. By 1888 the United Labor party had dwindled into a faction, -and there being no such compelling reason, as in 1886, for choosing -a candidate outside of the organization, the chiefs selected one of -their own number, Hugh J. Grant. Mr. Hewitt was nominated by the County -Democracy, Joel B. Erhardt by the Republicans, and James J. Coogan by -the remnant of the United Labor party. The vote was as follows: Grant, -114,111; Erhardt, 73,037; Hewitt, 71,979; Coogan, 9,809. For Grover -Cleveland, whom Tammany had this time supported at the nominating -convention, the city gave a plurality of 55,831, out of a total vote of -about 270,000. - -One of the Tammany men elected was James A. Flack, Grand Sachem of the -society (1888-1889), who assumed the duties of Sheriff the following -January. During the same year Flack surreptitiously and fraudulently -obtained a divorce in order to remarry. His wife was the ostensible -plaintiff, but it was shown that she knew nothing of the suit. Flack -and his accomplices were indicted by the Grand Jury, whereupon he was -tried and sentenced to two months in the Tombs prison, and to pay a -fine of $500. The Supreme Court later affirmed the sentence. Some -others implicated also went to prison. The scandal was such that Flack -was removed from the Sheriff’s office, and was forced to resign as -Grand Sachem of the society. - -Tammany was now in practically complete control, and carried things -with a high hand. Most of the departments had again become inefficient -and corrupt. On March 21, 1890, the Grand Jury handed down a -presentment stating that the Sheriff’s office, which for twenty years -had been a hotbed of corruption, had recently been brought into “public -scandal and infamy,” through the growth of notorious abuses; that in -1889 the Sheriff’s net profits had been at least $50,000, not including -certain “extra compensations that could not be ascertained.” Many other -abuses, the Grand Jury further recited, were found to be connected with -the management of this office, and also with the conduct of the Ludlow -Street Jail. - -At about the same time the State Senate Committee on Cities, headed -by J. Sloat Fassett, a Republican, undertook an investigation. Though -subjected to the charges of lukewarmness and bargaining, this body, -popularly known as the “Fassett Committee,” brought out much valuable -information. Part of its testimony has already been referred to. -It is impossible even to summarize the vast total embodied in the -3,650 printed pages of its report, but some of the more interesting -particulars may be briefly touched upon. - -Henry S. Ives and George H. Stayner testified that, while prisoners -at Ludlow Street Jail, they had paid, for various favors, $10,000 to -Warden James P. Keating, then and later a prominent Tammany leader, and -that previously they had paid other large amounts to certain Deputy -Sheriffs.[4] - -John F. B. Smyth testified that when Sheriff Grant had appointed -him Sheriff’s auctioneer--the most valuable gift at the Sheriff’s -disposal--the latter suggested his having as a partner ex-Alderman Kirk -(one of the Aldermen of 1884 indicted in connection with the Broadway -Surface Railroad franchise),[5] saying that the organization insisted -on having “one-half of it [the loot] go to somebody else.” In less than -a year the gross proceeds amounted to about $20,000. Of this, $10,000 -went to various Deputy Sheriffs, one of whom was Bernard F. Martin, -frequently Sachem and another noted Tammany leader.[6] - -A copious amount of similar testimony was brought out implicating many -other Tammany leaders, and showing that the Sheriff’s known income -from the office ranged from $60,000 to $75,000 a year.[7] Thomas P. -Taylor, a lawyer, swore that one of his clients in 1888 had had a claim -of about $4,000 in the Sheriff’s hands, and that William H. Clark, a -Sachem and a powerful Tammany leader, the partner of W. Bourke Cockran, -and sometime Corporation Counsel, had asked him (Taylor), “what he -would give to get it.” Mr. Taylor further testified that he had given -nothing, and that he had secured only a few hundred dollars of the -amount, after much trouble.[8] Clark denied the charge.[9] - -Corruption, favoritism and blackmail were charged against all the other -departments controlled by Tammany, though in the Police and Excise -departments, Republican and Tammany commissioners alike were shown to -have winked at the abuses. Gambling houses had to pay at least $25 a -week for protection,[10] and revenue was likewise derived from every -place or person capable of being blackmailed. The testimony strongly -pointed to the probability that as much as $10,000 had been paid to get -a certain saloon license, though there was no absolute verification of -the statement. - -One interesting fact officially brought out--a fact long generally -known, however, and stated heretofore in this work--was that the -Wiskinskie of the Tammany Society, nominally a city employee, was -the official agent of the organization in collecting assessments, -said to vary from 5 to 10 per cent., on the salaries of every Tammany -office-holder. In fact, Mr. Croker unhesitatingly admitted before the -Fassett Committee, that at that time it cost from $50,000 to $75,000 to -run the organization successfully.[11] Considerable sums were likewise -derived from assessments on candidates. Mr. Hewitt, it was said, -contributed $12,000 in 1886, but Mr. Croker developed a very poor -memory when questioned about this and contributions from many Judges -and other office-holders.[12] - -The revelations, as usual, caused the formation of a citizens’ -movement, and a strong combination of Republicans, Democrats and -independents was formed, under the name of the “People’s Municipal -League,” for the purpose of ousting Tammany. Francis M. Scott, a -Democrat, was nominated for Mayor, and a vigorous campaign was waged. -Tammany minimized the disclosures, and renominated Mr. Grant. A -Democratic tidal wave swept the nation in the Fall of 1890, and on this -wave the Tammany ticket was carried to victory, the local majority -being 23,199. - -The effect on the society and the organization of this victory, -following so closely upon the Fassett revelations, was to impress the -Tammany men with an added sense of security. Accordingly, by tacit -understanding, smirches made upon reputations before the Fassett -Committee were to constitute no bar to political advancement, and the -old condition of things in the departments was to continue. Many of -those who had suffered most at the hands of the Senatorial inquisitors -were elected during the next four years to places in the society and -to public offices. Irving Hall and the County Democracy passed out -of existence, and Tammany had full sway. Administrative corruption -continued, and frauds at the polls, despite certain improvements in the -ballot laws instituted in 1890, developed to a science, reaching their -climax in 1893. - -In 1892 Tammany fought the nomination of Mr. Cleveland for President, -though it supported him after his election. Thomas F. Gilroy, Grand -Sachem (1892-94) was nominated for Mayor, the Republicans presenting -Edwin Einstein. A Democratic landslide marked the election, and the -Tammany candidates won by practically the same majority as that given -to Mr. Cleveland, Mr. Gilroy receiving 173,510, and Mr. Einstein, -97,923 votes. Frauds were numerous, as usual. The opposition vote in a -number of election districts was practically nothing. A certain Tammany -politician, later State Senator from the lower end of town, stood in -the envious wonder of his fellows for a whole year following, for -having secured for the ticket all the votes but four in his election -district. - -The fame of this enterprising worker aroused a determination in the -breasts of others to exceed his record. During the next campaign -(1893) the general indignation against the corrupt conduct of Judge -Maynard, brought out a strong opposition to his elevation to the bench -of the Court of Appeals. Senator Hill caused his nomination, Tammany -supported him, and the word was passed around that he must be elected -at all hazards. As a consequence, frauds of the gravest character -were committed throughout the city. The Tammany leader of the Second -Assembly District, zealous to outdo the record of the previous year, -offered prizes to his election district captains for the best results. -The election overturned all known records. The successful competitor -brought in a poll of 369 to 0. In two other precincts no opposition -votes of any kind were counted, despite the presence of Republican -inspectors, and the fact that Republicans, Socialists, Populists and -Prohibitionists afterward swore under oath that they had voted for -their respective candidates. The vote in this assembly district, -nominally 8,000, rose to nearly 13,000. - -A committee from the Populist County Committee, the local branch of -the National People’s party, immediately took steps to secure evidence -through which to effect the punishment of the lawbreakers.[13] The -evidence secured, with that afterwards obtained by the Republican -County Committee, the City Club, the Good Government clubs, and the Bar -Association, was submitted to the Grand Jury, upon which some sixty -indictments were handed down. A number of convictions were obtained, -and several Tammany and assistant Tammany election officers were sent -to prison. The Tammany leader of the Second Assembly District went to -California immediately after the agitation began, and remained there -until the affair blew over. In the election the following year the vote -of this district fell to the old figures of approximately 8,000. - -The city had again become scandalously corrupt. The bi-partizan -boards, which originally had been established in the hope of applying -some check to the general rascality, had merely furnished greater -opportunities for deals and political bargaining. Charges of blackmail, -extortion, of immunity given to crime, and most other forms of -administrative venality, grew so common that again the State Senate -sent (April, 1894), a committee to the city to investigate. This was -the body commonly known as the “Lexow Committee,” from its chairman, -Clarence Lexow. Its counsel, John W. Goff, vigorously conducted the -investigation, and the result was a mass of information regarding -Tammany methods of government such as the public had not known since -the exposures of Tweed’s time. We can but touch upon the testimony. - -It was shown that during each of the years 1891, 1892 and 1893, many -thousands of fraudulent ballots had been cast by the active cooperation -and connivance of the police; Police Captains were appointed from -those members of the force who especially connived at these frauds, -the appointments being made by the President of the Board of Police -(who was one of the most conspicuous Wigwam leaders) at the instance of -the organization. Tammany influences permeated the Police Department -to such a degree that the district leaders dictated appointments, and -from Captain down almost the entire force joined the Tammany district -associations. Forced contributions were levied upon the members for the -benefit of Wigwam district organizations. - -Capt. Creedon confessed to paying $15,000 to secure a promotion to a -Captaincy, and Capt. Schmittberger, to having secured the appointment -of another man as Captain, in consideration of the payment of $12,000. -The average cost of obtaining an appointment as policeman was $300. -The police functionaries recouped themselves in various ways. Vice and -crime were protected openly. One woman who kept a number of houses of -ill-repute testified that she had paid continuously for protection an -aggregate of $30,000 or more. The system reached such a perfection -in detail that a ratable charge was placed upon each house according -to the number of inmates, the protection prices ranging from $25 to -$50 monthly. Women of the streets paid patrolmen for permission to -solicit, and divided proceeds. Visitors were robbed systematically, and -the plunder was divided with the police. More than 600 policy shops -paid at the monthly rate of $15, while pool rooms paid $300 a month. -It was noted by the committee, as a remarkable fact, that when public -agitation grew very strong, a private citizen, Richard Croker, secured -the closing of these places practically in a single day. Every form of -gambling had to pay high prices for immunity. Green goods swindlers -were required to make monthly payments, to subdivide the city into -districts, and additionally, in case the victim “squealed,” to give -one-half of the plunder to either ward or headquarters detectives. -Saloons paid $20 monthly, according “to the established custom.” The -police also acted in collusion with thieves and dishonest pawnbrokers. -Almost every branch of trade and commerce was forced to make monthly -payments, and from every possible source tribute was wrung. - -The committee incorporated in its testimony the estimate of Foreman -Tabor, of the Grand Jury, in March, 1892, that the annual income -derived from blackmailing and different sources of extortion was -$7,000,000.[14] In this estimate there were probably not included the -large sums paid by corporations of every kind, and all who sought the -favor or feared the power of Tammany Hall. - -The two Democratic members of the Police Board at this time were -James J. Martin, one of the powerful district leaders, and John C. -Sheehan, who became deputy “boss” during Mr. Croker’s absence. No -direct evidence was given to establish their complicity in the general -extortion, but John McClave, the Republican Commissioner, resigned -after a searching and pointed examination. - -Mr. Croker did not testify before the Lexow Committee, urgent business -demanding his presence in England throughout the investigation. - -The public was aroused as it had not been since 1871. An earnest -agitation for reform, largely due to the crusade of Rev. Charles H. -Parkhurst, and to the work of the City Club and the Good Government -clubs, was begun. A Committee of Seventy, composed of representatives -of all classes, was formed to carry on a political contest, and an -enthusiastic support was given to it by the great mass of the public -throughout the campaign. William L. Strong, a Republican and a -prominent dry goods merchant, was nominated by the Seventy for Mayor, -and the Republicans indorsed him. Tammany, after floundering about for -several weeks in the vain hope of securing a candidate strong enough to -stem the opposing tide, selected at first Nathan Straus, who withdrew, -and then Hugh J. Grant, making its campaign largely on the ground -that Mr. Grant was the only unsmirched Tammany member of the “Boodle” -Board of Aldermen of 1884. The contest was bitter and determined on -both sides, Tammany putting forth its utmost efforts to avert the -inevitable disaster. According to a statement of John C. Sheehan, the -organization expended more money in this election than in any election -in recent years. - -The convictions of the previous year had served to cool the zeal of -the Tammany workers for records at the polls. In consequence of this, -and of further changes in the manner of balloting, New York enjoyed -probably the most fairly conducted election of any since the first -organized effort of Tammany men at the polls in 1800. Strong was -elected by a majority of 45,187. With his election went nearly the -whole of the city patronage, changes in the new constitution (1894) -having greatly centralized the city’s administrative functions in the -Mayor’s hands. Tammany was thus thrust out again. - -Mayor Strong’s administration on the whole was beneficial. The city -budget went up to nearly $44,000,000, but for the first time since -Mayor Havemeyer’s time the streets were kept clean--a result due to the -systematic energy of Col. George E. Waring, Jr. Moreover, new schools -were built, new parks laid out, streets asphalted, improvements planned -and carried out, while administrative corruption was almost unheard -of. Not the least of the benefits of this administration was the -partial reform of the Police Department, through the efforts of Police -Commissioner Theodore Roosevelt, and his fellow Commissioners, Avery D. -Andrews, Andrew D. Parker and Frank Moss. - -In the mean time Richard Croker spent most of his time in England. -From being a comparatively poor man, as he testified in 1890, he -became suddenly rich. From April, 1889, to February, 1890, he was City -Chamberlain, at a salary of $25,000 a year, but thereafter he held no -public office. Within two years, however, he was able, according to -common report, to buy an interest in the Belle Meade stock farm for -$250,000, paying additionally $109,000 for Longstreet and other race -horses. Later, he built a new house, said to cost over $200,000, and -lavishly spent money, and displayed the evidences of wealth in other -ways. - -When in the city he was, for a considerable number of years, in the -real estate business. He is popularly credited with having been -interested in the passage and development of certain extremely valuable -franchises which were obtained from the Legislature and Board of -Aldermen for almost nothing. In 1892 he was reputed to dominate the -Legislature, as he did the city, and the lobby disappeared. It was -related at the time that all applicants for favors or for relief from -hostile measures were advised “to see headquarters.” - -One of the franchises granted during that year was the “Huckleberry -franchise,” for a street railway in the Annexed District--a grant which -was worth at the time fully $2,000,000, and yet was practically given -away under circumstances of great scandal.[15] When testifying before -the Mazet Committee in 1899, he was asked whether he had owned, in -1892, 800 shares of the stock of this road, but declined to state.[16] -Another illustration of Mr. Croker’s alleged diversified interests was -furnished by a statement said to have been inspired by John C. Sheehan -and published on December 23, 1900. Mr. Sheehan asserted that in 1894 -he and Mr. Croker were interested in a company formed with a capital -of $5,000,000 for the construction of the rapid transit tunnel. Mr. -Sheehan, the statement read, forced through the Board of Aldermen a -resolution approving the tunnel route which he and Mr. Croker had -selected as the most feasible. The statement further set forth that -Mr. Croker had $500,000 worth of this company’s stock, which came to -him gratuitously, and that he and Mr. Sheehan had been also mutually -interested in a proposed surety company. - -As chairman of the finance committee of Tammany Hall (a post Tweed -and Kelly had held, and which carried with it the titular leadership -of the organization), all the vast funds contributed for Tammany’s -many campaigns passed through his hands. As he himself testified, the -finance committee kept no books.[17] - -Whether Mr. Croker was at home or far abroad, his control of the Wigwam -was absolute. Long since, he had inaugurated the system of “turning -down” any man that disobeyed orders. - -At the time of Mr. Bryan’s nomination, in 1896, Mr. Croker was in -England. His three years’ racing experience there cost him, it was -reported, between $600,000 and $700,000. He remained abroad, leaving -the organization, as we have mentioned, in charge of John C. Sheehan -as a kind of vicegerent. Mr. Sheehan’s public record in Buffalo had -been severely criticized, and many organization men had protested -against his being put in charge. This protest, however, was generally -understood at the time to be founded not so much on the matter of Mr. -Sheehan’s record as on that of his being an interloper from another -section of the State. Tammany that year ignored the national Democratic -platform. Though ratifying Mr. Bryan’s nomination, a general apathy -prevailed at the Wigwam throughout the campaign, and the more radical -Democrats repeatedly charged the leaders with treachery to the ticket. -The result of this apathy and of other influences was that Mr. McKinley -carried the city by over 20,000 plurality. - -Mr. Croker finally returned home in September, 1897, shortly before the -meeting of the Democratic city convention. It was commonly believed -that Mr. Sheehan, the deputy “boss,” had made preparations to assume -the “boss-ship” himself, but Mr. Sheehan emphatically denied this. -Whatever the circumstances were Mr. Croker promptly deprived the former -of power, and later succeeded in practically excluding him from the -organization. - -The “Boss’s” supreme control of city politics was illustrated by the -nomination for Mayor of Greater New York of Robert C. Van Wyck, who -was in no sense the organization’s candidate, but represented merely -Mr. Croker’s choice and dictation. The Citizens’ Union nominated Seth -Low, who probably would have been elected had the Republicans indorsed -him. But the latter nominated Benjamin F. Tracy, thus dividing the -opposition, which was still further disintegrated by the action of -the Jeffersonian Democrats in nominating Henry George, and later -Henry George, Jr., upon the noted economist dying in the heat of the -campaign. The canvass was carried on with the greatest vigor, for under -the Greater New York charter all the territory now embraced in the -city limits was to vote for one Mayor, with a four-years’ term, and -almost dictatorial power in the matter of appointments and removals. -In his statement, heretofore referred to, Mr. Sheehan asserted that -during this campaign he personally collected and turned over to John -McQuade,[18] the treasurer of Tammany Hall, the sum of $260,000, -irrespective of contributions collected by others, and that at the end -of the canvass Mr. McQuade had $50,000 in the treasury.[19] - -The vote stood: Van Wyck, 253,997; Low, 151,540; Tracy, 101,863; -George, 21,693; scattering, 17,464. The Wigwam was beside itself with -joy; the victory meant absolute control of the greater city’s annual -budget of over $90,000,000, not to speak of the tens of millions more -derived from rents, fees, fines, interest, assessments for street -improvements, bond sales and premiums, and from those vast and varied -sources of contract juggling, selling of legislative “goods,” and -all the other avenues, too numerous to enumerate, of which Tammany -from early times has availed itself. It also meant the control of an -army of employees, now estimated at 60,000. The disreputable classes -vociferously celebrated the occasion, assured that the town was once -more to be “wide open.” - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] _Testimony, Senate Committee on Cities_, 1890, Vol. II, pp. 1708-12. - -[2] _Testimony, Senate Committee on Cities_, 1890, Vol. I, pp. 707-8. - -[3] _Ibid._, pp. 745-50, and _Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 1701. - -[4] _Testimony, Senate Committee on Cities_, 1890, Vol. I, pp. 235-52, -and _Ibid._, p. 300. - -[5] Kirk had been dropped from the Council of Sachems in 1886 owing to -the disclosures. - -[6] _Testimony, Senate Committee on Cities_, 1890, Vol. I, pp. 282-87. -Bernard, or “Barney,” Martin and two others had been indicted on the -ground of having been bribed, but the indictments were dismissed in -March, 1890, on a technicality which allowed the defendants to fall -back upon the Statute of Limitations. - -[7] _Testimony, Senate Committee on Cities_, 1890, Vol. I, p. 344. - -[8] _Ibid._, pp. 502-11. - -[9] _Ibid._, p. 513. - -[10] _Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 1244. - -[11] _Testimony, Senate Committee on Cities_, Vol. II, p. 1756. - -[12] _Ibid._, pp. 1757-62. - -[13] The credit for instituting this prosecution has been variously, -and sometimes impudently, claimed. There is no doubt, however, that not -only the first, but the most important evidence, was furnished by this -committee, whose practical head was William A. Ellis, of the Second -Assembly District. - -[14] _Investigation of the Police Department_, etc., 1894, Vol. V, p. -5734. - -[15] See _A History of Public Franchises in New York City_, by the -author. - -[16] _Stenographic minutes_, p. 699. - -[17] _Testimony, Senate Committee on Cities_, 1890, Vol. II, p. 1755. -Mr. Sheehan in the statement cited stated that when, in 1894, Mr. -Croker sent an order to the district leaders requiring that district -assessments amounting to $35,000 should be paid before March 1, the -payments were promptly made. - -[18] Mr. McQuade was associated with Tweed, as a commissioner, in the -building of the Harlem Court House. The testimony brought out in the -case of Henry A. Smalley _vs._ The Mayor, etc., before Judge Donohue, -in the Supreme Court, January 28, 1878, showed that the value of all -the material used in the building was $66,386, but that the Finance -Department had paid out for this material $268,580. - -[19] Early in 1898 Tammany Hall, with considerable display, disposed -of most of this fund, by giving $20,000 for the poor of the city and a -like sum for the Cuban cause. - - - - -CHAPTER XXIX - -THE DICTATORSHIP OF RICHARD CROKER (_Concluded_) - -1897-1901 - - -Now that Tammany was reinstalled in almost absolute power, Mr. Croker -set about choosing the important city officials to be appointed by -the Mayor. He frankly admitted before the Mazet Committee, in 1899, -that practically all of them were selected by him or his immediate -associates. Requiring a routine assistant in the work of “bossing,” -Mr. Croker selected John F. Carroll, who thereupon resigned the -office of Clerk of the Court of General Sessions, which yielded, it -was estimated, about $12,000 a year, to take a post with no apparent -salary. Mr. Croker then returned to horse-racing in England. - -The public pronouncements of the organization continued to voice the -old-time characteristic pretensions of that body’s frugality, honesty -and submission to the popular will. In October, 1898, the county -convention in the Wigwam passed resolutions commending “the wise, -honest and economical” Tammany administration of Greater New York, and -denouncing the “corruption, extravagance and waste of the infamous -mismanagement” by the previous reform administration. Yet at this very -moment the Bar Association was protesting against Mr. Croker’s refusal -to renominate Judge Joseph F. Daly,[1] on the ground of his refusing -to hand over the patronage of his court. The convention itself, despite -its fine words, acted merely as the register of the will of one man, -with scarcely the formality of a contest; and the public had again -become agitated over the certainty of grave scandals in the public -service. - -Tammany’s election fund this year was generally reputed to be in the -neighborhood of $100,000. As much as $500 was spent in each of several -hotly contested election districts. Tammany won, but by a margin -less than had been expected and, in fact, arranged for. The State -Superintendent of Elections, John McCullough, in his annual report -(January, 1899) to Gov. Roosevelt, gave good grounds for believing -that Tammany had been deprived of a large support on which it had -counted. Of 13,104 persons registered from specified lodging houses in -certain strong Tammany districts, only 4,034 voted. It was evident that -colonization frauds on a large scale had been attempted, and had been -frustrated only by the vigilance of Superintendent McCullough. - -The state of administrative affairs in the city grew worse and worse, -nearly approximating that of 1893-94. The Legislature again determined -to investigate, and accordingly sent to the city the special committee -of the Assembly, popularly known as the “Mazet Committee.” This body’s -prestige suffered from the charge that its investigation was unduly -partizan. Moreover, it was generally felt by the public that its work -was inefficiently carried on. Nevertheless, it produced a considerable -array of facts showing the existence of gross maladministration. - -It was disclosed that every member of the Tammany Society or of the -organization’s executive committee, held office, or was a favored -contractor. Over $700,000 of city orders went to favored contractors -without bidding. Various city departments were “characterized by -unparalleled ignorance and unfairness.” The payrolls in some of the -most important departments had increased $1,500,000 between July 1, -1898, and September 1, 1899, and the employees had increased over -1,000, excluding policemen, firemen and teachers. The testimony proved -the increasing inefficiency and demoralization of the Police and Fire -Departments. It further proved the existence of a ramified system of -corruption similar to that revealed by the Lexow Committee. - -The disclosures attracting the greatest public attention were those -relating to the Ice Trust, the Ramapo project, and Mr. Croker’s -relations to the city government. On April 14 the committee exposed a -conspiracy between the Ice Trust and the Dock and other departments -of the city government, to create and maintain a monopoly of New -York’s ice supply. Six days after the exposure, Mayor Van Wyck, as he -subsequently admitted in his testimony before Judge Gaynor, acquired -5,000 shares, worth $500,000, of the Ice Trust stock, alleging that he -paid $57,000 in cash for them; but although urged to substantiate his -statement, did not produce proof that he actually paid anything. It was -shown conclusively before the committee that the arrangement between -the Ice Trust and the city officials was such as to compel the people -to pay 60 cents a hundred pounds, and that the trust had stopped the -sale of five-cent pieces of ice, practically cutting off the supply -of the very poor. Many other Tammany officials were equally involved. -Proceedings were begun some time after, looking to an official -investigation of the Ice Trust’s affairs, and charges against Mayor Van -Wyck were filed with Gov. Roosevelt. The latter were finally dismissed -by the Governor in November, 1900. - -In August, the committee uncovered the Ramapo scheme. The Ramapo Water -Company, with assets “of at least the value of $5,000,” sought to foist -upon the city a contract calling for payment from the city treasury -of an enormous amount in annual installments of about $5,110,000, -in return for at least 200,000,000 gallons of water a day, at $70 -per million gallons. This was proved to be an attempt toward a most -gigantic swindle. Had not Controller Coler exposed and frustrated the -scheme, the Tammany members of the Board of Public Improvements would -have rushed the contract to passage. - -Mr. Croker’s testimony threw a flood of light upon his political -views and standards as well as his powers and emoluments as “boss.” -He acknowledged that he had a powerful influence over the Tammany -legislators at Albany, whose actions he advised, and that he exercised -the same influence upon local officials. He readily conceded that he -was the most powerful man he knew of.[2] “We try to have a pretty -effective organization,” he said; “that is what we are there for.”[3] - -Mr. Croker also admitted that judicial candidates were assessed in -their districts.[4] In fact, some of the Judges themselves named the -respective sums to the committee. Judge Pryor testified that he had -been asked for $10,000 for his nomination for a vacant half-term in -the Supreme Court.[5] Other judicial candidates, it was understood, -paid from $10,000 to $25,000 for nominations.[6] Mr. Croker maintained -that the organization was entitled to all the judicial, executive, -administrative--in brief, all offices--because “that is what the -people voted our ticket for.”[7] Mr. Croker refused to answer many -questions tending to show that he profited by a silent partnership in -many companies which benefited directly or indirectly by his power. -“The man who is virtual ruler of the city,” said Frank Moss and -Francis E. Laimbeer, counsel to the committee, in their report, “can -insure peace and advantage and business to any concern that takes him -and his friends in, and can secure capital here or abroad to float -any enterprise, when he guarantees that the city officials will not -interfere with it.” Mr. Croker was asked many other questions touching -this subject, but gave little information. He declined to answer the -question whether $140,000 of the stock of the Auto-Truck Company had -been given to him without the payment of a dollar; it was his “private -affair.”[8] - -“We are giving the people pure organization government,” he said. He -referred to the thoroughness of discipline in the Wigwam, and stated -that the only way to succeed was to keep the whip in hand over his -henchmen. It took “a lot of time,” and he “had to work very hard -at it.” Tammany was built up, he said, not only upon the political -principles it held, but upon the way its members sustained one another -in business. “We want the whole business, if we can get it”; “to the -party belong the spoils”; “we win, and we expect every one to stand -by us”; “I am working for my pocket all the time,” were some of Mr. -Croker’s answers, most of them told in anything but grammatical English. - -The general opinion obtained that the committee’s work would have been -far more effective and free from charges of partizan bias if Thomas -C. Platt, the Republican “boss,” had been summoned concerning his -alleged political connection with the great corporations and financial -interests, as Mr. Croker had been. - -Apparently the disclosures made no deep impression on the city -administration, for matters went along pretty much as before. On March -9, 1900, the New York _Times_ published a detailed statement, which -it later reiterated, that the sum of $3,095,000 a year was being paid -by the gambling-house keepers of the city to the “gambling-house -commission,” which, it said, was composed of two State Senators, a -representative of the poolroom proprietors, and the head of one of the -city departments. This commission, the account stated, received and -passed upon applications, established the tariff to be paid by the -applicants, and supervised the collections. Later, in the same month, -the Grand Jury handed down a presentment arraigning the city officials -for the sway enjoyed by the criminal and vicious classes.[9] - -Neither the Grand Jury’s presentment nor the _Times’s_ detailed -statements had the slightest effect on the conduct of the city -administration. In November, however, a marked change occurred. For -several years certain reform societies and ecclesiastical bodies, -particularly the Episcopal Church, had sought to mitigate the open -flaunting of immorality in the tenement houses of a particular police -district on the East Side. The attempts had been resisted, not only by -those living upon the proceeds of this immorality, but by the police -themselves; and two ministers who had complained to certain police -officials had been grossly insulted. - -Immediately after the Presidential election, Bishop Henry C. Potter, -of the Episcopal Church, in a stinging letter of complaint, brought -the matter to the attention of Mayor Van Wyck. It was the psychologic -moment for such an action, and it produced immediate results. Mr. -Croker paused in his preparations for his usual trip to England long -enough to give orders to put down the immorality complained of, and he -appointed a committee of five to carry his mandate into effect, or at -least to make some satisfactory show of doing so. He went further than -this, for his orders included a general ukase to the lawbreakers of the -city to “go slow,” or in other words, to observe, until further advices -from headquarters, a certain degree of moderation in their infractions -of law and their outrages upon decency. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] Tweed testified in 1877 that Joseph F. Daly, with two others, -constituted the sole membership of the “Citizens’ Association” of 1870, -and that he had placated the three men by giving them offices, Mr. Daly -securing a Judgeship of the Court of Common Pleas. - -[2] _Stenographic minutes_, p. 451. - -[3] _Ibid._, p. 465. - -[4] _Ibid._, p. 6806. - -[5] _Ibid._, p. 523. - -[6] _Ibid._, pp. 6891, etc. - -[7] _Ibid._, p. 464. - -[8] _Stenographic minutes_, p. 683. - -[9] On December 22, 1900, Gov. Roosevelt removed Asa Bird Gardiner, -the Tammany District Attorney, who was popularly credited with having -originated the phrase, “To hell with reform,” for having encouraged the -turbulent element to open resistance of the law at the election. Eugene -A. Philbin, an independent Democrat, was appointed his successor. The -latter promptly demanded the resignations of many of Mr. Gardiner’s -assistants. Before his election Gardiner had long been chairman of the -Tammany Hall Legal Committee. - - - - -CHAPTER XXX - -TAMMANY UNDER ABSENTEE DIRECTION - -1901-1902 - - -In the municipal campaign of 1901 the anti-Tammany forces combined -upon the nomination of Seth Low, a Republican, for Mayor, and upon the -nominations of various other candidates for city offices. Tammany’s -candidate for Mayor was Edward M. Shepard. Both Mr. Low and Mr. Shepard -were acclaimed by their respective supporters as men of standing, -prestige and public character. Mr. Low was a man of wealth who had -become president of Columbia University. Mr. Shepard was a lawyer of -note, although some critics pointed out that his practise was that of -a corporation attorney, serving the great vested interests. It may -be remarked that Mr. Shepard was a son of the brilliant Lorenzo B. -Shepard, who, as stated in Chapter XVI of this work, became a leader -of Tammany Hall at so early an age and was chosen Grand Sachem of the -Tammany Society. - -The scandals of Mayor Van Wyck’s administration were conspicuous issues -of the campaign of 1901. But there were two particularly noteworthy -features pressed by the reformers in their indictment of Tammany. One -of these issues, which made so deep an impression upon the public mind, -especially in the densely populous East Side of New York City, was the -flagrant immorality under which young girls of the tenderest age were -often decoyed into lives of shame. The question thus presented was -neither that of the “suppression of vice” nor that of how people could -be made virtuous by mandate of law. The question, as put to voters, -was whether a system under which a corrupt, money-making combination of -vicious lawbreakers with police and other officials should be allowed -to continue in abhorrent traffic. - -A widely-circulated pamphlet published by the City Club for the -Women’s Municipal League presented a series of facts as attested by -court records, the statements of City Magistrates, the Society for the -Prevention of Cruelty to Children and others, and as reported by the -Committee of Fifteen, composed of reformers, probing into the question. -The pamphlet declared that the facts justified the conclusion that the -business of ruining young girls and forcing them into a life of shame, -for the money there was in it for the dealers, had recently grown to -considerable proportions; that its existence was known to the police; -that the police made little or no effort to stop it; that the police, -or those for whom they acted, probably derived profit from the traffic; -and that a reasonably active and efficient Police Department could -stop the traffic of a deliberate merchandizing of the virtue of women, -usually young girls. Details were given of numerous cases which had -been passed upon in the courts, and a long description of the traffic -was included from a statement made on October 21, 1901, by District -Attorney Eugene A. Philbin of New York County.[1] - -Justice William Travers Jerome, of the Court of Special Sessions, -had already made a similar statement. He was quoted in the New York -_Times_, of June 27, 1901, as saying: - - “People are simply ignorant of conditions on the East Side - [of New York City]. If those conditions existed in some other - communities there would be a Vigilance Committee speedily - organized, and somebody would get lynched. The continued greed - and extortion of the Police Captains who charge five hundred - dollars for a disorderly resort to open in their precinct, - and then collect fifty to a hundred [dollars] per month, has, - however, made even vice unprofitable. Details, I know, are - revolting and not nice to read, but yet the people ought to - know about them. Just yesterday I sentenced to six months in - the penitentiary the keepers of one of the most depraved houses - of the East Side. I firmly believe that they were merely the - agents of the man who owns not one but many of such places. He - is well known as a politician in a certain notorious district. - - “That house is but one of hundreds within a radius of one mile - of this building [the Criminal Court House] where criminals - are sometimes brought to justice. I will stake my reputation - that there are scores within less than that distance from here - in which there are an average of ten or twelve children from - thirteen to eighteen years old.”[2] - -Nominated for District Attorney of New York County by the anti-Tammany -forces, Mr. Jerome’s speeches on these existing conditions made a -keen impression and excited the deepest feeling, especially among the -people of the East Side. Intricate questions of taxation and arrays -of figures proving an exorbitant budget and the waste of public funds -could not make the same appeal to their indignation as the portrayal of -conditions menacing their home life and polluting their environment. -The facts thus spread forth caused the most intense resentment against -Tammany. - -In reply Tammany Hall sought to represent that the traffic thus -described was largely mythical--and that at all events it was greatly -exaggerated. It was no fiction, however, nor was police connivance -and corruption a fiction, either. So far as the open flaunting of -vicious conditions was concerned, Tammany Hall had itself been forced -to recognize them; as a concession to public opinion Mr. Croker had, -in November, 1900, appointed an Anti-Vice Committee with orders to -investigate vice conditions and “clean up” the “Red Light” district. -To impart a tone of good faith to the work of this committee, he had -appointed Lewis Nixon, a naval academy graduate and a ship builder, -its chairman. It was generally understood that this committee had -been created as a clever campaign move to offset in the public mind -the growing indignation against Tammany, many of the leaders of -which, it was notorious, had profited richly from the system of police -“protection” of vice. - -In respect to the “white slave” traffic, however, it must be said, in -justice to Tammany, that the factors attributed were not the only ones -responsible, and such a traffic was far from being confined to New York -City; it went on in other cities under Republican and Reform as well -as Democratic rule. This was conclusively shown later by the necessity -of the passage of a law passed by Congress aimed at the traffic (a -law subsequently diverted somewhat from its original purpose), and by -official investigations and court proceedings. The large number of -prosecutions in the Federal courts under that law showed the widespread -character of the traffic. - -Another important issue of the municipal campaign of 1901 was the -scandal growing out of the charges that William C. Whitney, Thomas F. -Ryan, W. L. Elkins, P. A. B. Widener, Thomas Dolan and associates had -looted the stockholders of the Metropolitan Street Railway Company of -New York City of tens of millions of dollars. Whitney and Ryan were -credited with being among the chief financial powers long controlling -“Boss” Croker; and by means of his control of Tammany Hall, and in turn -New York City, securing franchises, privileges and rights of enormous -value. This control was often equally true of the New York State -legislature; subsequent developments, in fact, revealed that in years -when the Legislature was dominantly Republican and therefore could not -be ordered by Mr. Croker, both Republican and Democratic legislators -were corrupted by the Metropolitan Street Railway Company, or by agents -acting for it. - -According to Mr. W. N. Amory,[3] who was thoroughly familiar with -the affairs of the Metropolitan Street Railway Company, and who -exposed its looting, Mr. Jerome knew, in 1901, “that the conduct -of Metropolitan affairs was corrupt. We had on numerous occasions -discussed that point.” - -Mr. Jerome made profuse public promises that if he were elected -District Attorney he would press investigation. “Let me tell you,” he -said at the conclusion of a speech on October 26, 1901, “that if I am -elected I shall make it my business to follow the trail of wrongdoing -and corruption not only when they lead into tenement houses, but I -shall follow them even if they lead into the office of the Metropolitan -Street Railway Company.” Mr. Jerome added: “No one knows better than I -do that when I am attacking the Metropolitan Street Railway Company, I -am arraying myself against the most dangerous, the most vindictive and -the most powerful influences at work in this community.”[4] - -Mr. Jerome’s denunciations and promises aroused great enthusiasm and -large expectations; they had much effect in contributing to the result -of the campaign, for it was popularly realized that while Tammany -leaders accumulated their millions of dollars, yet back of these -leaders, and secretly operating through them, were magnates of great -financial power with their tens or hundreds of millions of dollars -acquired largely by means of financial and industrial power conferred -by legislation, permissory or statute, of various kinds. The electorate -well knew that comparatively small grafters were numerous, but now it -had the promise that the large spoliators, hitherto immune, would be -exposed and prosecuted, if possible. - -The result of the election was that Mr. Low was elected Mayor by a -plurality of 31,636. Nearly all of the other anti-Tammany candidates -for the large offices were also elected, although Tammany’s candidate -for the Borough of the Bronx--Louis F. Haffen--was successful. The -total vote stood: Low, 296,813; Shepard, 265,177. For other political -parties, a small vote was cast: Benjamin Hanford, candidate for -Mayor of the Social Democratic party, received 9,834 votes; Keinard, -Socialist Labor candidate for Mayor, polled 6,213 votes, and Manierre, -Prohibition candidate for Mayor, 1,264 votes. - -That of a total vote of 561,990 votes cast for the two chief opposing -candidates, Tammany and its allied organizations should have polled -265,177 votes, showed Tammany Hall’s enormous strength, even in the -face of a combination of opponents, with all the strength of definite -issues obviously putting Tammany on the defensive. - -Realizing that the attacks upon him personally as the “boss” of Tammany -Hall and of the city had been successful in a political sense, Mr. -Croker wisely concluded, immediately after this defeat, to obscure -himself and give an appearance of retiring from active participation in -the affairs of Tammany Hall. Conscious, too, of the public discredit -attaching to Tammany methods and Tammany leaders, he saw that the time -had come to inject some show of an element of respectability and reform -into Tammany Hall. He now underwent the formalities of an “abdication.” - -On January 13, 1902, the astonishing news was made public that he -had selected Lewis Nixon as his successor as the leader of Tammany -Hall. Mr. Nixon, at this time, was forty-one years old; hailing from -Leesburg, Virginia, he had been graduated from the United States -Naval Academy, and had become a naval constructor, later owning his -own naval ship plant at Elizabeth, New Jersey. He was also connected -with a number of private corporations. In 1898 he had been appointed -by Mayor Van Wyck to the office of President of the East River Bridge -Commission, and in 1900-1901 had acted, as we have seen, as Chairman of -Mr. Croker’s Anti-Vice Committee. - -When the educated Mr. Nixon assumed what he styled the leadership of -Tammany Hall, not only seasoned politicians of all grades but also the -sophisticated smiled skeptically. Tammany district leaders maintained -in public an air of profound gravity and obedient acquiescence which -caused general amusement. And when Mr. Nixon solemnly discussed his -plans for the improvement of Tammany Hall, he was popularly regarded -as an innocent. Even when Mr. Croker, as an apparent token of good -faith, made Mr. Nixon chairman of the Tammany Finance Committee, -few considered his appointment seriously; he was generally dubbed -“the phantom leader.” Having attended to Mr. Nixon’s installation, -Mr. Croker sailed abroad to his estate at Wantage; to all nominal -appearances he had severed himself from Tammany politics. - -This comedy lasted but a few months. On May 14, 1902, Mr. Nixon sent -his resignation as leader to the Tammany Hall Executive Committee. He -accompanied his resignation with a speech in which he declared that -since he had become chairman of the Tammany Hall Finance Committee, -he had found himself so hampered by a “kitchen cabinet” headed by -Andrew Freedman (Mr. Croker’s business partner) and by the continued -interference of the absent Mr. Croker, that he could no longer lead -Tammany Hall and retain his self-respect in the circumstances. - -“Every important act of mine,” Mr. Nixon announced, “has been cabled -to England before it became effective. Mr. Freedman and his party -interfered with me at every turn, and at last sought to dictate to me -whom I ought to place on the Board of Sachems. - -“Then a cablegram came from Wantage [Mr. Croker’s estate] direct to -me to place certain men on the Board of Sachems, and when I rebelled -I found that at every turn I would be opposed by this coterie of -interferers. - -“I found that nearly all my important acts had to be viséd before they -became effective. Many of the district leaders would accept my orders, -but before carrying them out, they would get advice from Mr. Croker.”[5] - -With this announcement Mr. Nixon vanished from the scene of Tammany -politics. - -As a matter of fact, certain Tammany district leaders were already -planning to bring about a change of actual leadership. - -On May 22, 1902, the Executive Committee of Tammany Hall took steps -which tended to sever the relation that Mr. Croker retained with the -organization. It voted to recommend the abolition of the Sub-Committee -on Finance which had always been presided over by the various “bosses” -of Tammany Hall, thus eliminating from the chairmanship of that -committee Andrew Freedman, who was the representative and mouthpiece of -the absentee Mr. Croker. - -At the same time the Executive Committee chose a triumvirate of leaders -to guide the organization. The regency of three thus selected were -Charles F. Murphy, Daniel F. McMahon and Louis F. Haffen. All three, of -course, were Tammany district leaders. Mr. Murphy’s career is described -hereafter. Mr. McMahon was chairman of Tammany’s Executive Committee -and head of the contracting firm of Naughton & Company. It was this -company that made a fortune from the contract for changing the motive -power of the Third Avenue Railway, regarding which there was so much -scandal. With nothing more than powerful political “pull,” this concern -obtained large contracts. It was charged by John C. Sheehan that -Richard Croker secured 50 per cent. of the profits of this company, and -that he pocketed $1,500,000 from this source; this assertion, however, -depended merely upon Mr. Sheehan’s word; it was not established in -any official investigation. The third member of the triumvirate, Mr. -Haffen, was now president of the Borough of the Bronx. - -But this triumvirate did not last long. On September 19, 1902, it was -effaced, and Charles F. Murphy became the boss of Tammany. This action -was taken at a meeting of the Executive Committee. At this meeting -former Chief of Police Devery, holding that he had been elected at the -primaries, tried to have himself recognized as a district leader, but -his claims were speedily disposed of and he was shut out. Mr. Haffen -handed in this resolution: - - “Whereas, the experiment of the Committee of Three having - proved the desirability of individual responsibility in - leadership, - - “Resolved, That the powers and duties heretofore exercised and - performed by the Committee of Three be hereafter exercised and - performed by Charles F. Murphy.” - -Nine Tammany district leaders, headed by John F. Carroll, who evidently -aimed at power himself, opposed the resolution, but twenty-seven other -district leaders voted it through. One of the leaders immediately sent -a cablegram to Mr. Croker announcing the result. Now that Mr. Murphy -was chosen leader, he also became the treasurer of Tammany Hall. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] _Facts for New York Parents_, etc., Published for the Women’s -Municipal League by the City Club of New York, October, 1901. - -[2] _Ibid._ - -[3] From 1895 to 1900 Mr. Amory was connected in an official capacity -with the Third Avenue Railway Company. - -[4] Report of speech in the New York _Herald_, October 27, 1901. - -[5] This speech was published in the New York _Sun_ and other -newspapers on the following day. - - - - -CHAPTER XXXI - -CHARLES F. MURPHY’S AUTOCRACY - -1902-1903 - - -Charles Francis Murphy, supreme leader of the Tammany organization from -1902 to this present writing, was born in New York City on June 20, -1858. He was a son of Dennis Murphy, an Irishman whose eight children -all were born in the same district in New York City, and all of whom -obtained the rudiments at least of a public school education. Dennis -Murphy, it may be here said, lived to the remarkably hale age of -eighty-eight years, dying in 1902. - -As a youth, “Charlie” Murphy worked in an East Side shipyard, by no -means a genteel schooling for a boy, although affording a forceful kind -of experience of much value in his later career. Having to fight his -way among rough youths, he developed both physical prowess and a sort -of domineering ascendency which gave him marked leadership qualities -among the virile youths overrunning what was then a district noted for -its gangs. It was a section of the city filled with vacant lots and was -long called the “Gas House District”; here it was that the notorious -“Gas House Gang” achieved local reputation. - -Tradition has it that when a very young man “Charlie” Murphy organized -the Sylvan Social Club, a species of Tammany Hall juvenile auxiliary, -composed of boys and youths ranging from fifteen to twenty years of -age of whom he became the recognized leader. Later, through political -influence, he obtained a job as driver on a cross-town horse car -line. In his later career his enemies invidiously related how jobs of -that kind were much coveted at the time because of the fact that as -there were no bell punches or car fare registers, the conductors could -easily help themselves to a proportion of the fares and divide with the -drivers. True, this practise was prevalent, but the implication thus -cast upon Mr. Murphy has been simply a gratuitous one, lacking even the -elements of proof; it can therefore be dismissed from consideration. - -He was a manly youth noted for his filial care, a solicitous son, -turning in most of his earnings to his mother; he was, in fact, -the main support of the family. At the same time he put by enough -money--said to have been $500--to establish himself in the saloon -business. - -In 1879 he became owner of a diminutive saloon on Nineteenth street, -east of Avenue A. Four years later, he opened another saloon, larger -and better equipped than the first, at the corner of Twenty-third -street and Avenue A. He was already a pushful, resourceful Tammany -worker in his district, in which he was a district captain. Of the -underground methods and diversified influences of district politics he -had a good knowledge, and no less so the application of campaign funds -in the most effective ways for producing votes. Shortly before 1886, -Mr. Murphy opened another saloon, this time at Nineteenth street and -First avenue. Subsequently he opened still another saloon at Twentieth -street and Second avenue, which was the headquarters of the Anawanda -Club, the Tammany district organization. Selling out the original -saloon in which he had started business, he now opened a saloon at -the northwest corner of First avenue and Twenty-third street. By -1890 he was the owner of four prosperous saloons. It was said of him -that he never tolerated a woman in his saloons, although all of his -saloons were situated in a district where the admission of women was a -commonplace. - -In 1892, at the age of thirty-two years, he was chosen Tammany leader -of the “Gas-House” district. He was popular with the generality of -people there; however reserved was his talk, he was always credited -with being generous with his cash; no poor person was turned away -empty-handed. It was narrated of him that during the blizzard of 1888 -the Tammany General Committee, at his prompting, voted $4,000 for the -relief of the poor, and that a large part of it came from Mr. Murphy’s -own pocket. Of the $4,000, the sum of $1,500 was given to the Rev. -Dr. Rainsford’s mission for distribution. Such personal acts of human -warmth (irrespective of motive) counted more with masses of voters than -tons of formal polemics on civic virtue, nor did the recipients care as -to what source the funds came from. Even Dr. Rainsford was so impressed -that he was moved to say from the pulpit of St. George’s Church that if -all the Tammany leaders were like the leader of the Eighteenth Assembly -District (Mr. Murphy), Tammany would be an admirable organization. - -As a district leader, Mr. Murphy carried on politics and saloons -systematically as a combined business. One of his brothers had long -been on the police force; another brother was an Alderman; still -another brother became an Alderman and Councilman. - -When Mr. Van Wyck was elected Mayor, Charles F. Murphy was appointed -a Dock Commissioner. Report had it that when he went into the Dock -Board Mr. Murphy “was worth” perhaps $400,000, accumulated in the -saloon business and politics in eighteen years. He had long been known -as “Silent Charlie.” Within a few years after his appointment as Dock -Commissioner, his fortune, it was said, reached at least $1,000,000. -When he became Dock Commissioner, Mr. Murphy nominally assigned his -four saloons to a brother and three old friends. - -Before leaving the office of Dock Commissioner, John J. Murphy (Charles -F. Murphy’s brother), James E. Gaffney and Richard J. Crouch (one of -Charles F. Murphy’s political district lieutenants) had incorporated -the New York Contracting and Trucking Company. Gaffney was an Alderman. -These three men were credited with holding only five shares each -of the hundred shares of the company; just who held the remaining -eighty-five shares has never been definitely explained. When quizzed -later by a legislative committee, Charles F. Murphy denied that he had -any ownership or financial interest in the New York Contracting and -Trucking Company, and no records could be found proving that he did -have any interest. - -One of the transactions of this company was as follows: In July, 1901, -the company leased a dock at West Ninety-sixth Street, and it leased -another dock at East Seventy-ninth Street, paying the city a total rent -of $4,800 a year for the two properties. It would appear from a report -subsequently made by Commissioner of Accounts William Hepburn Russell -to Mayor Low that the average profit from the two dock properties -was $200 a day, making a rate of 5,000 per cent. on the investment. -This particular transaction of the New York Contracting and Trucking -Company, lucrative as it was, nevertheless was modest compared to the -company’s subsequent transactions which we shall duly describe. - -Certainly by the year 1902, Mr. Murphy showed the most visible -evidences of some sizable degree of wealth; he acquired a suburban -estate at Good Ground, Long Island, owning, too, in time, among other -possessions denoting wealth, a string of automobiles. - -This millionaire leader of Tammany Hall was by no means an unpleasant -man to meet. He had a certain diffidence and he was not a good talker; -his old habit of attentively listening was too strongly fixed. -Physically strong, his deep voice and direct, concise manner when he -did speak were impressive and always concentrated on the business at -hand. He had none of the ordinary vices; he drank liquor occasionally, -it was true, but his drinks were sparse and the times far separated. -In smoking he did not indulge, neither did he swear, nor gamble at -cards, although he was not a stranger to stock market speculations. -A communicant of the Epiphany Roman Catholic Church, he attended -mass every Sunday, and gave liberal donations to the church. Unlike -Mr. Croker, Mr. Murphy never cared to make the Democratic Club his -headquarters; every night, when a district leader, Mr. Murphy could -be found, from 7:30 to 10 o’clock, leaning against a lamp post at the -northwest corner of Twentieth Street and Second Avenue. Everybody in -the district knew that he would be there, accessible to anybody who -wanted to talk to him. Such were the career and characteristics of the -new leader of Tammany Hall--a dictator in fact, yet preserving all of -the tokens of democratic accessibility. - -Mayor Low’s administration failed to make an impression calculated to -influence a majority of voters to reelect him. Quite true, most of -his appointees to head the various departments were men of character, -administrative capacity and sincerity of purpose--radically different -types, indeed, from the Tammany district leaders who were usually -appointed to those offices under Tammany administrations. - -But in appointing Colonel John N. Partridge as commissioner of police, -Mayor Low chose a weak and inefficient man. The demoralized condition -of the police administration under Tammany had long been the special -target of the reformers’ attacks, and people had expected a wholesome -overhauling of that department under Mayor Low. Colonel Partridge’s -administration, however, was so disappointing that the City Club was -moved to demand his resignation. It criticized Commissioner Partridge -for taking no adequate measures to break up the alliance between the -police and crime, or to get a proper understanding of the underlying -conditions in the police department, and further criticized him for -surrounding himself at headquarters with notoriously corrupt officers, -one of whom, in fact, was made his principal uniformed adviser. - -The City Club’s criticism did not charge that Partridge was personally -corrupt, but that he was weak and gullible and was ignorant of real -conditions. “Commissioner Partridge and his deputies adopted the idea -of ruling the police force according to military ideas. The word -of a superior officer was accepted absolutely as against that of a -subordinate. In a force where the superior officers had, for the most -part, secured their promotions by bribery; where the superior officers -were the beneficiaries of blackmailing; and where the honest men, as a -rule, remained subordinates--the attempt to instil a spirit of respect -among the men for their superiors excited only ridicule, and added to -the prevalent demoralization.…”[1] - -True as such a general statement was, it has been equally true, as -experience has shown, that various other reform police commissioners -have vainly tried “to break the system”; temporary figures, -commissioners come and go, but “The System” has remained more or less -intact. Even General Francis V. Greene, appointed by Mayor Low January -1, 1903, to succeed Colonel Partridge (who resigned the day before the -trustees of the City Club’s demand for his resignation was handed in), -found this to be a fact, notwithstanding his earnest, conscientious -efforts to correct conditions in the police department. - -The vote of the body of the police force themselves showed, in 1902, -their complete dissatisfaction with conditions. At least 75 per cent. -of the police force voted for Low in 1901; a year later fully 90 per -cent. voted for Bird S. Coler, Tammany’s candidate for Governor.[2] - -This was only one of many indications of a forthcoming Tammany victory. -Even some reformers criticized Mayor Low as at all times ready to -denounce the Tammany leader from whom he could expect nothing, while -refraining from saying anything against Senator Thomas C. Platt, the -Republican “boss” who represented and headed a political machine -element not materially different from that of Tammany. Mayor Low, -it was also critically pointed out, was not of a type to hold the -goodwill of a large body of the proletarian voters; his views, manner -and leanings were of an aristocratic order; and in a city where -class distinctions were so notoriously and effectively exploited by -Tammany Hall, nothing could be more destructive to the endurance of -an administration than the popular belief that its head, however -honest personally, embodied the interests and smug views of the people -of wealth--that he was, in the expressive phrase of politics, “a -silk-stocking.” Various acts of Mayor Low’s were cited against him and -deepened this impression in the popular mind.[3] Mayor Low’s supporters -pointed out energetically that he had reduced the city’s debt by -$7,000,000; that he had reformed the system of tax collection; that he -had secured for the city adequate payments for public franchise grants; -that he had defeated corrupt “jobs”; that he had reformed the public -school system--that in every way he had been a thorough reform Mayor. -These representations, the election result showed, were in vain. - -With conditions favorable to its return to power, Tammany Hall took -measures to make its ticket in the municipal campaign of 1903 headed by -a candidate whose name stood for prestige and respectability. - -Tammany’s candidate for Mayor was George B. McClellan, whose father -of the same name, after serving as Commanding General in the Union -Army during part of the Civil War, had been the Democratic candidate -for President of the United States in 1864. A political protégé of -Charles F. Murphy, George B. McClellan had seen service in Congress -and had been selected by Mr. Murphy as Tammany’s candidate for Mayor -a considerable time before the campaign opened. Jealousy antagonistic -to Tammany’s domination and assertion of supreme power, the Brooklyn -Democratic organization, then under control of “Boss” Hugh McLaughlin, -opposed McClellan’s nomination, but Mr. Murphy carried his point. - -To the amazement and chagrin of the Republicans and Fusionists, -Tammany Hall then consummated a bold and astute political stroke by -appropriating two of the three principal nominees of its opponents’ -ticket, and nominating them as Tammany candidates. These two men were -Edward M. Grout and Charles V. Fornes, respectively occupying the -offices of Controller and President of the Board of Aldermen under -Mayor Low’s administration. With Mayor Low they had been renominated. -Thus did Tammany shrewdly weaken the other side and present itself -as having two chief candidates of the same identity and capacity as -those of the reformers. Mayor Low and his supporters did not accept -this unhumorous situation complacently; they indignantly forced Grout -and Fornes off their ticket. But the effect sought by Tammany had been -produced. - -Mr. McClellan was elected Mayor by a plurality of 62,696. The vote -resulted: McClellan, 314,782; Low, 252,086. Furman, candidate for -Mayor of the Social Democratic party, received 16,596 votes; Hunter, -the Socialist Labor party’s candidate for Mayor, 5,205 votes. For the -Prohibition ticket 869 votes were cast. In this election Tammany also -elected its candidates, including Grout and Fornes, to all of the -other important city offices, except the Presidency of the Borough of -Richmond. The results of the election practically gave Tammany Hall -full control of the city. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] _The Police Department of the City of New York--A Statement of -Facts_, published by the City Club of New York, October, 1903, pp. -52-55, etc. - -[2] _Ibid._, p. 58. - -[3] See a long letter from a leading reformer published in the New York -_Herald_, April 12, 1903. - - - - -CHAPTER XXXII - -THE SWAY OF BRIBERY AND “HONEST GRAFT” - -1903-1905 - - -Graft of all kinds was rampant, as later official investigation showed, -in Tammany-controlled departments, but in the public mind the question -of this form of graft was vastly overshadowed by the revelations of the -New York legislative committee investigating the great life insurance -companies. - -The disclosures showed that Republican legislators as well as -Democratic were bought; that enormous corruption funds had been -contributed to both political parties, and that one political machine -was no better than the other. - -Bribery expenditures, the committee reported, were classified on the -various insurance companies’ books as “legal expenses.” The committee -described the amounts as extraordinarily large. In the year 1904 alone, -the Mutual Life Insurance Company thus disbursed $364,254.95; the -Equitable Life Assurance Society, $172,698.42, and the New York Life -Insurance Company, $204,019.25.[1] - -Andrew C. Fields, long engaged by the Mutual Life Insurance Company -to manipulate legislation at Albany, lived there in a sumptuously -furnished house jocosely styled the “House of Mirth.” The expenditures -were charged to “legal expenses.” The Mutual thus expended more than -$2,000,000 in “legal expenses” from 1898 to 1904.[2] And from 1895 -to 1904, the total payments made by the New York Life Insurance -Company to Andrew Hamilton, its chief lobbyist at Albany, amounted -to $1,312,197.16, all of which sum was soberly entered as “legal -expenses.”[3] A present of nearly $50,000 was contributed in 1894 -by the New York Life Insurance Company to the campaign fund of the -Republican National Committee, and similar amounts in 1896 and 1900 to -the same recipient.[4] All of the large insurance companies regularly -contributed funds not only for national political campaigns, but for -those in the States; the Equitable, for example, gave $50,000 in -1904 to the Republican National Committee, and had also, for many -years, been giving $30,000 annually to the New York State Republican -Committee.[5] The legislative investigating committee found it -impossible to trace all of the directions of this continuous great -corruption. “Enormous sums,” the committee stated, “have been expended -in a surreptitious manner.” - -Under the pressure of public opinion, District Attorney Jerome finally -caused the Grand Jury to proceed against a few of the figureheads -involved; the great magnates who had profited so enormously from the -huge frauds, were, so events proved, left untouched. Although it had -been clearly proved by the testimony that the frauds and corruptions -consummated were gigantic, not a single one of those of great wealth -implicated was ever sent to jail or even incommoded by the formality of -a trial. - -In the face of such disclosures, the opponents of Tammany could not -well point to Tammany corruption as an exclusive product. It was a -time, too, when what was termed “muckraking” was almost at its height; -magazines and newspapers, were filled with articles exposing in detail -the corruptions and colossal manipulations and spoliation done by great -corporations and other vested interests, and the close connection -between these and the “bosses” and machines of both old political -parties. Public attention was concentrated more upon these nationwide -scandals than upon local graft--petty, indeed, in some respects, -compared to the great extortions of trusts and other industrial, -transportation and financial corporations. - -These factors had their influence in developing in New York City -a powerful movement called the Municipal Ownership League, later -passing under the name of the Independence League. The head of this -organization was William R. Hearst. He had inherited a large fortune -from his father, United States Senator George Hearst. The estate -comprised a San Francisco newspaper; and William R. Hearst had come to -New York, where he now had a morning and an evening newspaper. Of a -sensational order, yet written in popular style, these newspapers had -an extensive circulation, and their agitational matter were in reality -the mainstay of his movement. Two of the local objectives of this -agitation were the scandalous overcrowding of the street car system -and the methods by which the subway system in New York City, built -by the city’s credit, had been turned over to the profit of private -interests. At the same time, no means was neglected to awaken popular -resentment against the “plunderbund” fattening on the people, and to -arouse indignation against the bossism of Tammany Hall. Day after day -effective articles, editorials and cartoons were published; written -in a simple style, understandable by the crudest intelligence, they -produced a great effect among the voters. Nothing quite like this -original kind of political journalism had ever been known in New York -City. - -The operations of the New York Contracting and Trucking Company, in -particular, supplied facts which were used effectually by newspapers -and civic organizations to show the new methods by which Tammany -leaders were gathering in millions from contracts. This company, as we -have seen, was headed by John J. Murphy, brother of the Tammany Hall -chief, and by Alderman James E. Gaffney. - -Its transactions revealed the great difference between Tweed’s methods -and those of the later leaders of Tammany Hall. Under the Tweed régime -tens of millions of dollars were stolen outright. The lesson of the -overthrow of the Tweed “ring” was not lost on his successors. Mr. -Croker refused to countenance such outworn, discarded and dangerous -methods of theft. They had resulted disastrously to Tammany in Tweed’s -day. In place of direct thieving methods of getting rich, indirect -methods, surrounded with secrecy and every possible precaution against -detection, were developed. Some Tammany district leaders became opulent -on blackmail and extortion, the circuitous route of which it was most -difficult to trace (in a legal sense) to its final destination. As for -Mr. Croker himself, the question was frequently put to him, “Where did -you get it?”[6] He could reply that his operations in amassing his -wealth were entirely legitimate; “inside” real estate speculations, -connections with trust companies and other corporations and stock -transactions. Knowing him to be the source of much legislation and -administrative favors worth tens, if not hundreds, of millions of -dollars to corporations, his opponents were by no means wholly -satisfied with such an explanation, but whatever their suspicions -they could never prove that he had personally profited from selling -legislation. Essentially, however, Mr. Croker never posed as a business -man; he was a politician. - -But by the period when Charles F. Murphy became “chief,” the -“business-man” type of leader had evolved. Under this plan--a plan that -afforded the most plausible opportunities for explaining the sudden -acquisition of wealth--Tammany men became open or secret partners -in contracting firms, using the pressure of political power to have -large contracts awarded to their concerns. It was not necessary -for these leaders to know anything of contracting; they could be -ignorant of every detail; their one aim was to get the contracts; the -actual skilled work could be done by hired professional men. No law -penalized such methods, respectable in every appearance. At the same -time, inasmuch as speculating in the stock market was legitimate in -law, fortunes could be made in acting upon advance information of -legislative or other official means concerning certain corporations. - -The first large contract obtained by the New York Contracting and -Trucking Company was a $2,000,000 contract for excavating the site for -the new Pennsylvania Railroad Station in New York City. - -For a long time, notwithstanding reiterated protests from the press and -public organizations, the Board of Aldermen, controlled by Tammany, had -obstinately refused to vote for the franchise giving the Pennsylvania -Railroad power to use streets for its tunnel approaches and terminal -in Manhattan, New York City. Reports were circulated that the sum of -$300,000 had been demanded by the Aldermen, and that until that sum was -produced they would not vote for the franchise. It was noted that it -was “Big Jim” Gaffney, “outside man” for the New York Contracting and -Trucking Company and Alderman from Leader Charles F. Murphy’s district, -who, together with “Little Tim” Sullivan, Tammany leader in the Board -of Aldermen, took a leading part in persuading the Aldermen to hold -out against giving the franchise for the Pennsylvania tunnel. The -newspapers unanimously described the Aldermanic action as a “hold-up.” -Likewise, it was also noted that when from some mysterious quarter -orders reached Tammany Aldermen to vote for the franchise, it was -Alderman Gaffney who took the lead in rallying the Aldermen to vote it -through. - -This sudden change of front after a protracted “hold-up,” puzzled -the public exceedingly, and sinister imputations were made. Not until -months later did the public begin to see illumination; it was then -announced that although the New York Contracting and Trucking Company -had not been the lowest bidder (its bid, according to report, was -$400,000 more than that of a competitor), nevertheless it had been -awarded the $2,000,000 contract for digging the Pennsylvania Railroad -site. - -In the case of the awarding of a contract covering several million -dollars in February, 1905, to the New York Contracting and Trucking -Company for the six-track local improvement of the New York, New Haven -and Hartford Railroad, the circumstances were much the same. - -A franchise had been asked for a project called the New York, -Westchester and Boston Railroad Company. At the same time, another -company calling itself the New York and Port Chester Railroad Company, -made a similar application and opposed the other company. Both -companies, as subsequent developments showed, were in fact owned by the -New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad; the opposition of one to the -other was evidently for mere effect. - -For three years the Board of Aldermen refused to give the franchises, -either one of which would give the New York, New Haven and Hartford -Railroad its own independent entrance into New York City. Somehow and -from somewhere the announcement was now made that unless the Board of -Aldermen acted, a law would be passed by the Legislature stripping it -of all power of granting franchises. This threat was executed; the -Legislature passed an act vesting franchise-granting power in the Board -of Estimate and Apportionment. It may here be parenthetically noted -that with the great powers increasingly vested in it the Board of -Estimate became the most compact and powerful instrument of government -that had ever been developed in the government of New York City. - -This body is composed of eight officials. Of these, three -officials,--the Mayor, the Controller and the President of the Board of -Aldermen,--have, by reason of a greater vested plurality of votes, the -dominance of power. The other five members are the Borough Presidents. - -The first point passed upon by this Board was the question of whether -or not the New York, Westchester and Boston Railroad Company was or -was not a defunct corporation. On March 30, 1904, Corporation Council -Delany (elected by Tammany Hall) reported to the Board of Estimate and -Apportionment that the Board had no jurisdiction to examine the legal -capacity or incapacity of the company.[7] - -On June 24, 1904, the company received its franchise. The company was -really an adjunct of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad, -and its franchise gave it the right to operate more than sixteen -miles of four-track line within New York City; the company secured -practically all the available routes for entrance and exit to and from -New York City by way of the Bronx. It was the $6,000,000 contract for -constructing this railroad improvement that the New York Contracting -and Trucking Company secured. - -The declaration was made that no other contractor had ventured to -compete for this work; and the explanation was offered in some quarters -that inasmuch as a large part of the work was located inside the city -limits and as an unfriendly city administration might do much to -hamper the carrying out of the contract, the New York, New Haven and -Hartford officials, with a cautious eye to the railroad’s interests, -were willing to award the contract to the Tammany firm and pay higher -prices. Mr. Gaffney asserted that politics had nothing to do with the -obtaining of the contract and that his company “had bid with other -contractors and won out,” but politicians did not take this statement -seriously. In February, 1907, the New York Contracting and Trucking -Company surrendered its contract for a consideration of $500,000 -to another company, the Holbrook, Cabot & Daly Company, which had -previously done much of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad’s -construction work. It was not until seven years later that the fact, -originally suspected, as to why the contract had been given without -competition to the Gaffney-Murphy company, was authoritatively stated. -On May 20, 1914, Charles S. Mellen, long president of the New York, New -Haven and Hartford Railroad, testified before the Interstate Commerce -Commission that the contract had been turned over to that Tammany -concern “to avoid friction with the city,” meaning that by giving -the contract to the Tammany company, city officials would attempt -no “hold-up,” such as placing obstacles in the way of carrying the -construction work through. - -Further disclosures strongly indicated that during the time when the -Westchester franchise was acquired by the New York, New Haven and -Hartford Railroad, certain powers in Tammany Hall “had to be taken care -of,” and that they benefited financially. - -After being looted of large sums in financial jugglery, the New York, -New Haven and Hartford Railroad had been thrown on the verge of -insolvency. It was revealed in 1918 that a certain $12,000,000 of New -York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad money put into the Westchester -project had mysteriously vanished in unexplained directions. The -Interstate Commerce Commission, in 1914, conducted an investigation -to find out specifically, if possible, what became of those missing -millions. - -On April 24, 1914, Oakley Thorne, a New York banker, who had been the -agent of J. P. Morgan & Company in handling the $12,000,000 for the -purpose of secretly purchasing the Westchester and the Portchester -franchises for the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad, gave -certain testimony before the Interstate Commerce Commission. He averred -that he had burned the books containing the particulars as to how he -had spent at least $8,000,000; he explained that he therefore could -not give names, amounts and dates. A letter written by Mr. Thorne in -October, 1906, to C. S. Mellen, president of the New York, New Haven -and Hartford Railroad, was produced. In this letter Thorne wrote that -“there are people in Fourteenth Street who are very strongly in favor -of Westchester and others in favor of Portchester,” and suggested that -“both sides will have to be taken care of.” Asked what the reference -to “Fourteenth Street” meant, Thorne replied, “Why, I believe, Tammany -Hall.” Mr. Thorne testified that he could not possibly remember the -names of any individuals in “Fourteenth Street” who “had to be taken -care of,” but he admitted that he knew that “Big Tim” Sullivan was -“friendly” to the Westchester “enterprise” and owned stock in it; at -the time this testimony was given Sullivan was dead. - -Mr. Thorne asserted that he could not recall definite particulars, -but he could vaguely remember that there were persons in “Fourteenth -Street” who had, at the time, been “interested in the Westchester -City and Contract Company, the New York Development Company and other -concerns that subsequently formed a part of the Westchester combination -turned over to the New Haven [the New York, New Haven and Hartford -Railroad Company] through Morgan & Company.” Certain “persons in -Fourteenth Street,” Mr. Thorne further testified, had to be bought off -because of their “nuisance value,” but precisely what was the nature of -that “nuisance value” was not explained. In the disposition of the many -millions of dollars placed in his hands, Mr. Thorne was not required to -make any accounting or give any vouchers. - -Further details of later developments were given in the testimony of -Charles S. Mellen, president of the New York, New Haven and Hartford -Railroad during the years when the above franchises were acquired. - -On May 14, 1914, Mr. Mellen testified, at a hearing before the -Interstate Commerce Commission, that the directors of that railroad -set aside a fund of $1,200,000, the value of 8,000 shares of New York, -New Haven and Hartford Railroad stock, which sum was distributed -among “people of influence” in the politics of New York City for -the procuring of certain much-desired changes in the charter of -the New York, Westchester and Boston Railroad Company. Mr. Mellen -further testified that Inspector Thomas F. Byrnes, who, for many -years, had been head of the New York Police Department (and who was -deceased at the time of this hearing) had acted as the go-between in -this transaction; that Byrnes agreed to obtain thirteen different -modifications or “amendments” to the New York, Westchester and Boston -Railroad charter from New York city’s officials; and that to bring -about these results stock, or its equivalent in cash, to the sum -of $1,200,000, was given to Byrnes for distribution among Tammany -politicians whose identity Mr. Mellen declared that he did not know. -Mr. Mellen’s testimony revealed that some of these persons accepted -stock made out in the names of dummies, but that the majority demanded -and received cash for their “services.” All but $50,000 of the -$1,200,000 was distributed. - -The records of the Board of Estimate in 1908 and 1909 bear out Mr. -Mellen’s testimony; they show that nearly every request for alterations -of the charter or extensions of time made by the New York, New Haven -and Hartford Railroad was granted. The Board of Estimate during the -years in question consisted of Mayor McClellan; Controller Herman A. -Metz; Patrick F. McGowan, President of the Board of Aldermen; John F. -Ahearn, President of the Borough of Manhattan; Bird S. Coler, President -of the Borough of Brooklyn; Louis F. Haffen, President of the Borough -of the Bronx; Lawrence Gresser, President of the Borough of Queens, -and George Cromwell, President of the Borough of Richmond.[8] - -Continuing his testimony, Mr. Mellen stated, on May 20, 1914, that -upon further recollection he found that the amount distributed to -politicians in connection with securing the Westchester franchise and -alterations to the charter, really totaled $1,500,000 or $1,600,000. -Much of this amount was presented in the form of due bills sent in -by Tammany politicians by means of messengers; Mr. Mellen personally -handed over cash for the due bills, but the names of the recipients he -said he could not remember. “Do you know,” Mr. Mellen was asked, “what -all this Westchester and Portchester stock was doing in Tammany Hall?” -“I know,” he replied, “what it was doing to me when I took it on. It -was costing me lots of money.” “Do you know how all this stock reached -Tammany Hall?” “I have not the slightest idea. I could suppose a lot of -things, but I do not know anything about it.” - -Submitting, on July 11, 1914, the results of its investigation -to the United States Senate, the Interstate Commerce Commission -reported that the facts as to the New York, Westchester and Boston -Railway transaction constituted “a story of the profligate waste of -corporate funds.” The fullest details are set forth in that report of -the magnitude of the corruption used. Commenting upon Mr. Mellen’s -testimony, the report declared: “The testimony is somewhat occult, -but the character of the transaction is no less certain. This money -was used for corrupt purposes, and the improper expenditures covered -up by the transfer to the New Haven [New York, New Haven and Hartford -Railroad Company] of these worthless securities.… It seems very strange -that Mr. Mellen was not able to identify with any particularity any one -with whom he had these transactions except the late Thomas F. Byrnes. -No comment is necessary to make clear to the mind the corrupt and -unlawful nature of this transaction, and it would seem that the amount -illegally expended could be recovered from Mr. Mellen and the directors -who authorized it.…”[9] - -There is now pending (1917) a suit in the United States District Court -brought by the stockholders against the former directors of the New -York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company and against the company -for the return of $165,000,000 alleged to have been lost to the -treasury of that railroad in various ways. - -To return, however, to the operations of the New York Contracting -and Trucking Company: Another contract secured by that concern was a -contract from the Consolidated Gas Company for grading the site for the -Astoria gas plant; the franchise for the Astoria “Gas Grab” had been -supported by Tammany. - -By 1905 it was estimated that the New York Contracting and Trucking -Company or its offshoots had received contracts aggregating -$15,000,000--all contracts from corporations and interests benefiting -from the city government or depending upon favors from it. Yet -two years previously this very company was a nonentity as far as -securing large contracts were concerned, and none of its heads -had any experience in the contracting business. Now in a certain -well-understood field, it was virtually free from competition. - -None could now fail to note the great transition from the Tweed -period when Tammany leaders used only the vulgar and criminal methods -of stealing money out of the city treasury. Under Murphy’s leadership -the obvious methods used were those of “honest graft”--the making of -millions from contracts with public service corporations, and this was -represented as legitimate business. Fully six Tammany district leaders -were members of or “interested” in large contracting firms, although -the heads of these, often of a nominal character, were not known as -Tammany leaders. These concerns employed a total of many thousands -of men, all of whom were expected to be useful at the primaries and -elections. - -At this time there was discernible the beginnings of a growing feeling -that reform officials, while prosecuting gamblers and comparatively -petty offenders of all stripes, somehow were singularly ineffective in -bringing about the prosecution of corporation magnates charged with -looting on a large scale. This feeling had not crystallized as yet, but -it was felt in some quarters. - -Some of District Attorney Jerome’s former supporters were impressed -by the fact that despite his campaign promises, he had not caused -the indictment or other prosecution of the men who had looted the -Metropolitan Street Railway Company. James W. Osborne, a noted -attorney, had declared in open court in 1903, that the “insiders” had, -by means of duplicating of construction accounts, manipulation and -in other ways, stolen $30,000,000. Mr. Amory declared and specified -that an additional $60,000,000 had, by various processes of devious -manipulation, gone to enrich the “insiders”--a total of $90,000,000. - -On April 25, 1903, Mr. Osborne gave out this statement: “We have -produced evidence before Magistrate Barlow which shows a crime has been -committed, and now it is up to the District Attorney to say whether he -will avail himself of that evidence and proceed against those who have -committed the crime. We have charged in open court that $30,000,000 -has been stolen, and that [statement] never has been disproved by the -Metropolitan Company or its counsel. I told Mr. Nicoll, counsel for Mr. -Vreeland [president of the Metropolitan Street Railway Company] openly -he would not be able to disprove my charges.” - -Mr. Amory openly declared that Mr. Jerome’s investigation of the -matter in 1903 was not undertaken in good faith. “It was,” he wrote, -“a deliberate whitewash. I have documentary evidence to prove it.” Mr. -Amory charged that of the twenty-seven distinct written charges filed -with Mr. Jerome against the Metropolitan management, Mr. Jerome’s -accountant reported on only seven, and these latter were of minor -importance, involving chiefly technicalities of accounts and not -serious crimes. Yet Mr. Jerome, was Mr. Amory’s indignant comment, -represented that the accountant’s report was “very clear and full and -takes up every charge” and that Mr. Jerome had reported that “the -specific charges so far as they involve criminal wrong-doing are -entirely without foundation.”[10] - -While thus declaring that he could find nothing on which to base -prosecution of the Metropolitan Street Railway Company magnates, -District Attorney Jerome showed by other acts, it was complained, -that petty criminals would be prosecuted to the limit of the law. He -was charged with discriminating between rich and powerful business -offenders, on the one side, and on the other, poor and relatively -uninfluential violators of the law. - -On one occasion Mr. Jerome appeared before labor unions, delivered -homilies on the virtues, and warned them that he would make short -shrift of labor grafters. This lecture had reference to the case of Sam -Parks, a labor leader, charged with grafting on employers and receiving -money for prompting or “calling off” strikes. District Attorney -Jerome waited for no elaborate formal investigation; he immediately -started the machinery of his office against Parks and caused him to be -convicted. Already a dying consumptive, Parks was sentenced to prison, -where he died shortly after. But no action, it was pointed out, was -taken against powerful construction companies that had bribed Parks -and other labor leaders to declare strikes on buildings for which -competitors had the contracts.[11] Another much-discussed incident -was the result of a collision of railroad trains in the Park Avenue -tunnel--a collision maiming and killing many persons. The obsolete -and dangerous condition of this tunnel had long been known. It was -commented that District Attorney Jerome did not make the slightest move -against the railroad directors; he hurriedly caused the indictment -and arrest of Wisker, a railroad engineer, as the sole culprit and -proceeded with despatch to his trial. The jury, however, refused to -convict the engineer. - -Considering that Mr. Jerome was a leading reformer, such contrasts -were gradually calculated to make the very mention of reform odious -to the observing of the working people. The complaint was generally -heard that the big grafters were safe and immune, while petty offenders -were dealt with rigorously. Nevertheless, a large number of voters, -influenced by a stream of praise from the press, still believed in Mr. -Jerome’s promises and motives, and his action in 1905 in not securing -a renomination from political bosses but procuring it independently by -means of a petition circulated among electors, strengthened the old -belief that he was sincere and was independent of political and other -domination. Much was made of the fact of his independent renomination. -The Republicans withdrew their candidate for District Attorney and -nominated Mr. Jerome, and the press in general enthusiastically -supported him. He was reelected. It was not until some years later when -the full effects of his administration could be popularly realized in -perspective, that Jerome fell into general disfavor with the voters. - -As an instance of the methods of contractors under the Tammany régime -during this time, it is only necessary to mention the facts, later -disclosed in an investigation by John Purroy Mitchel, Commissioner -of Accounts, as to how in 1904 defective hose was sold to the Fire -Department. The Windsor Fire Appliance Company (of which the president -and chief stockholder was Michael F. Loughman, later appointed Deputy -Commissioner of Water Supply) sold 25,000 feet of hose to New York City -for $23,410.25. Although this hose did not answer the specifications -of the contract, it was accepted. The consequence was that it burst -many times at fires, some of them serious. The same was true of equally -worthless hose supplied by other contractors. - -The municipal election in 1905 was a triangular contest. Tammany Hall -did not fear the Republican ticket headed by William M. Ivins for -Mayor. But it did have intense uneasiness over the possibility of Mr. -Hearst triumphing; his movement was too plainly making inroads among -large numbers of voters that ordinarily would have voted the Tammany -ticket. Tammany was particularly bent upon winning inasmuch as by the -provisions of the revised charter the term of the incoming Mayor and -other officials had been changed to a four-year incumbency. Hearst -was the Municipal Ownership League’s candidate for Mayor, and Tammany -renominated Mayor McClellan. So effective were Hearst’s onslaughts -on “Boss” Murphy and the elements represented by him that during the -campaign Mayor McClellan repeatedly made promises that he would -thereafter pursue an independent course, should he be reelected. - -Mr. Hearst’s vote returns came in so heavily after the polls were -closed that it looked as though he were certainly elected. That very -night there was a strange interruption, lasting about an hour, in the -public giving-out of the returns. Then as the returns were resumed, -it appeared that although the vote between McClellan and Hearst was -extremely close, McClellan had a little the better of it. The next -day it was announced that Mayor McClellan was reelected by a close -margin. Mr. Hearst and his followers declared that manifest fraud had -been committed, and took steps to have a recount. Meantime while this -process was dragging along, Mayor McClellan was widely criticized for -his action in immediately claiming his reelection, opposing a recount, -and not showing faith in the legitimacy of his claims by waiting with -dignity until there had been a careful official recount. - -The final official recount gave this result: McClellan, 228,407 votes -Hearst, 224,929 votes; Ivins, 137,184 votes. It may be added here that -in the very next year--in 1906--Hearst accepted a Tammany indorsement -when he ran for Governor, but he was defeated by Charles E. Hughes, -who, as counsel for the Legislative Insurance Committee, had achieved -wide popularity for his exposure of the insurance company iniquities. - -With the reelection of Mr. McClellan, Tammany Hall confidently looked -forward to four more years of unquestioned control of the immense -budget and enormous opportunities embodied in the rule of New York City. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] _Report of the New York Legislative Insurance Committee_, 1906, -Vol. X, p. 16. - -[2] _Ibid._ - -[3] _Ibid._, p. 50. - -[4] _Ibid._, pp. 62 and 398. - -[5] _Ibid._, p. 10. - -[6] Mr. Croker, in 1900, had admitted his liability to an English tax -on a yearly income of $100,000. - -[7] The company had filed articles of incorporation in 1872, but -was charged with being an abortive corporation in that it had never -completed the necessary formalities required by law. - -[8] As we shall see later, the political composition of the Board of -Estimate was at this time considerably mixed; during his second term -Mayor McClellan was fighting Mr. Murphy, leader of Tammany Hall, and -had the backing of Senator McCarren and of McCarren’s lieutenant, -Controller Metz. Mr. McGowan, president of the Board of Aldermen, -was supposed to be a Tammany man, but was not on good terms with the -“Organization” and was credited with being aligned with McClellan and -Metz. - -[9] _Interstate Commerce Commission Report No. 6569_, In re _Financial -Transactions of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Co._, -July 11, 1914, pp. 35, 38, etc. The above are but a few extracts from -this comprehensive report. - -[10] _The Truth About Metropolitan_, by W. N. Amory, pp. 60-64. - -[11] In an effective article in _McClure’s Magazine_, Mr. Ray Stannard -Baker showed how one of these big companies bribed walking delegates to -declare strikes on buildings being put up by rival contractors in order -that it--the briber--might be able to get a reputation for building -within contract time, and thus exclude competitors from getting further -contracts. - - - - -CHAPTER XXXIII - -TAMMANY’S CONTROL UNDER LEADER MURPHY - -1906-1909 - - -When Mayor McClellan, in the campaign of 1905 promised an independent -administration, Tammany leaders did not take his words seriously; they -considered his promises mere campaign vapor. In this estimate they were -mistaken. Mayor McClellan broke relations with Charles F. Murphy in -January, 1906, and announced that he would keep every promise made by -him “on the stump.” His appointment of anti-Murphy men to office had a -nettling effect on the leader of Tammany Hall, against whom he began a -systematic campaign. Results, still more serious to Tammany leaders, -were forthcoming. - -The President of the Borough of Manhattan was John A. Ahearn, a noted -Tammany district leader. He had been a State Senator from 1889 to 1902, -and had been elected president of the Borough of Manhattan in 1903, -and reelected in 1905 for a term of four years. It may be explained -that the presidency of a borough was a powerful office, having direct -appointive and supervisory power over six departments with expenditures -of many millions of dollars annually.[1] - -Charges of misconduct were brought against Mr. Ahearn, in 1906, by -the Bureau of City Betterment (later called the Bureau of Municipal -Research). When Mr. Ahearn requested an investigation by the -Commissioners of Accounts, Mayor McClellan accommodated his desire. -The report of these commissioners, handed in to the Mayor, July 16, -1907, severely arraigned Ahearn’s administration, and after specifying -particulars, the report denounced “the inefficiency, neglect, waste and -corruption disclosed in the course of this inquiry.”[2] - -The investigation showed that in the three years that Mr. Ahearn -had occupied the office of borough president, he had control of an -expenditure totaling $21,994,477. Of this amount it was shown that -$1,608,762 was spent in the purchase of supplies without public -tender being asked, as required by law. It was proved that many of -the payrolls (amounting to an aggregate of $5,942,187) were padded -with the names of men who never did a day’s work for the department. -Even in the expenditures made under contract--expenditures totaling -$14,447,473 in the three years--it was proved that little effort was -made to compel contractors to observe their obligations. Fully a third -of the total expenditure--the third amounting to $5,400,000--was -lost to the city, it was asserted, by the manner in which the -department was administered. There were still further losses to the -city; and although, also, there was plenty of money at Mr. Ahearn’s -disposal for the repairs of street pavements, that work, it was -held, was considerably neglected. The evidence in the commissioners’ -investigation and the evidence presented by the City Club in subsequent -hearings ordered by Governor Hughes showed that supply contractors -often made profits ranging from 100 to 200 per cent. (and in at least -one case 300 to 500 per cent.) more than the regular prices prevailing -in the open market. - -Among other disclosures the testimony revealed that $144,500 had been -paid out for asphalt “fire burns,” which in reality were not “fire -burns” at all; they were defects that the asphalt companies were -obliged to repair without charge. The favorite contractors were such -Tammany district leaders as Bartholomew Dunn, Thomas J. Dunn and others. - -On December 9, 1907, Governor Hughes removed Mr. Ahearn from office. -In his notice of ejection, Governor Hughes said that justice to Mr. -Ahearn required that attention should be called to the fact that “it is -not shown, and it has not been claimed, that he has converted public -money or property to his own use, or has personally profited in an -unlawful manner by his official conduct.” But Governor Hughes said -that he did find that the charges of maladministration, remissness and -grave abuses existing under Ahearn’s administration had been proved. -Mr. Ahearn was, in reality, a victim of the Tammany system. A few days -later, the Manhattan Aldermen reelected him--a move that was contested -by taking the case to the Court of Appeals, which in November, 1909, -sustained his removal and disapproved of his reelection. Meanwhile, he -had continued in office. - -Another conspicuous Tammany leader removed from office was Louis F. -Haffen, president of the Borough of the Bronx. He had held that office -since January 1, 1898, and had been last reelected in 1905. Mr. Haffen -was, as we have seen, one of the regency of three controlling Tammany -Hall immediately previous to Charles F. Murphy’s assumption of sole -leadership. He was a Sachem of the Tammany Society. - -In November, 1908, twenty-two charges were presented to Governor Hughes -by John Purroy Mitchel and Ernest Gallagher, Commissioners of Accounts -of New York City, at the instance of Mayor McClellan.[3] The City Club -and the Citizens’ Union jointly filed charges against Mr. Haffen and -prosecuted them. Governor Hughes, basing his findings and action on the -report of Wallace Macfarlane, his Commissioner who heard the evidence, -found that the following charges had been established: - -That Mr. Haffen had greatly abused his discretionary power in failing -to enforce more stringently the time clauses of contracts for public -improvements, and that the time statements in his certificates to the -Finance Department were in many cases untrue; that the public funds -were wasted by loading the payrolls of his department with a large -number of superfluous employees; that there was political jobbery in -the building of the Bronx Borough Court House; the appointed architect -was essentially a politician without professional qualifications who -had hired others to do the architectural work. The granite contract -for this building was awarded to the Buck’s Harbor Granite Company, -represented in New York by a Bronx Tammany district leader. - -Among an array of further charges against Mr. Haffen that were found -true was the charge that he was financially interested in the Sound -View Land and Improvement Company, “and that his official action in -connection with the Clason’s Point Road was induced by his desire to -increase the value of his own and his associates’ holdings in this -company, which had acquired a tract of forty-one acres with a frontage -of 2,500 feet on the proposed road, with a view to that improvement.” - -Another charge established against Mr. Haffen was that as borough -president and chairman of the local board of Morrisania, Mr. Haffen -had recommended the acquisition by New York City of certain property -at Hunt’s Point on the East River Shore, for use as a public bathing -place. This property, Governor Hughes declared, was utterly unsuitable -for the purpose because of its proximity to a trunk sewer. - -Governor Hughes set forth that the Hunt’s Point transaction was “a -highly discreditable affair. This shore property was about five acres -in extent, and the assessed valuation was about $4,300. During the -condemnation proceedings the attorney for the company which owned -it purchased it from his client for about $86,000.[4] It was then -transferred to another company, and was acquired by the city at a cost -of about $247,000, the value fixed by the condemnation commissioners.” -Thus the award for the Hunt’s Point property was fifty-eight times the -assessed value, and many times the actual value. - -Other charges against Mr. Haffen were sustained. Overtime charges on -contracts had been liquidated arbitrarily; on one occasion $70,000 -was improperly remitted to “Bart” Dunn who previously had contributed -$1,000 to the Haffen campaign fund.[5] Payments were made to -contractors on absolutely false statements certified from Mr. Haffen’s -office. Extravagance in the Bureau of Public Buildings and Offices -resulted in an estimated waste of $175,000 of an available $292,000 -in six years of Mr. Haffen’s administration.[6] Contract juggling was -common. Worn-out Belgian blocks were sold by the borough to contractors -and then repurchased by the city as new. In cases where contractors -were friends of Mr. Haffen, contract specifications were so drawn as -to exclude competitors. Streets were laid in irregular routes so as to -aid land development schemes in which Tammany men held control. Highway -contract specifications were deliberately violated by the contractors. -The labors of the maintenance force in the Bureau of Highways were -wasted to such an extent that the investigators estimated a loss of 50 -per cent. in efficiency, or $1,600,000 in money, within six years.[7] A -similar waste of $300,000 was attributed to the Bureau of Sewers in the -same period. - -Borough President Haffen was ousted by Governor Hughes on August -29, 1909. When removed from office, Haffen complained, “This is a -fine reward for twenty-six and a half years of honest, faithful and -efficient service to the people.…” - -Another high city official who went out of office during this time was -Joseph Bermel, president of the Borough of Queens. He hastily resigned -while under charges. - -Mr. Bermel was not, strictly speaking, a Tammany man; he was an -auxiliary satrap. His removal from office had been asked for by -Attorney-General Jackson and Deputy Attorney-General Nathan Viadiver, -of New York State, at the conclusion of an inquiry into Bermel’s office. - -Bermel was charged by the Attorney General and by the Queen’s Borough -Property Owners’ Association with various acts. He was accused of -conspiring with others to defraud New York City in the purchase or -sale of land to New York City; he was charged with accepting money from -persons interested in the sale of such lands, and was further charged -with selling and using his influence in the land purchases in question. -He was accused of failing to aid the Grand Jury in its investigations -into these transactions, and was further charged with blocking the -procedure of that body with his influence and money in refusing to -testify in certain matters, and in other cases testifying falsely and -removing his books from the Grand Jury’s jurisdiction. Another charge -was that he swore falsely concerning his bank deposits, which evidence -he sought to corroborate by the testimony of a witness who presented -apparent confirmation in the shape of a written paper, which paper upon -investigation was proved to be a false and fraudulent document. - -Still further, Mr. Bermel was charged with receiving money for -granting special privileges to contractors; with neglecting pavements -and permitting material of a lower grade than specified to be used -in contract work; with purchasing supplies for public buildings at -exorbitant prices and with allowing the same high prices to be charged -for repairs to public buildings. Additional charges were that he -appointed incompetent subordinates and permitted persons who did no -work to draw salaries. Close upon the announcement from Albany that -Governor Hughes had appointed Samuel H. Ordway as Commissioner to take -testimony, Bermel on April 29, 1908, resigned from office.[8] - -The Aldermen on April 30, 1908, elected Lawrence Gresser to fill Mr. -Bermel’s unexpired term as President of the Borough of Queens, and -on November 2, 1909, Mr. Gresser was elected by the people to that -office for the four ensuing years. In 1911 charges were preferred by -citizens of Queens County against Gresser. A number of these charges -were sustained by Samuel H. Ordway, the Commissioner appointed by the -Governor to take testimony and report. Commissioner Ordway, however, -explained in his report made June 16, 1911: “Of those [charges] -that are sustained, none, in my opinion, establishes corruption or -dishonesty on the part of Mr. Gresser. I believe that he is an honest -man and would not be a party to any corrupt acts either for his own -benefit or that of his associates. But I am of the opinion that he -has been inefficient and incompetent, and has been neglectful of his -duty to protect the city and the Borough of Queens against fraud and -corruption on the part of his subordinates.”[9] After an argument -made by Robert S. Binkerd, Secretary of the City Club, asking for Mr. -Gresser’s removal, Governor Dix removed Gresser from office. - -But Tammany men were not the only officials against whom charges were -brought. It had long been a subject of increasing general comment -that District Attorney Jerome, much noted as such a leading reformer, -who had been so conspicuously active in sending petty offenders to -prison, had failed to bring about the conviction of any high insurance -officials and had not brought about the indictment of a single traction -system manipulator. - -On September 8, 1907, a voluminous petition was sent by various New -York business men and other citizens to Governor Hughes. This petition -recited in detail the specific transactions thus complained of, made -a scathing criticism of District Attorney Jerome for having failed to -prosecute those responsible, and demanded that the Attorney General of -New York State be forthwith directed to bring prosecution. - -Evidence submitted, on December 1, 1907, to the Grand Jury in General -Sessions showed that Thomas F. Ryan and associates had bought in 1902 -from Anthony N. Brady for $250,000 the franchise of a company called -the Wall and Cortland Street Ferries Railroad Company, a corporation -having a dormant franchise for a road that had never been built.[10] -They had then sold this franchise to a dummy corporation, called the -Metropolitan Securities Company, for $965,607.19. Part of this sum went -to the syndicate’s brokers; the precise amount of funds divided among -Ryan, Widener, Dolan and the estates of William C. Whitney and William -L. Elkins was $692,292.82.[11] The surviving members of this group -subsequently settled the transaction by making restitution of this sum -soon after the facts had been made public and after charges had been -made against Jerome. On the very day that Mr. Ryan and associates had -bought the non-existent Wall and Cortlandt Street Ferries Railroad, -they had also bought, for $1,600,000, the People’s Traction Company, -owning a paper road never built, and the New York, Westchester and -Connecticut Traction Company, a small railway, which a short time -previously had been sold in bankruptcy proceedings for $15,000.[12] -It was charged that in this transaction also, there was another grand -division of funds. - -These particular transactions, however, were in reality insignificant -compared to the disappearance of $16,000,000 from the treasury of the -Third avenue Railway,[13] and vaster total transactions charged, -aggregating, as we have previously noted, about $90,000,000. The fact -was brought out in the investigation by the Public Service Commission -that all the books of the Metropolitan Street Railway Company in which -its affairs from 1891 onward to 1902 were recorded, had been sold to -a purchaser who promised to destroy them.[14] Street car lines bought -for a few hundred thousand dollars were, it was charged, capitalized at -ten or twenty times that sum, and then followed a process by which vast -amounts were charged in duplication of construction accounts. - -Lemuel Ely Quigg (who for six years had been a member of Congress) -admitted that in the four years preceding 1907 he had received $217,000 -from the Metropolitan Street Railway Company.[15] This was charged to -a construction fund, part of which was another sum of $798,000 paid -to different persons whose names were concealed. Further facts in a -legislative investigation in 1910 (to which we shall hereafter refer) -supplied certain other missing links. - -No criminal proceedings, however, were brought against Mr. Ryan. In -a statement published on May 26, 1909, Col. Amory averred that when -a Grand Jury was called in 1907 to investigate the acts of Ryan and -associates of the Metropolitan Street Railway Company, the foreman of -the Grand Jury was a director in Mr. Ryan’s Equitable Life Assurance -Society. Col. Amory also made the accusation that in April, 1903, -Daniel Mason, Mr. Jerome’s former law partner, and William H. Page, -Jr., another of the Metropolitan’s lawyers, had attempted to bribe -him (Amory) while a State’s witness, with $200,000, to withdraw the -charges that Amory had filed with Jerome against the Metropolitan -Street Railway Company. On January 27, 1908, Judge Rosalsky, in the -Court of General Sessions, severely arraigned District Attorney Jerome, -declaring that Jerome had so conducted the examination of Thomas F. -Ryan before the Grand Jury as probably to invalidate any indictments -which that body might have found against Ryan. Paul D. Cravath, -Governor Hughes’s former law partner, was now Ryan’s astute attorney. - -Governor Hughes appointed a Commissioner to hear the evidence upon -which the charges against Mr. Jerome were made. Jerome admitted that -when Ryan, Brady and Vreeland were before the Grand Jury he had put -leading questions to them. Further he testified that he had not asked -the Grand Jury to indict Ryan in the matter of the Wall Street and -Cortlandt Street Ferries Railway transactions. Interrogated as to a -certain contribution made to his campaign fund by Samuel Untermeyer, -counsel for Mr. Hyde of the Equitable Life Assurance Society, Mr. -Jerome denied that any ulterior purpose was behind it. Mr. Ryan -admitted on the witness stand that he (Ryan) had contributed heavily to -the national fund of the Democratic party in 1900. - -The Commissioner’s report exonerated Jerome, and Governor Hughes -dismissed the charges, saying, “Nothing has been presented which -furnishes any just ground for impeaching the good faith of the District -Attorney in connection with any of the transactions set forth, nor has -anything been shown which would justify his removal from office.” The -outcome was severely criticized by some of the very newspapers which -had once enthusiastically supported Mr. Jerome. Col. Amory wrote that -there were other bribes than money bribes, and that he did not believe -Mr. Jerome capable of doing a corrupt act for money.[16] Whatever the -fundamental facts, the consequences were clear: great sums of money -had undeniably vanished, a group of magnates had become additionally -enriched, the street railway system was wrecked and thrown into -bankruptcy, the statute of limitations had meanwhile been interposed, -and nobody had been prosecuted. - -These were the essential facts, and they were facts that, after all -explanations, could not be evaded. Mr. Jerome himself was forced to -recognize them in his own defense; in his public speeches he took -great pains to assure his hearers that acts might be wrong and yet not -criminal, but it was an explanation not favorably received in general. -The great change in public opinion was forcibly shown, when, at a -meeting in Cooper Union, on May 26, 1909, Mr. Jerome was badly heckled -and asked the most pointed questions as to why he had not prosecuted -the traction magnates. - -The city finances during these years were in a bewilderingly deplorable -state. On December 31, 1907, the total amount remaining uncollected -from the tax levies covering the years 1899 to 1907, inclusive, was -$90,545,000. In addition, a sum of $12,289,000 remained uncollected -from the tax levies prior to the year 1899.[17] Notwithstanding these -actual enormous deficiencies, the amounts placed in the tax levies, -from the years 1899 to 1905 inclusive, to provide for possible -deficiencies in tax collections, was only $11,719,000. During that very -period the amounts in discounts, remissions and cancelations amounted -to $12,477,000, which was more than $758,000 in excess of the amount -placed in the tax levies to provide for deficiencies in collections. -“In other words,” reported a Select Legislative Committee, “the amounts -placed in the tax levies during those years to provide for deficiencies -in collections, did not even equal the discounts, cancelations and -remissions, and made no provision whatever for failure or inability to -collect taxes levied.”[18] - -By October 31, 1908, uncollected taxes due the city (including -$9,324,000 personal taxes for years previous to 1898, which had been -written off as uncollectable), amounted to $84,506,000. Despite the -fact that this huge sum had not been collected, the city officials -spent the greater part of it as though it had been collected; of the -$84,506,000 uncollected, the sum of $76,266,000 had, by October 31, -1908, been expended by the city in appropriations included in budgets -which, in reality, ought to have been defrayed by these uncollected -taxes.[19] - -Basing their action on these uncollected taxes, the city officials -had issued, from time to time, large amounts in revenue bonds with -which to get money to pay the appropriations in the yearly budgets. -On October 31, 1908, there was outstanding against these arrears of -taxes $40,606,000 of revenue bonds. This left a balance of $35,660,000 -which had been expended by the city for current expenses, but which -had neither been collected nor procured by revenue bonds.[20] The -Select Legislative Committee commented upon the fact that although -the evidence proved conclusively that not more than 65 per cent. of -personal taxes were collectable, yet the city budget had nearly equaled -the entire levy in each year.[21] Furthermore, the sum of $24,521,000 -in special franchise taxes had not been collected by December 31, 1907. - -The sources of a certain $33,000,000 which had been spent by the city -puzzled the Select Legislative Committee. Just how this money was -obtained the Committee was not able to ascertain. - -But, the Committee added, it was shown that the assessment account -for local improvements was depleted to the amount of $1,900,000. -There should have been a sum of $600,000 comprising trust funds, -various bequests, intestate estates, etc., but it could not be found. -Also, there should have been in the city treasury $3,800,000 more -as a special account including deposits made with the city against -contractors’ liability for restoring and repaving streets and the -unliquidated balance of the Brooklyn fund. But this $3,800,000 “did -not exist.” The accounts of the various boroughs revealed a shortage -of $1,500,000; excise funds were short $5,100,000; the account of -unexpended proceeds of the bond account disclosed a shortage of -$7,200,000, and the account of that part of the unexpended bond -accounts which had not been allotted was short $8,250,000.[22] making -“The Controller’s office,” the Select Legislative Committee reported, -“was unable within any reasonable time to determine from what funds -the remaining $4,000,000 had been taken, up the total shortage of -$33,000,000. But the net result is certain, that for the payment of -running expenses over a long period of years, the City has taken the -total amount of $29,000,000 from specific funds set apart for other -purposes, shifting the resulting deficits from one fund to another as -occasion required.”[23] - -Large issues of corporate stock were also made for other than permanent -improvements.[24] - -The city budget appropriations had grown enormously. In 1898 the amount -was $70,175,896. By 1909 it had mounted to $156,545,148, an increase of -more than $86,000,000, or approximately 123 per cent. Yet the increase -in population had been only about 39.4 per cent.[25] - -Vast sums were squandered in the purchasing of city supplies and in -a multitude of other ways. Condemnation proceedings were a source -of great scandal. There was the Catskill reservoir and aqueduct to -supply New York with water, the estimated cost of which undertaking -was $162,000,000. “Rings” of politicians bought land which they -sold to the city at high prices. For the one item of advertising -“public notices” of condemnation proceedings, the cost already had -approximated $800,000.[26] In three years the fees paid to certain -Catskill reservoir and aqueduct commissioners appointed to condemn -land, aggregated $169,490, and this amount did not include the fees of -commissioners who had not yet reported.[27] During the same period the -fees paid to commissioners in New York City street and park opening -proceedings totalled more than $384,000, while fees paid in other -condemnation proceedings (exclusive of the Dock Department) aggregated -more than $300,000.[28] - -Large as these sums were, they were but a fraction of the total amounts -pocketed by all of the beneficiaries. - -The city payroll was padded with an extraordinarily large number of -superfluous employees. In a separate memorandum to the Legislative -Committee report, Mr. William M. Bennet, a member of that committee, -quoted Controller Metz’s statement in 1909 that from 25 to 50 per -cent. of New York City’s payroll, then totalling $80,000,000 a year, -was “useless.”[29] At this time (in 1909) New York City’s actual debt -reached $800,000,000.[30] In many directions “Organization” men were -faring richly. Even though Mayor McClellan was fighting Leader Murphy, -Tammany held sway in many administrative and court departments, not -included in the Mayor’s jurisdiction, and he had certain reasons for -placating some Tammany district leaders. - -After declaring his independence of “Boss” Murphy, Mayor McClellan, -supported by Senator McCarren, of Brooklyn, had begun a contest--futile -enough, as it turned out--to get control of Tammany Hall. According to -a magazine article[31] written by General Theodore A. Bingham, Police -Commissioner during Mayor McClellan’s second administration, Mayor -McClellan “knew full well that the most effective weapon was the power -and patronage at his disposal, by virtue of his office. When he tried -to use the police I objected.” Dismissed by Mayor McClellan from the -office of Police Commissioner, Mr. Bingham soon after set forth his -experiences in the published article in question. - -“In all election contests,” wrote General Bingham further, - - “whether it be a primary election, a municipal election, or - a State or a National election, the police are a factor. The - district leader who can control the majority of the uniformed - men on duty in his bailiwick is not apt to have much trouble in - fighting off rival candidates. He has a most influential body - of men working for him 365 days in the year. - - “The baneful influence of the ordinary Tammany district leader - in a single precinct station house is far-reaching. When he - can do favors, or persuade the men that he can do them, his - influence is something beyond belief. Some leaders have had - more authority in some police stations than the executive head - of the department. They have been looked upon as the men from - whom to take orders. They have often visited the station not - only to give bail for unlucky constituents, but to give orders - to the captains and lieutenants. - - “Policemen as a whole are the most gullible persons in the - entire City Government when it comes to the question of - the power of the political ‘boss.’ This is not surprising. - Experience has taught them that if they displease the local - powers they are apt to be transferred to a distant precinct. - Therefore, they fear to take a chance. The wily leader takes - advantage of this weakness. He uses his power at every - opportunity, and when he meets with opposition he is prompt - with his threats. Suppose, in the course of time, the offending - policeman is shifted as a matter of routine. Then the leader - struts about telling this offender’s fellow officers that he, - the leader, had the man transferred.” And if a policeman showed - independence, Mr. Bingham asserted, a word from the leader to - the superior officers caused “complaints to be made, extra - hours of duty, unpleasant details and the like, until the man’s - life is made miserable.” - -General Bingham declared that he had labored to stamp out these abuses, -but unavailingly. “So bad did this political influence become in some -precincts in Manhattan after Mayor McClellan began his contests at -the primaries for the leadership of Tammany Hall, that I had to make -radical changes in the personnel of those districts.” - -It was absurdly easy for Mr. Murphy and his Tammany machine leaders -to squelch Mayor McClellan’s plans for leadership. No auspicious time -was it, however, to nominate a “regular Organization man” for Mayor; -respectability had to be invoked and a hack politician obviously -would not serve the purpose. Besides, there was resistance from -Senator McCarren’s Brooklyn organization against the nomination of a -distinctively Tammany “Organization” creature. - -The candidate of Tammany Hall and its allies was William J. Gaynor. A -Brooklyn lawyer, he had signalized his early career by causing John Y. -McKane, then Democratic “boss” of Coney Island, to be convicted and -imprisoned for ballot box frauds and for defying a court injunction. -Elected to the State Supreme Court, Gaynor was a member of that -body when nominated for Mayor; and by his constant exposures of the -tyrannies and abuses committed by the police force he had become widely -and favorably known as a man opposed to “The System.” Thus, Tammany -could depict its candidate as a genuine and proved reformer. But apart -from these representations, Gaynor was, in fact, a man of intellect, -force and independence of character, deep understanding of public -questions and of progressive, even advanced, views. A far different -type he was from the usual run of ignorant grafting politicians. - -By his strong denunciations of the looting done by surface-railway -manipulators and by his emphatic declarations in favor of the building -by the city itself of further subways, Gaynor won a large following. -He seemed uncommonly sincere when he caustically arraigned the -combination of railway promoters and financiers who, he said, were busy -at the “old game” of seeking to enrich themselves manifold more by -getting additional traction franchises. “My friends,” he asserted in a -speech in Tammany Hall, on October 19, 1909, “we are going to build the -subways. We do not intend that a single subway or a franchise for it -shall be passed over to any of these men.” He made other pronouncements -to the same effect. - -The pushful, insistent Mr. Hearst was still backed by a political -organization, now passing under the name of the Civic Alliance, but -his course in accepting Mr. Murphy’s and Tammany’s support during his -candidacy for Governor after having bitterly assailed them in previous -campaigns when he was an independent candidate, had effectually -alienated many of his former followers. By reason of the influence -of his newspapers, he still, however, had considerable strength. He -was the nominee of the Civic Alliance for Mayor. The Republican and -Fusion candidate was Otto Bannard, a banker. Edward F. Cassidy was -the Socialist Party’s candidate. One of the issues put forward by the -Fusion campaigners was the continuing abominations of the “white slave” -traffic, operated, it was asserted, with the connivance of the police. - -Gaynor was elected. The vote resulted: Gaynor, 250,378; Bannard, -177,304; Hearst, 154,187; Cassidy, 11,768; Hunter (Socialist Labor) -1,256; Manierre (Prohibition) 866. Although, however, Gaynor won, -yet by the election of many of the Fusion candidates (to the offices -of Controller, President of the Board of Aldermen and presidents -of boroughs) Tammany lost control of nearly all of the borough -presidencies, and in turn of many of the departments and of the -powerful Board of Estimate. In this Board Tammany now had only three -votes. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] When Ahearn was elected president of the Borough of Manhattan, -it was “Boss” Murphy, with the “advice and consent” of the Tammany -Executive Committee, who really chose his appointees to head the -Department of Public Work, the Bureau of Highways, the Bureau of -Sewers, the Bureau of Buildings, etc. Of course, Tammany district -leaders were appointed; they were really responsible to the Tammany -Executive Committee. - -[2] See _A Report on a Special Examination of the Accounts and Methods -of the Office of the President of the Borough of Manhattan, Directed by -Hon. George B. McClellan, Mayor, Commissioners of Accounts of the City -of New York, July 16, 1907_. This report gives the full findings of -the Commissioners of Accounts. The full testimony is embodied in Vols. -I to III of _Testimony, Ahearn Investigation, 1907, Commissioners of -Accounts_. - -[3] See _A Report on a Special Examination of the Accounts and Methods -of the President of the Borough of the Bronx, etc., Commissioners of -Accounts of New York City, June 16, 1908_. The complete testimony in -the Haffen Investigation is set forth in Vols. I to IV, _Testimony, -Borough of the Bronx Investigation, 1908, Commissioners of Accounts_. -See also Memorandum submitted to Governor Hughes, by the Commissioners -of Accounts, 1909. - -[4] The attorney here referred to was Joseph A. Flannery. Upon -charges preferred by the Bar Association, and after a three years’ -investigation, he was disbarred, May 17, 1912, by the Appellate -Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. He was found -guilty on five of the six charges brought against him, one of which -charges dealt with the notorious Hunt’s Point land “job.” It was on -record that Flannery personally profited to the sum of $300,000 from -various transactions of land sold to the city at fictitious valuations. -On June 11, 1914, W. D. Guthrie, representing the New York Bar -Association, reiterated the charges when he argued before the Court of -Appeals at Albany for the confirmation of Mr. Flannery’s disbarment. -Flannery’s attorney declared that nobody was misled or labored under a -misapprehension as a result of his client’s actions; that the company -for which Flannery was attorney knew as much about the transaction as -did Flannery. On October 24, 1914, the Court of Appeals sanctioned -Flannery’s disbarment. - -[5] _Summary of Findings, A Report on a Special Examination of the -Office of the President of the Borough of the Bronx, etc. Commissioners -of Accounts, June 16, 1908_, p. 1. - -[6] _Ibid._, p. 3. - -[7] _Ibid._, p. 3. - -[8] He had been elected Borough President of Queens in 1905, after a -fight upon “Joe” Cassidy, long Democratic “boss” of Queens, in which -campaign Bermel ran as an “Independent Democrat” and had violently -denounced “Cassidyism and public graft.” - -[9] _In the Matter of Charges Preferred against Lawrence Gresser, -President of the Borough of Queens, City of New York, Report of -Commissioner Samuel H. Ordway, 1911_, p. 91. - -[10] In a signed statement in the New York _Evening Call_, February 27, -1909, Col. Amory declared that when this matter was originally exposed -in the hearing before the Public Service Commission, the full facts -were not brought out; that one of the ten original owners had recently -informed him (Amory) that the price paid by Ryan and Brady was in -reality only $25,000. - -[11] See _Investigation of the Interborough Metropolitan Company, -etc., 1907, Public Service Commission, First District_, Vol. IV, pp. -1613-1618, etc. - -[12] _Ibid._ - -[13] After this company had been forced into bankruptcy in 1908, the -above sum was the estimate as stated by Receiver Whitridge. See also -Col. Amory’s remarks, June 29, 1910, _Third Avenue Company--Plan of -Reorganization, Public Service Commission, First District, Stenographic -Minutes_, p. 2417. - -[14] _Investigation of Interborough Metropolitan Company, etc., 1907, -Public Service Commission, First District_, Vol. II, pp. 774-775. -D. C. Moorehead, Secretary and Treasurer of the Metropolitan Street -Railway Company, further testified that District Attorney Jerome had -investigated these books in 1903, and that they were disposed of in -1905 for $117 or so; they were sold, Mr. Moorehead testified, “because -of lack of store room.” No litigation, he said, was in progress at the -time they were sold. - -[15] _Investigation of Interborough Metropolitan Company_, etc., 1907, -Vol. III, p. 1395, etc. - -[16] _Truth About Metropolitan_, p. 2. - -[17] _Report of the Joint Committee of the Senate and Assembly of the -State of New York, Appointed to Investigate the Finances of the State -of New York. March 1, 1909_, p. 10. - -[18] _Ibid._, p. 11. - -[19] _Ibid._ - -[20] _Ibid._ - -[21] _Ibid._ - -[22] _Ibid._, p. 13. - -[23] _Ibid._, p. 13. - -[24] _Ibid._, p. 14-15. - -[25] _Ibid._, p. 16. - -[26] _Ibid._, p. 26. - -[27] _Ibid._, p. 28. - -[28] _Ibid._ - -[29] _Ibid._, p. 115. - -[30] _Ibid._ pp. 112-113. - -[31] _Why I Was Removed_, by Theodore A. Bingham, _Van Norden’s -Magazine_, September, 1909. - - - - -CHAPTER XXXIV - -ANOTHER ERA OF LEGISLATIVE CORRUPTION - -1910-1911 - - -It was only a few months after this election that the investigations of -William H. Hotchkiss, State Superintendent of Insurance, followed by -that of a New York Legislative committee into the matter of legislative -graft, revealed the extensive and variegated corruption of both -political parties. - -An examination by Mr. Hotchkiss, in October, 1909, of the affairs of -the Phœnix Insurance Company of Brooklyn had brought to light a mass -of correspondence apparently disclosing an intimate connection between -the president of that company and legislative measures, introduced from -1900 to 1910, affecting fire insurance companies. The materials thus -unearthed caused Superintendent Hotchkiss to order a full examination -of the books and records of other fire insurance companies, which -examination was begun in January, 1910. - -On January 18, 1910, the New York _Evening Post_ published certain -facts the purport of which tended to show that State Senator Jotham P. -Allds, when Republican leader of the Assembly, in 1901, had been bribed -to assist in killing certain legislation to which bridge construction -companies objected. The Senate was forced to investigate, and Allds -hastily resigned, but the Senate on March 29, 1910, sustained the -charge of bribery by a vote of 40 to 9. - -It was well understood that this virtuous action was “a sacrifice” and -an ostentatious sop to public opinion; many more legislators than he -were implicated in charges of corruption. Meanwhile, Mr. Hotchkiss -was persisting in his investigation. In the course of Mr. Hotchkiss’ -inquiry, on March 22, 1910, testimony developed the fact that for -twenty years or more, “firebug” funds had been raised by insurance -companies and lavishly distributed among legislators at Albany and that -those companies had employed one William H. Buckley to act as “watcher” -on “strike bills” introduced in the Legislature at Albany. Buckley -admitted that at a time after only three years’ admission to the bar, -he had received $27,000 from insurance companies for representing them -during the sessions of the Legislature. - -One of the bills introduced in the Legislature was a measure fathered -by Senator Thomas F. Grady, a noted Tammany leader, celebrated as -the chief orator of the Tammany organization. This bill, called a -re-insurance act, was introduced and passed under such circumstances -that Vice-President Correa of the Home Insurance Company referred -to it in a contemporary letter as “bought legislation.” Mr. Correa -also stated in that letter, which was in evidence, that only three -re-insured fire insurance companies supported the bill, which gave -those three companies a distinct advantage over 209 direct insurance -companies doing business in New York State. The bill dealt with the -carrying of a reserve where part of a fire risk was re-insured. Senator -Grady declared, in a public interview, that this bill was introduced to -protect policy holders by compelling the re-insurance company, when a -part of a policy was farmed out by the company of the first instance, -to keep an adequate reserve against the policy thus taken, but all -of the insurance officers examined by Mr. Hotchkiss admitted either -wholly or in part, that Grady’s interview did not represent a correct -conception of what his bill actually provided.[1] - -Another conspicuous Tammany leader implicated in the disclosures before -Superintendent Hotchkiss was Senator “Big Tim” Sullivan. He had long -been one of the really powerful leaders of Tammany Hall, and held -direct sovereignty over the teeming East Side below Fourteenth Street. - -Beginning life as a bartender, “Big Tim” Sullivan had been given the -nickname “Dry Dollar” Sullivan, because of his habit of carefully -wiping the bar before placing change on it. His career in the Assembly -and Senate was notorious for the number of bad bills promoted or -supported by him. His power in manipulating primaries and swaying -elections on the East Side south of Fourteenth Street was recognized -as that of a master hand; he knew how to make the “gangs” his obedient -servants; not a secret of colonizing voters and carrying elections was -unknown to him and his clan; at the same time he was called “the friend -of the poor” because of his yearly practise of giving the wastrels -of the Bowery and vicinity Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners and -presents. By his proved and consistent ability to sway politics in the -great and thickly-populated East Side, he had to be recognized as an -independent Tammany power; no one could become “boss” of Tammany Hall -without his support. His power in Tammany was exceeded only by Mr. -Murphy’s. In fact, he was one of the actual rulers, not only of Tammany -Hall, but of New York City. - -George F. Seward, president of the Fidelity and Casualty Company, -testified on March 21, 1910, before Superintendent Hotchkiss, that a -man representing himself to be an agent of Senator “Big Tim” Sullivan, -in 1891 or 1892, offered, in return for a $10,000 bribe, to have a -bill inimical to that company’s interests killed. Mr. Seward, in -response, dictated this telegram to Sullivan: “Mr. Seward says you can -go to hell.” In reply to a question as to whether this happened when -the Republican party or the Democratic party was in power, Mr. Seward -replied, “So far as either party is concerned, I don’t think it would -make very much difference, and I really do not recall.” Both parties, -Mr. Seward said, were represented in the “Black Horse Cavalry” at -Albany. In a public interview Sullivan denounced Mr. Seward’s charge -as a lie. Recalled as a witness, on March 22, 1910, Seward adhered to -the story he had told. It may be remarked here that when Sullivan died -in 1913, he left a considerable fortune, originally estimated at two -millions of dollars; his friends represented that he had made it from -a chain of showhouses in which he was interested; but the inventory -showed that he owned large quantities of stock in mining companies, -realty companies and other concerns. Many of these shares, however, -were listed by the executors of his estate as valueless. The definite -value of Sullivan’s estate was placed at $1,021,277.33. - -On March 24, 1910, certain definite facts were brought out showing -how Buckley, lobbyist at Albany for the fire insurance companies, had -succeeded in killing, in 1903, various proposed enactments which those -companies did not want enacted. - -Correspondence produced showed that Buckley had written to George P. -Sheldon, president of the Phœnix Insurance Company, that “it was not -difficult to tie the matter [insurance bills] up in the committee,” and -later correspondence held out the assurance that the matter “had been -arranged.” According to the testimony, Justice Edward E. McCall of the -New York State Supreme Court had indorsed a $35,000 check from Sheldon -to Buckley. On March 29, 1910, Darwin P. Kingsley, president of the -New York Life Insurance Company, testified that Buckley had offered to -buy him the votes of six members of the New York State Senate for a -certain amount, and that when he (Kingsley) declined to pay, a certain -insurance measure which Kingsley had favored was withdrawn. - -These are but a few of the specific details brought out in the -hearings before Mr. Hotchkiss; it appeared that at least ten prominent -Republican legislators who had ruled important Senate and Assembly -Committees for years had speculative accounts in the brokerage firm -of Ellingwood & Cunningham of New York City, in which firm G. Tracy -Rogers, keeper of the traction “Yellow Dog” fund during that period, -was a special partner. - -On April 8, 1910, State Superintendent of Insurance Hotchkiss made a -full report to Governor Hughes of the investigation that he had made. -Mr. Hotchkiss reported that the aggregate of disbursements by fire -insurance companies in connection with legislation affecting those -companies, from 1901 to 1909, probably exceeded $150,000. - -“The moneys so paid,” Mr. Hotchkiss reported, “were disbursed for -traveling expenses of individuals and delegations; annual and special -retainers of regular counsels; so-called retainers of legislative -lawyers; contributions to political committees; gifts or payments to -men of political prominence and influence, and entertaining legislators -and others, at times in a somewhat lavish manner.” - -Mr. Hotchkiss further set forth in his report that the log rolling of -“strike” bills in and out of committees was a regular business, that -the books of the stock brokerage house of Ellingwood & Cunningham, -New York City, “warrant a strong suspicion that such books, to an -extent at least, had been a clearing house for financial transactions -connected with legislation during the period mentioned,” and that G. -Tracy Rogers, a special partner in the firm and long president of the -Street Railways Association of the State of New York, seemed up to -the time of the failure of that firm “to have been the legislative -representative at Albany of the traction interests.” Mr. Hotchkiss -reported that: “Certain of the accounts in these ledgers show a close -connection between G. Tracy Rogers and the Metropolitan traction -interests in New York City. The character of the securities dealt in -[by legislators] frequently recalls legislation urged or retarded at -about the same time.” Mr. Hotchkiss urged further inquiry, and in a -special message to the Legislature, on April 11, 1910, Governor Hughes -called on that body to follow, by means of a general investigation, the -trails of legislative corruption laid bare by the Allds bribery trial -and the investigation conducted by Superintendent Hotchkiss. - -In the face of the exposures already made and the insistent demands -for further investigation, the legislative committee appointed for the -purpose could not evade pressing the inquiry. - -The testimony on September 15, 1910, showed that during a single month -in the summer of 1903, the sum of $40,000 was sent by an agent of the -New York City street railway interests to the firm of Ellingwood & -Cunningham, and that no vouchers or receipts were asked or given to -account for the distribution of the money. At previous hearings, the -fact had been established that this brokerage house was the firm which -served as a “clearing-house” for the money supplied to members of the -Legislature by G. Tracy Rogers. At the hearing on September 16, 1910, -the evidence showed that Senator Louis F. Goodsell and Assemblyman -Louis Bedell, prominent Republican leaders in the Legislature, had -received large amounts of money from the Metropolitan Street Railway -Company and G. Tracy Rogers from 1900 to 1904; Goodsell had received -$24,800, and Bedell $21,750. Goodsell admitted that he had “bought” -stock without putting up any margin. - -At the same hearing, H. H. Vreeland, president of the Metropolitan -Street Railway Company, testified that the Metropolitan Street Railway -Company contributed campaign funds, and that it did so to practically -every one that ran for office; he remembered $20,000 or $25,000 given -to the Republican organization and $17,000 or $18,000 to the Democratic -organization; this was in about the year 1902 or 1903. Another method -of subsidizing politicians individually, Mr. Vreeland testified, was -by carrying stocks on the books of various brokerage houses for them; -these individual stock transactions ran from $20,000 to more than -$30,000. - -Much further testimony was brought out showing the enormous and -continuous subsidizing of both old political parties and politicians -by corporations wanting certain legislation enacted or smothered. On -September 21, 1910, Mr. Vreeland admitted that the Metropolitan Street -Railway Company had, prior to 1903, paid out fully $250,000 in “taking -up” stocks that legislators and other politicians had been carrying -with brokerage houses and which they desired converted into cash; this -was one of the indirect methods of influencing political or legislative -action in the interest of the company. G. Tracy Rogers testified that -he had disbursed $82,475 in three years, and that most of it went to -members of the railroad committees of the New York Legislature. In -these hearings the names of a number of conspicuous legislators and the -amounts received by them were brought out in the testimony. - -Testimony, also under oath, on October 19, 1910, purported to show that -a legislative corruption fund of $500,000 was raised at a meeting in -Delmonico’s to defeat anti-race track gambling legislation at Albany -in 1908; that Charles H. Hyde,[2] Chamberlain of New York City under -Mayor Gaynor, attended this meeting, and that State Senator Frank -Gardner went to Albany with Hyde because Hyde did not know the ways of -legislators and how to approach them “properly.” - -Hyde’s father-in-law was William A. Engeman, owner of the Brighton -Beach race track; according to the testimony, Hyde made a subscription -for Engeman (who had failed to pay), and later put in a bill for -personal expenses covering the amount. The testimony further -represented that there was a dispute as to who was to handle the -bribery funds, and that $125,000 was given to James E. Gaffney “to -take care of three or four members of the Legislature--Tammany men.” -According further to the testimony, Senator Thomas F. Grady, Democratic -leader at Albany and close friend and spokesman of “Boss” Murphy, -received only $4,000 of the bribery fund. Two Republican State Senators -wanted $25,000 each. The testimony also involved Senator Patrick H. -McCarren. Senator McCarren was the Democratic “boss” of Brooklyn; -he was an ally of Tammany Hall (for the Democratic organization in -Brooklyn retained its autonomy separate from that of Tammany Hall, yet -allied with it), and he was the legislative agent of various financial -interests and trusts. - -It appeared, according to the testimony, that Senator McCarren was -angry that the handling of the race track fund was entrusted to others; -he objected “to a strange man going up there, expecting to get away -with such a proposition,” but later he was placated and lent his aid -against the bill. When urging Senator Foelker, a Brooklyn Republican, -to vote against the bill, McCarren was represented as saying to -Foelker: “You need not fear the indignation of your constituents. If -you are afraid of possible reelection or have any doubts about election -time, I think I can fix it up for you so you can name your own opponent -at the coming election.” This was the substance of the testimony of -Assistant District Attorney Robert Elder, of Brooklyn, who narrated -the facts revealed to him by former State Senator Frank Gardner, under -indictment charged with attempting to bribe Foelker. (Here the fact -should be noted that when Gardner was tried on this charge he was -acquitted on February 23, 1911.) Mr. Foelker himself testified that he -was offered $45,000 and then $50,000 to vote against the bill, which -offer he refused; the vote on the bill was extremely close, and a -single vote meant its passage or defeat. - -At further hearings of the Legislative “Graft Hunt” Committee, Senator -Eugene M. Travis, of Brooklyn, testified that an ineffectual effort -had been made, at a time when the foes of the measure needed only one -or two votes, to bribe him with $100,000 to vote against the bill -prohibiting horse racing in New York State. Senator Travis specified -three other Senators whom they attempted to bribe. August Belmont -testified that the $500,000 fund was “mythical and absurd.” It was -reported that representations made at the hearing on November 30, 1910, -were to the effect that one jockey club alone had expended $33,000 -while the anti-race track gambling legislation was pending, and that -information from reliable sources tended to show that each of the other -seven racing associations had expended a similar sum, or perhaps more. -Further information, it was given out, was to the effect that each of -ninety-three bookmakers had subscribed $3,000 each. The total of the -above stated contributions would have amounted to $543,000--supposing -the fund to have been a fact. - -Whatever were the basic facts, pro and con, as to the alleged $500,000 -fund for the defeat of the anti-race-track bill, the record shows that -it was defeated on April 8, 1908, by a-vote of 25 to 25, and that -among those voting against it were such Tammany Senators as Grady, -Frawley, McManus, Sullivan and other Tammany men and Democrats,--in -all seventeen Democrats and eight Republicans. A new State Senator -having been elected in a special election in one district, the bill -prohibiting gambling at race tracks was subsequently passed. - -Nearly all of those involved made vehement denials. Senator McCarren -had died on October 23, 1909--a year before these hearings. Although -cooperating with “Boss” Murphy in elections, there was nevertheless -considerable animosity between the two, arising, it was generally -believed, from a suspicion that Mr. Murphy, inflated by his personal -victory in electing McClellan in 1903, was attempting to extend -his political territory to Brooklyn. Senator McCarren had openly -protested against this “encroachment” and had threatened trouble if -it were pushed. It was this jealously vigilant attitude on the part -of the bosses of the other boroughs which prevented Tammany Hall from -extending its regular organization outside the former city limits. - -McCarren himself was a “sporting man” and reputed to be a -“thoroughbred” at that. He had his own elaborate racing stable, and it -was said of him that he once uncomplainingly lost $30,000 on a bet, -although the decision of the racing judges was open to question. In -1908 the failure of the brokerage firm of Ennis & Stoppani revealed -the fact that McCarren was “carrying” $250,000 worth of stock, for -which he had paid nothing, and which resulted in a loss to him of -about $107,000. No demand had been made by the brokers upon McCarren -for margins; in view of this fact he could not have been compelled -to pay losses; it was said of him, however, that he gave a check to -the receiver and took the stock. He was a “heavy operator” in real -estate and in the stock market, and had personal relations with H. H. -Rogers, Anthony N. Brady, William C. Whitney, J. Pierpont Morgan, W. -K. Vanderbilt, August Belmont and other Wall Street magnates, of whose -interests he was a recognized pusher in the Legislature. - -To return, however, to the hearings of the Legislative “Graft Hunt” -Committee: facts brought out showed that the beet sugar interests had -also debauched the Legislature and that State Senator John Raines, a -leading Republican, received $9,000 in two years for pushing bounty -bills to aid beet sugar interests. These facts were admitted by Henry -F. Zimmerlin, former vice-president and Albany lobbyist of the Lyons -Beet Sugar Refining Company. - -The full testimony tended to show that insurance companies, traction -companies, construction companies and other interests paid large -sums to defeat legislation that they did not want enacted, or were -blackmailed into paying other large sums to have “strike bills” -suppressed. But the report of the Legislative Investigating Committee, -made on February 1, 1911, was harmless as far as specific findings of -corruption were concerned. As to the charges of traction and race track -corruption, the Committee reported that no definite and substantial -charge, verified by knowledge, had been filed with it, and that “in -consequence it finds nothing definite in regard to the traction -and race track charges that it examined.”[3] There were one or two -indictments, but no one, either bribers or bribed, had to go prison, -although in charges made in a detached subsequent case, one solitary -State Senator, Stilwell, was convicted of bribery charges and sentenced -to prison; he was a comparatively obscure politician. - -Inasmuch as the Legislature for years had been dominantly Republican, -these disclosures had a much more injurious political effect upon the -Republican organization than upon Tammany, and they were of weight in -bringing about the election of a Democratic Governor in the person of -John A. Dix, in 1910. This was the first Democratic Governor of New -York State elected in many years; the result was the enlargement of -Tammany’s sway, and more offices and further fields of power and profit -for “the Organization.” - -At the same time, a Legislature, the majority of which were Tammany men -and Democrats, was elected. The election of a United States Senator -coming up, the chief aspirant pushed for the place was William F. -Sheehan, an attorney for the traction magnate, Thomas F. Ryan. Mr. -Murphy had his headquarters in Albany directing the contest; he was -said to have given his promise to Mr. Sheehan, but when he saw that -Sheehan could not be elected, he tried to bring about the election of -Daniel F. Cohalan, his personal attorney and adviser, as United States -Senator. A few years previously, Cohalan was an obscure lawyer, but -as the friend and adviser of “Boss” Murphy, his practise had grown to -large and lucrative proportions; it was a practise principally dealing -with matters concerning municipal affairs. In 1908 Mr. Murphy had -caused Mr. Cohalan to be chosen Grand Sachem of the Tammany Society. - -But Mr. Murphy found that it was not possible to put Cohalan in the -United States Senate. Certain “insurgent” Democratic legislators -elected from various parts of the State, wanted neither Sheehan, Ryan’s -attorney, nor Cohalan, Murphy’s attorney. Finally Justice James A. -O’Gorman (who years previously had been elected to the New York State -Supreme Court by Tammany) was compromised upon as the candidate for -United States Senator and elected. - -Then Mr. Murphy decided to make Mr. Cohalan Justice O’Gorman’s -successor on the Supreme Court Bench. - -According to published report, the appointment of Mr. Cohalan as a -Justice of the Supreme Court by Governor Dix was the result of “a deal” -between Dix and Murphy. Governor Dix wanted the appointment of George -C. Van Tuyl, as State Commissioner of Banks, confirmed. The nomination -of Van Tuyl was referred to the Senate Finance Committee, of which -Senator Frawley, a Tammany district leader, was chairman. A report was -prepared recommending that the nomination of Van Tuyl be confirmed, -but this report was held up week after week, and the statement was -common in the political slang current at Albany that no action could be -taken in presenting the report “until the Governor comes across with -Cohalan.” At last, on May 18, 1911, Senator Frawley suddenly presented -the report, moved its confirmation, and the Senate acquiesced. Sixteen -minutes later a message appeared from Governor Dix announcing the -appointment of Daniel F. Cohalan to succeed James A. O’Gorman as -Justice of the Supreme Court for the remainder of O’Gorman’s unexpired -term. - -The session of 1911 was the first time in nineteen years that the -Democratic party had control of the Legislature, and Tammany Hall was -in control of the Democratic organization in the State. It was at this -session that a strong effort was made to enact the Tammany-Gaynor -“Ripper” Charter, the provisions of which aroused much scandal. The -majority of the Board of Estimate in New York City were at this time -Independent Democrats. The proposed charter would have arbitrarily -deprived them of many of their most important functions of office. -Its aim was to impair the powers of the Board of Estimate in many -destructive ways, and to centralize power in the hands of the Mayor. It -would have given the Mayor complete domination of the development of -transportation facilities in New York City. Such effective opposition -was raised that it was defeated by the votes of Independent Democrats -in the Assembly. At this session it was, too, that an attempt was made -to pass the Sullivan Inferior Criminal Courts “Ripper” bill which, by -making city magistrates elective instead of appointive, would have -restored the old pernicious, demoralizing system of local political -influence. These were but two of a list of other proposed Tammany -measures. - -Mr. Murphy’s habits as leader at this time were in singular contrast -with those of years previously when, as a district leader, he had -made his hailing place by a lamp post. He now used a luxurious suite -of rooms at Delmonico’s fashionable restaurant, at Fifth avenue and -Forty-fourth street, where, during campaign contests, he held his -secret consultations. Here those whom the “Boss” desired to see on -terms of great privacy were summoned, nor were they admitted, it was -reported, before they had been first scrutinized and received by Mr. -Murphy’s factotum, “Phil” Donohue, the treasurer of Tammany Hall, -who took his stand in an anteroom. During the campaign of 1911, when -County and Assembly candidates were to be elected, Mr. Murphy was to be -found almost daily at Delmonico’s, and, according to published report, -Justice Cohalan was there with him frequently. It was at this election -that Mr. Cohalan was elected Justice of the Supreme Court for a period -of fourteen years. - -Veteran politicians who had learned the wisdom of combining the -pocketing of millions with the art of simple appearances, shook their -heads ominously at what they considered “Boss” Murphy’s tactlessness in -vaunting his power, surrounded by ostentation and grandiose luxury. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] An indication of Senator Grady’s large sources of income had come -to public notice in 1907 when the District Attorney’s force raided the -poolroom “clearing house” at 112 Fulton street, New York City. Canceled -checks and other records found there revealed that a mysterious person -designated variously in the syndicate’s account books as “Tommy,” “T. -G.,” “T. Grady,” and “Sen.,” had “raked off” more than $43,000 on the -poolroom business in the first two years of the syndicate’s existence -and had continued to profit from that source up to the very time of the -raid. No doubt, however, Grady had his losses, too. - -[2] Hyde, on November 29, 1912, was convicted in court on a charge of -accepting a bribe, as a public officer, in consideration for depositing -public money in certain banks. He was sentenced to two years in State’s -prison. But the verdict was later reversed by the Appellate Division of -the Supreme Court, and he was released from all criminal charges. - -[3] The Committee commented: “The investigation shows clearly the -extreme difficulty of securing exact information which will disclose -the methods by which powerful financial interests seek to control -legislative action in matters coming before legislative bodies. - -“The crime of bribery is one of the most difficult of all crimes to -uncover. All the resources of ingenuity are used to conceal it, and -only in exceedingly rare instances are either of the parties to the -crime willing to come forward and disclose the facts.” - - - - -CHAPTER XXXV - -“CHIEF” MURPHY’S LEADERSHIP--FURTHER DETAILS - -1912-1913 - - -Mayor Gaynor was by no means pliable to Tammany purposes; he both -asserted and exercised his independence of “Chief” Murphy. But although -great powers were centralized in his office, there were nevertheless -numbers of Tammany men in the various departments, bureaus and courts. -Of the 85,000 regular employees of New York City in 1912 (including -10,118 policemen and 4,346 firemen), many were Tammany men, the larger -number of them occupying subordinate positions. The entire city payroll -at this time aggregated about $89,000,000--an average outlay of -$7,500,000 a month for salaries and wages alone. The city budget for -1913 was $190,411,000. - -Despite the appointment of successive Police Commissioners--there -had been eight within eleven years--to remedy matters in the Police -Department, the state of affairs in that department was still a -fruitful cause of scandal. This continuing scandal was brought to a -vivid climax by a murder the deliberate audacity of which horrified and -aroused the people of the city. - -On April 15, 1912, Police Lieutenant Charles Becker went, at the head -of his “raiding squad,” to the gambling house of Herman Rosenthal on -West Forty-fifth street. On July 11, 1912, Rosenthal went to the West -Side Police Court to protest against the “oppression” of the police in -stationing a uniformed man constantly on duty in his house. Shortly -thereafter, Rosenthal made an affidavit, which was published in the -New York _World_ on July 14, 1912, swearing that Police Lieutenant -Becker had been his partner in the operation of the gambling house and -had made the raid for certain personal purposes hereafter explained. - -If at this time a Tammany district attorney had been in office, the -results might not have been fatal to Rosenthal. But the district -attorney, Charles S. Whitman, was an official noted for his excellent -record. It was well realized that when he agreed to listen to -Rosenthal’s charges against Becker, he could not be “reached” by any -“influence” or intimidated by any threat. The alternative on the part -of somebody vitally interested was to slay Rosenthal on the principle -that “dead men tell no tales,” and thus prevent important disclosures -being made to the district attorney. - -At 2 o’clock on the morning of July 16, 1912, Rosenthal was summoned -out from the doorway of the Hotel Metropole at Broadway and Forty-third -street, and shot to death by four “gunmen” from within an automobile, -which immediately after the shooting sped away with the murderers. - -Arrests of suspects quickly followed. By July 29, 1912, District -Attorney Whitman held four men, all of whom had become informers. These -four were “Bald Jack” Rose, “Bridgie” Webber, Harry Vallon, and Sam -Schepps--two of whom, Rose and Vallon, had voluntarily surrendered. -On statements made by Rose and Vallon, the Grand Jury returned an -indictment against Becker charging murder in the first degree. A few -days later, Becker was re-indicted, and indictments were handed in -against the four “gunmen”--Louis Rosenberg, alias “Lefty Louie,” 23 -years old; Harry Horowitz, alias “Gyp the Blood,” 26 years old; Jacob -Seidenshner, alias “Whitey Lewis,” 26 years old, and Frank Cirofici, -alias “Dago Frank,” 29 years old. These “gunmen” were variously -arrested at different places. - -Stirred by this brutal murder, a mass meeting of citizens was held at -Cooper Union on August 14, 1912. Resolutions were adopted part of which -approved a proposal for an appropriation by the city of $25,000 for -an investigation into police conditions and a thorough inquiry into -the causes and possible remedies of systems of blackmail and graft. A -Citizens’ Committee was appointed by this mass meeting to report on -these conditions. - -Of the police force this committee reported on February 26, 1913, that: - - “The corruption is so ingrained that the man of ordinary decent - character entering the force and not possessed of extraordinary - moral fiber may easily succumb. About him are the evidences - of graft and the enjoyment of irregular incomes substantially - increasing the patrolman’s salary. Inadequate condemnation is - shown by his associates in the force for such practises; on the - contrary, there is much indirect pressure which induces him to - break his oath of office; the families of grafting policemen - live better than his own, and the urgencies of his family and - of his own social needs tempt him to thrive as do his corrupt - associates. Such a system makes for too many of the police an - organized school of crime. The improvement of recent years--and - there is some--is not great enough to satisfy an aroused public. - - “But not resting with this general knowledge of the existence - of such matters, this Committee has made an intensive - examination of the conditions in a number of police precincts. - We know that the connection between members of the police force - and crime or commercialized vice is continuous, profitable - and so much a matter of course that explicit bargains do not - have to be made; naturally this “honor among thieves” is - occasionally violated, as is customary among thieves, both the - keeping and the breaking of faith being determined by these - policemen for their own profit. - - “Well knowing this police ‘system,’ grand juries will not on - police testimony indict violators of the law, lest they [the - grand juries] be lending themselves to police persecution of a - selected criminal who had refused tribute, and so be helping - the police ‘system.’ For the same reason petit juries will - acquit, and judges will discharge, and crime increases and - goes unpunished, while honest policemen are discredited and - discouraged. - - “Evil thus breeds new maggots of evil. The sums collected - by the police excite the greed of certain politicians; they - demand their shares, and in their turn they protect the - criminal breaches of the law and the police in corruption. - The presence of ‘politics’ brings strength and complexity to - the ‘system’ and makes it harder to break up. The city, we - believe, is convinced that it is time for more radical efforts - at improvement.”[1] - -A Committee of the Board of Aldermen, appointed to inquire into -matters connected with the Police Department, held eighty public -sessions, took 4,800 pages of testimony and records, handed in certain -conclusions, and made recommendations for further laws. “We have -received shocking evidence of a widespread corrupt alliance between -the police and gamblers and disorderly house keepers,” this committee -reported in part.[2] During the same time, District Attorney Whitman -was vigorously prosecuting public offenders. In a single year four -police inspectors were convicted of conspiracy and were also under -indictment for bribery, one police captain was convicted of extortion, -one lieutenant was convicted of extortion, one patrolman of perjury, -and two patrolmen were convicted of extortion. In addition, there were -various indictments of patrolmen for extortion. Of the convicted, the -captain and one patrolman confessed; an attorney and a citizen indicted -for bribery in connection with police matters, also confessed. - -To return to the trials for the murder of Rosenthal: At Becker’s trial -Rose testified that his connection with Becker had begun in 1911, after -a “raid” on a gambling house kept by him (Rose) on Second Avenue; that -the levying of tribute on “unraided” gamblers was systematized; that -Rosenthal was brought under this system of “protection”; that Rosenthal -and Becker had become partners; and that Rosenthal in March, 1912, -had refused to “give up” $500 for the defense of Becker’s press agent -who was charged with the killing of a negro in a “raid” on a crap -game. According further to Rose’s testimony, this refusal brought on -strained relations between Becker and Rosenthal; and that after the -“raid” on Rosenthal’s gambling house, on April 15, 1912, when Rosenthal -threatened “to squeal,” Becker began to plan for the “fixing” of -Rosenthal. In June, 1912--so Rose testified--when “Big Jack” Zelig, an -East Side gang leader, was in the City Prison, the plan was determined -upon of negotiating with him that, in exchange for his release, some of -his “gunmen” should “attend to” Rosenthal. The four “gunmen” arrested, -Rose swore, were the tools that committed the murder, and he (Rose) had -acted as Becker’s agent in arranging matters with them. The testimony -further showed that on the afternoon after the murder, the quartet of -“gunmen” had received $1,000 as payment, after which they quit the city. - -On the testimony of Rose and others, Becker was convicted on October -24, 1913; the conviction of the four young “gunmen” soon followed. All -five were sentenced to death. By a decision of the Court of Appeals, -on February 24, 1914, Becker was allowed a new trial upon the ground -that by reason of hostile rulings his trial had not been fair, but the -conviction of the four “gunmen” was affirmed. They were electrocuted at -Sing Sing prison on April 13, 1914. Subsequently, after a second trial, -Becker was again convicted, and was duly electrocuted. - -Another source of quick-ripening trouble to Tammany Hall, turning -large numbers of voters against its chief, Mr. Murphy, and against the -whole system of the “Organization,” was the summary manner in which it -impeached and disposed of Governor William Sulzer. - -Mr. Sulzer had been a member of Tammany Hall for twenty-five years, -and had always been pushed into office by Tammany Hall since the time -when, as a young man, he had been one of Mr. Croker’s protégés. Elected -to the New York State Assembly, he had been made its Speaker at a -youthful age. Later he had been repeatedly sent to Congress by Tammany -Hall nominations, and it was primarily a Tammany backing that caused -his nomination and election as Governor, in 1912. Tammany believed -that it had every reason to feel sure that as Governor Mr. Sulzer -would continue pliable and docile to the “Organization’s” orders and -interests. - -“Boss” Murphy, however, was soon disillusioned when Governor Sulzer -declined dictation. - -According to Mr. Sulzer’s detailed story,[3] he (Sulzer), immediately -prior to going into office as Governor, spent an afternoon with Mr. -Murphy at his request in his private room at Delmonico’s. - -“His attitude,” Mr. Sulzer related, “was very friendly and -confidential. He said he was my friend; that he knew of my financial -condition and wanted to help me out. As he went on, I was amazed at -his knowledge of my intimate personal affairs. To my astonishment, he -informed me that he knew I was heavily in debt. Then he offered me -enough money to pay my debts and have enough left to take things easy -while Governor. He said that this was really a party matter and that -the money he would give me was party money … and that nobody would -know anything about it; that I could pay what I owed and go to Albany -feeling easy financially. He then asked me how much I needed, to whom I -owed it, and other personal questions. - -“As I did not want to be tied hard and fast as Governor in advance, -I declined Mr. Murphy’s offer, saying that I was paying off my debts -gradually; that my creditors were friends and would not press me; -that I was economical, that I would try to get along on my salary as -Governor.” Mr. Sulzer asserted that Mr. Murphy repeated the offer, and -that when he (Sulzer) again refused, Mr. Murphy said, “If you need -money at any time, let me know, and you can have what you want. We -cleaned up a lot of money on your campaign. I can afford to let you -have what you want and never miss it.” - -Then, according further to Mr. Sulzer’s story, Mr. Murphy wanted -Governor Sulzer to meet him at the hotel in Albany where Murphy was -staying; Sulzer did not go. Subsequently, on the night of February 2, -1913, they met at Justice Edward E. McCall’s house in New York City, -where Murphy urged the appointment of his friend, John Galvin, to -succeed Mr. Willcox as a member of the Public Service Commission in -New York City. The Public Service Commission is a body invested with -enormous authority in the matter of granting of public franchises and -other comprehensive powers; it had been under anti-Tammany control, and -it was a body the domination of which was pressingly sought by Tammany; -there were vast subway franchises to be awarded, and the powers of that -body could be used with almost autocratic effect in certain ways over -the entire range of recognized public service corporations. Governor -Sulzer would not appoint Galvin, but finally compromised upon the -selection of Justice Edward E. McCall as Chairman of the Public Service -Commission. - -“At this meeting and subsequently,” Mr. Sulzer declared, “Mr. Murphy -demanded from me pledges regarding legislation and especially -concerning appointments to the Public Service Commission, the Health -Department, the Labor Department, the State Hospital Commission, the -Department of State Prisons and the Department of Highways.” Murphy -insisted that various Tammany men whom he named should be appointed to -those offices. Mr. Murphy, however, favored the retention in office of -C. Gordon Reel, State Superintendent of Highways, saying that he was “a -good man.” “Mr. Murphy added,” Mr. Sulzer’s statement continued, “that -if I wished a new State Superintendent of Highways, ‘Jim’ Gaffney was -the best all-around man for the job.” - -“When I took office as Governor of the State last January,” Mr. Sulzer -declared in a signed published statement, - - “on the very first day my attention was abruptly called to the - fact that during the year just ended there had been spent in - the State $34,000,000 WITHOUT A SINGLE AUDIT. - - “On the second day that I was in office a messenger presented - to me bills amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars, - pointing out to me where I was to sign my name. If I had - attached my signature to those bills they would have been - immediately paid, and yet the messenger thought that he was - telling me nothing unusual when he said that other Governors - had signed bills that way, and that one Governor had left a - rubber stamp outside his office with the messenger, so that he - would not be bothered. - - “‘Leave those bills there,’ I said, ‘and I’ll look into them. - The rubber stamp period is over.’” - -After Mr. Sulzer had become Governor he learned, as his statement read, -that the State Architect had expended more than $4,300,000 in the -previous year; that this was done practically on the certificate of -that official, and that there had been no proper audit; the vouchers -had been carried to the trustees of public buildings, composed of -the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor and Speaker of the Assembly by a -clerk and approved by the use of a regular office stamp. Governor -Sulzer also learned, he said, that the appropriation for 1912 had been -exceeded by nearly half a million dollars, and that there was no proper -supervision. Governor Sulzer appointed John A. Hennessy as Commissioner -to investigate reports of graft in these and other departments. At the -same time, he appointed George W. Blake as Commissioner to inquire into -prison management. - -Mr. Hennessy’s report disclosed the most widespread graft. In -construction work on public buildings, large bills had been submitted -for inferior material; the payrolls on the electrical and other -contracts had been padded; regular State employees had been displaced -as inspectors and timekeepers by political henchmen from Tammany -District Leader James J. Hagan’s district in Manhattan, from which -the State Architect, his secretary, and the foreman on the general -work came. At Governor Sulzer’s request, Mr. Hennessy asked the State -Architect for his resignation, but Senator Frawley, another Tammany -district leader, intervened with a protest to Governor Sulzer against -any interference with the work on the State Capitol or other State -buildings. - -“I sent for Hennessy,” Mr. Sulzer’s narrative went on, “who in my -presence related to Senator Frawley the main facts in the case, but -Frawley still persisted that nothing should be done with the State -Architect’s office, at least until there had been further consideration -of the case. I told Hennessy to return to the State Architect (Mr. -Hoofer) and insist upon his resignation. What happened between these -two men I can only tell from Hennessy’s recital to me. Hoofer told him -that he (Hoofer) was not a free agent, that he had no control over his -deputies, that he had no control over his secretary, nor did he have -any control over the men who checked up the work. He (Hoofer) said they -were all appointed through Tammany Hall.… Hoofer said he wanted to -consult somebody in New York. While I held the ’phone, I told Hennessy -to ask Hoofer the name of the man, and Hennessy responded that Hoofer -wanted an opportunity to see Charles F. Murphy and explain certain -things.” - -Governor Sulzer allowed a few days’ delay. Shortly before the time -limit that Governor Sulzer had set for Hoofer’s resignation, “John H. -Delaney came to me,” Mr. Sulzer’s story went on, “and said that he had -been talking to ‘the Chief’ over the ’phone, and that Murphy wanted -Hoofer’s resignation to go over until such time as he could discuss the -case with me.” A little later “Senator Wagner, Senator Frawley and John -H. Delaney came into the Executive Chamber and informed me that Murphy -was insistent that nothing should be done in the case of Hoofer during -that week, and it was a subject that would have to be discussed with -the organization.” Upon Governor Sulzer’s demand that he resign or be -immediately removed, Mr. Hoofer wrote his resignation. - -The next official removed by Governor Sulzer was C. Gordon Reel, -State Superintendent of Highways, following Commissioner Hennessy’s -investigation and the disclosures of extensive graft in highway -contracts in a large number of counties. The amount of this graft -has been variously estimated at from $5,000,000 to $9,000,000. That -the system of plundering the State in the building of roads was no -fiction was shown later in the large number of indictments (followed by -many convictions) handed down against politico-contractors and State -employes in New York State. - -In the most important of the indictments found by the Suffolk County -Grand Jury on January 22, 1914, the Grand Jury charged “grand larceny” -and “conspiracy” in the construction of a so-called “cementitious -Hudson River gravel road” the specifications of which designated a -material absolutely controlled by Henry Steers, of the contracting firm -of Bradley, Gaffney & Steers, commonly known as “the Tammany Trust.” - -During an investigation conducted by James W. Osborne, in behalf of New -York State, the testimony, on February 17, 1914, indicated that State -Superintendent of Highways Reel ordered the use of a patented road for -roadways and caused the specifications to be changed so as to favor -the Gaffney-Bradley-Steers Company which controlled this particular -patented pavement. And when Mr. Sulzer testified, on February 29, 1914, -before the Assembly “Graft Hunt” Investigating Committee, he said that -an average of 30 per cent. of the money paid for those State roads -(which had been investigated by Mr. Hennessy) went into the contract, -and that 70 per cent. went into the pockets of politicians and -contractors. Mr. Sulzer asserted that about $9,000,000 had been stolen -in 1912. - -According to Mr. Sulzer, Mr. Reel’s appointment as State Commissioner -of Highways had been Mr. Murphy’s “personal selection.” When Governor -Sulzer’s attitude indicated Reel’s removal, Mr. Murphy (so Sulzer -stated) pressed forward the appointment of “Jim” Gaffney to succeed -Reel. “Mr. Murphy demanded the appointment of Gaffney, and still later -a prominent New Yorker came to me in the Executive Mansion bringing the -message from Mr. Murphy that it was ‘Gaffney or war.’ I declined to -appoint Gaffney. - -“This is the Gaffney who, only a few months afterwards, on September 4, -1913, in undisputed testimony before the Supreme Court of New York, was -shown to have demanded and received $30,000 in money (refusing to take -a check) from one of the aqueduct contractors, nominally for ‘advice.’ -This is the man who Mr. Murphy demanded should be put in a position -where he would superintend and control the spending of sixty-five -millions of the money of the State in road contracts.” - -Mr. Sulzer here referred to the testimony of Harry B. Hanger, aqueduct -contractor, who swore that he paid Mr. Gaffney $30,000 for “expert -advice on the labor situation” on one contract, and $10,000 for the -same services on another contract. Mr. Gaffney later--on March 20, -1914--himself testified before the Special Grand Jury in New York City -as to this transaction. - -It was the same Mr. Gaffney, too, whose name was involved in the award -of Contract No. 22 for the Catskill Aqueduct. This contract was awarded -on March 19, 1909, over two lower bidders to Patterson & Company, a -firm of no great capital or experience. James W. Patterson, Jr., head -of that firm, subsequently testified before the Grand Jury, in 1914, -to his making arrangements to pay 5 per cent. of the contract price -($824,942.50) as a “contribution to Tammany Hall.” John M. Murphy, a -Bronx contractor, testified that, as agent for James E. Gaffney, he had -arranged to sell the contract, and had received from Mr. Gaffney 10 per -cent., or $4,125, as his share of a certain $41,250, after threatening -“to kick over the whole deal” if Gaffney did not give the proper -“honorarium.” - -It appeared from the testimony that $41,250 in bills had been deposited -in escrow to be handed over by James G. Shaw, the “stakeholder,” to a -some one designated as Gaffney, on the day after the award of Aqueduct -Contract No. 22. Questioned as to whom this $41,250 was given, Mr. Shaw -could not remember, which forgetfulness made the fastening of legal -proof impossible. The special Grand Jury investigating this matter -reported, however, in a presentment to Justice Vernon M. Davis, in -the Supreme Court, New York City, on April 21, 1914, that the Grand -Jurors were morally satisfied that a crime had been committed in the -sale of Contract No. 22 to Patterson & Company, and that this contract -could not have been sold and delivered, as it was, in the name of -James E. Gaffney, “without the collusion of a member of the Board (of -Water Supply) itself.” Inasmuch as five years had passed since the -transaction, the Statute of Limitations intervened to bar criminal -prosecution. - -In an inquiry later conducted by District Attorney Whitman, James C. -Stewart swore that one “Gaffney” asked him for a contribution of five -per cent. upon $3,000,000 worth of canal work that he (Stewart) was -seeking. Stewart refused to make the arrangement; his bid was much the -lowest, but he did not then get the contract. Precisely what “Gaffney” -it was who proposed the handing over of this $150,000, Stewart averred -that he could not tell; he had never seen him previously. When, on -January 30, 1914, District Attorney Whitman brought Stewart and James -E. Gaffney face to face, Stewart said that he could not identify Mr. -Gaffney as the man who demanded the $150,000. - -During the course of this same inquiry Mr. Sulzer testified, on January -21, 1914, that on learning that Stewart was to be denied the contracts, -he telegraphed on December 18, 1912, to the Canal Board asking it to -defer action until he could consult with its members. Whereupon John -H. Delaney came to him and excitedly said, “My God, Congressman, what -have you done? It angered the Chief more than anything else I have ever -known. The Chief is wild.” The “Chief,” otherwise Charles F. Murphy, -demanded an interview with the Governor-elect at once. - -In this interview, which was held at Delmonico’s, Mr. Sulzer quoted Mr. -Murphy as saying to him, “Why did you send that telegram to the Canal -Board? You have no right to butt in on things that don’t concern you. -I’m attending to that matter, and I want you to keep your hands off. -If you are going to begin this way, I can see now where you will end -as Governor. You do what you are told hereafter, and don’t take any -action on matters that don’t concern you without conferring with me.” -When Mr. Sulzer said he was going to be Governor, Mr. Murphy (so Sulzer -testified) replied: “So that is the way you understand it? Well, if you -go along that line, I can see where you will end up damned quick. You -are going to be Governor? Like hell you are!” - -Mr. Sulzer further testified at this hearing that on the evening of -March 3, 1913, at a luncheon in Washington, he told Senator O’Gorman -that Mr. Murphy was putting the “screws” on him and bringing to -bear all the influence he could to have James E. Gaffney appointed -Commissioner of Highways, and that Senator O’Gorman had said: -“Governor, if you appoint Jim Gaffney Commissioner of Highways it will -be a disgrace to the State of New York and it will ruin your political -career as the Governor. Don’t you know that Gaffney is Murphy’s chief -bagman? Don’t you know he is the man Murphy sends out to hold up the -contractors? Don’t you know he is the man that held up my client, James -G. Stewart, for over a hundred thousand dollars, and he would have got -away with it if Stewart had not come to me, and if I had not gone to -Murphy and read the Riot Act, telling him that I would not stand for -that kind of politics; that he had to stop Gaffney, and that if he -didn’t stop Gaffney, so far as my client was concerned, I would expose -him.” - -Subsequently Mr. Sulzer met Mr. Murphy several times, and was -importuned (so he testified) to appoint Mr. Gaffney. When Sulzer -replied that it was impossible, Mr. Murphy announced, “Well, it’s -Gaffney or war.” Mr. Sulzer’s testimony went on: “At this conversation, -one of the things Mr. Murphy said to me was, ‘If you don’t do this, -I will wreck your administration.’ It was not the first time he had -threatened me, and I answered, ‘I am the Governor, and I am going to -be the Governor.’ He said, ‘You may be the Governor, but I have got -the Legislature, and the Legislature controls the Governor, and if -you don’t do what I tell you to do, I will throw you out of office.’” -After Governor Sulzer had removed Reel, Mr. Murphy was still pressing -Gaffney’s appointment. - -Of the inquiries into graft carried on by George W. Blake and John -W. Hennessy, Mr. Sulzer testified: “Their reports staggered me, and -believe me, it takes something to stagger me. There was graft, graft -everywhere, nor any man to stop it.” Mr. Sulzer testified that Mr. -Murphy had sought to hamper the graft exposure by causing to be cut -off--for the first time in the State’s history, he said--the Governor’s -contingent fund, and he described how it became necessary to raise -money by private subscription to enable the graft inquiry to be carried -on. - -“I have been in office now for six months,” wrote Mr. Sulzer in a -signed article later, “and in that time I have learned enough to be -able to say without fear of contradiction that in the past three years -$50,000,000 of the people’s money has been wasted or stolen.” - -In a talk, on March 18, 1913, with Mr. Murphy over appointments to -the Supreme Court of New York State, the Tammany chief--so Mr. Sulzer -related--“threatened me with public disgrace unless I agreed to his -program on legislative matters and appointments. It was at this -conference, too, that he talked about the things he ‘had on me,’ and -said that I had better listen to him and not to his enemies up the -State; that if I did what he told me I would have things easy and no -trouble, and that if I didn’t do what he wanted me to, I would have all -the trouble I wanted.… - -“He was very insulting. Then I asked him what he could do to destroy -me. And he said: ‘Never mind; you will find out in good time. Stand -by the organization and you will be all right. If you go against the -organization, I will make your administration the laughing stock of the -State.’ It was at this time that he asked me to call off George Blake, -the commissioner who was investigating the prisons.… I told him that -Blake was an efficient man and that I was going to let him go on with -his work, and he said, ‘If you do you will be sorry for it. Mark what I -am telling you now!’ - -“I told him what I had heard about the vileness of things in the Sing -Sing and Auburn prisons. I said: ‘We certainly ought not to stand for -them. I want to get at the facts, and if there is anything wrong, stop -it; if there is any graft, eliminate it.’ Mr. Murphy told me that he -didn’t want anything done in connection with Sing Sing prison by Blake -or any other man; that the warden there, Mr. Kennedy, was a friend of -his and a good man, and he wanted him left alone. This, remember, was -the warden whom I afterward removed from his place on charges and who -was since indicted by the Westchester grand jury.” It may be noted here -that later there were a number of prosecutions in prison graft cases. -The graft in the prisons reached a total of many millions of dollars in -the one item alone of the substitution of bad food for the good food -paid for by the State. Extensive grafting was found in other respects. - -Mr. Sulzer added that one of the agents through whom Mr. Murphy most -frequently communicated with him was Justice Edward E. McCall. “Judge -McCall usually spoke of Mr. Murphy as ‘the Chief,’ and would say to me -that ‘the Chief’ wished such and such a thing done, or demanded that I -follow such and such a course of action. Every Tammany member of either -house who approached me from day to day used the same language, saying -that ‘the Chief’ demanded this or demanded that, or that ‘the Chief’ -had telephoned to put through such a piece of legislation, or kill some -other piece of legislation.” - -Meanwhile, on March 10, 1913, reports of trouble between Governor -Sulzer and Mr. Murphy had become public; when on this date Sulzer -removed C. Gordon Reel as State Superintendent of Highways, it was -reported in the newspapers that Murphy had asked Governor Sulzer to -name James E. Gaffney, his partner in the contracting business, as -Reel’s successor. On the next day, Mr. Murphy hotly denied that he -had asked Gaffney’s appointment. From day to day further reports of -estrangement were published. In a speech before the Democratic editors -of the State, on March 25, Sulzer asserted: “No man, no party, no -organization can make me a rubber stamp. I am the Governor. Let no man -doubt that.” - -It appeared that Mr. Murphy had the idea that Sulzer was at heart a -Progressive; it may be explained that the Progressive party had polled -a large vote and was recognized as a powerful political factor. - -It was on the night of April 13, 1913, that Governor Sulzer, according -to his interview published later in the New York _Evening Mail_, held -his final interview with Mr. Murphy. “I asked him,” Mr. Sulzer said, -“not to interfere with the trial of Stilwell in the Senate. I said, -‘What are you going to do about him?’ ‘Stand by him, of course,’ -replied Mr. Murphy. ‘Stilwell will be acquitted. It will only be a -three-day wonder. How do you expect a Senator to live on $1,500 a year? -That is only chicken feed.’ … Before we parted that night, I warned Mr. -Murphy that he would wreck the party and accomplish his own destruction -if he persisted in shielding grafters and violating platform pledges. -His angry retort was that I was an ingrate, and that he would disgrace -and destroy me.” - -In fact, as Mr. Murphy predicted, Senator Stephen J. Stilwell was -voted not guilty of official misconduct, by a vote of 28 to 21 in the -Senate, after an investigation by the judiciary committee of charges -of bribery made against him by George H. Kendall, president of the New -York Bank Note Company. But subsequently Stilwell was indicted in New -York County, convicted of bribery upon substantially the same evidence -as that upon which a majority of his colleagues in the State Senate had -acquitted him, and he was sentenced to a two-year term in prison. - -Replying later to Mr. Sulzer’s charges, Mr. Murphy definitely denied -that he had ever recommended the appointment of James E. Gaffney -as Highways Commissioner; that he ever mentioned Gaffney’s name to -Governor Sulzer for any office; he emphatically denied that he ever -made the threats that Sulzer attributed to him or that he ever sent for -Mr. Sulzer to come and see him. Mr. Murphy asserted that he never saw -Sulzer alone after he became Governor “because I knew he’d do just what -he has done--perjure himself.” - -In April, 1913, Governor Sulzer pushed his Direct Primary Bill, and -Tammany members of the Legislature decided in retaliation to defeat -all bills favored by him and to “hold up” all of his appointments. On -April 24, 1913, Tammany legislators were stirred to anger by his veto -of a direct primary bill that they had concocted; a few days later they -overwhelmingly voted down his direct primary bill. More retaliation -followed on both sides. - -It was during this time--in May, 1913--that the New York _World_ -published specific charges that in return for a promise made two years -previously to get a lucrative post for J. A. Connolly, a personal -friend, Justice Cohalan, Murphy’s legal and political adviser, had -taken a note from Connolly for $4,000. This promise, it was charged, -had not been kept. There were, it was also charged, back of this note a -series of transactions in the years 1904 to 1906 between Connolly and -Cohalan involving the payment of various sums amounting to $3,940.55; -Connolly claimed that Cohalan had demanded and obtained from him 55 per -cent. of the net profits on all city work that was given to Connolly’s -firm by means of Cohalan’s influence. Connolly further claimed that -the payments to Cohalan were calculated on this basis, and that their -friendship ceased when Cohalan demanded $1,500 more than Connolly -reckoned was due him. Threatened with an action at law, Cohalan -surrendered the $4,000 note to Connolly’s attorney. - -These charges were investigated by the Grievance Committee of the -Bar Association; the report of that committee confirmed every charge -made. Refusing to recognize the jurisdiction of the Bar Association, -Justice Cohalan requested Governor Sulzer to have the charges passed -upon by the Legislature; this Governor Sulzer did in a special message -embodying the report of the Grievance Committee of the Bar Association. -The Legislature ordered a trial before the Joint Judiciary Committee. -Justice Cohalan admitted on the witness stand that he had made a great -mistake in his dealings with Connolly, and that the money he had -paid to Connolly was blackmail given in the hope of hushing up the -affair for the good of his party. William D. Guthrie, representing the -Bar Association, reviewed the case in detail, and demanded Justice -Cohalan’s removal. The Joint Judiciary Committee’s report recommended -that the case against Justice Cohalan be dismissed, which report was -upheld by a majority vote of the Legislature. Opponents of Tammany -pointed out that this was a characteristic action from a Legislature -dominated by Tammany influences. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] _Report of the Citizens’ Committee Appointed at the Cooper Union -Meeting, August 12, 1912_, pp. 6-7. - -[2] _Preliminary Legislative Report of Special Committee of Board of -Aldermen_, p. 6. - -[3] An extended interview published in the New York _Evening Mail_, -October 20 and 21, 1913. - - - - -CHAPTER XXXVI - -GOVERNOR SULZER’S IMPEACHMENT AND TAMMANY’S DEFEAT - -1913-1914 - - -The campaign of retaliation against Governor Sulzer soon came to a -climax. - -On July 15, 1913, a committee called the Frawley Committee (headed -by Senator Frawley) was appointed to inquire into Governor Sulzer’s -receipts and expenditures of campaign funds. After taking testimony, -that committee submitted its report with the finding that, following -his campaign for Governor, Mr. Sulzer had omitted declaring in his -campaign statement $19,000 of contributions to his campaign fund and -had purchased, for his personal account, stocks with part of the moneys -thus received. - -The evidence, according to the committee’s report, showed that a total -of $109,016 in cash or stock had been in Mr. Sulzer’s possession, -and that this sum came from campaign contributions. Mr. Sulzer had -used both cash and checks to purchase stocks; and as far as could be -brought out by the records and testimony, his Wall Street transactions -with three brokerage firms covered a total of $72,428.28, dating from -January 1, 1912. It appeared that the greater part of these payments -were made after he became a candidate for Governor and was elected to -that office. Mr. Murphy and other Tammany leaders pointed out that -while these very transactions had been going on, Mr. Sulzer had in his -public speeches pretended that he was a poor man. - -Mr. Sulzer’s own version was that if he had made a mistake in signing -his campaign statement it was due to haste and carelessness and not to -intent to deceive. “But,” he added, - - “this is not the only explanation of the failure to itemize - certain moneys which were received in the campaign. Some of - the moneys were not for campaign purposes at all, but were - loans. They were given to me by friends who knew I was heavily - in debt, and who loaned me the money to pay my debts or to use - as I saw fit. These friends wanted nothing, and in case of my - election I knew there was nothing they would ask me to do, or - that I could do for them. Politics had nothing to do with the - matter. - - “All the moneys given to me, or sent to me for the campaign, - were turned over to the committee, to which reference has been - made, or were subsequently given to Mr. Murphy. Whether the - latter turned these moneys over to the State Committee or not - I cannot say, but an investigation of the report filed by that - committee negatives the assumption.” - -On August 13, 1913, the Assembly, by a vote of 79 to 45, impeached -Governor Sulzer on eight articles. Trial by the High Court for the -Trial of Impeachments, consisting of the State Senate and the Judges of -the Court of Appeals, followed. - -Governor Sulzer vigorously fought back, and public opinion was -greatly aroused over his charges that the affair was simply a case of -the Tammany “Organization” summarily disciplining him for refusing -to be its tool. He was convicted on three of the eight articles of -impeachment: (1) that he had filed with the Secretary of State a false -sworn statement of his campaign receipts and expenditures; (2) perjury -in swearing to the truth of the campaign accounting; (3) committing -a misdemeanor in suppressing evidence and preventing or seeking to -prevent witnesses from appearing before the legislative committee. On -October 17, 1913, Governor Sulzer was removed from office by a vote of -43 to 12 by the High Court for the Trial of Impeachments. - -It should be noted that Chief Justice Edgar M. Cullen, of the Court -of Appeals, who presided at the trial, voted to acquit Mr. Sulzer on -every one of the articles. “Never before the present case,” said Chief -Justice Cullen, “has it been attempted to impeach a public officer for -acts committed when he was not an officer of the State.…” Chief Justice -Cullen held that Mr. Sulzer had committed no offense in failing to -state the amounts and sources of his campaign contributions, and that -there was no evidence of any deceit or fraud. - -Governor Sulzer’s supporters set forth the following as the main actual -reasons why proceedings for his removal were pushed: - -First: Mr. Sulzer’s persistent efforts to secure the enactment of the -Full Crew legislation to conserve human life on the railroads. - -Second: Mr. Sulzer’s success in securing the enactment of the laws that -he recommended to compel honest dealings on the New York Stock Exchange. - -Third: Mr. Sulzer’s refusal to approve the McKee Public Schools Bills -which would have given control of public schools to a religious -denomination. - -Fourth: Mr. Sulzer’s successful efforts in causing the repeal of the -notorious charter of the Long Sault Development Company, by which the -State of New York received back its greatest water power and the most -valuable of its natural resources. - -Fifth: Mr. Sulzer’s defiance of the bosses-big and little--and his -fight for honest and genuine direct primaries. - -Sixth: Mr. Sulzer’s determined refusal to be a proxy Governor or “a -rubber stamp.” - -Seventh: Mr. Sulzer’s absolute refusal to follow “boss” dictation -regarding legislation and appointments, and his blunt refusal to call -off Blake and Hennessy, and stop the investigations which were being -made, under his direction, to uncover fraud and expose graft in the -State Departments. - -Eighth: Mr. Sulzer’s moral courage, in the performance of public duty, -wherein he insisted on the trial and punishment of Senator Stilwell for -extortion. - -Ninth: Mr. Sulzer’s determination to set in motion the machinery of the -law, in various counties of the State, to indict the grafters and bring -them to justice. - -There could be no questioning that the proceedings against Sulzer had -an effect upon the public mind the reverse of that expected by “Boss” -Murphy and his advisers. - -The attempt of Tammany Hall’s leaders to pose in this case as the -conservers of political virtue met with a sardonic reception and -quickly reacted upon them in unmistakable terms. Public opinion in -general made no attempt to mitigate Mr. Sulzer’s acts, but, with a keen -perception of the fundamental facts, it saw that the real reason why -Governor Sulzer was so brutally punished was not because of those acts -but because he had finally broken away from Tammany dictation and had -sought to be somewhat of an independent Governor. Every intelligent -person knew that this was his crime in the view of the Tammany -organization, and, according to Tammany standards, the worst crime that -could be committed. That an organization which had been steeped in -corruption and graft should so ostentatiously pretend to be the exposer -and punisher of infractions in an official who had defied its power, -excited mockery, resentment and indignation. Public sympathy turned -toward the deposed Governor, and he was nominated for the Assembly by -the Progressives in an East Side district. - -As we have seen, one of the chief issues upon which Gaynor had made -his Mayoralty campaign in 1909 was for municipally built and operated -subways. - -After becoming Mayor, he underwent a decided change of mind. The -subway rights were awarded to the Interborough Rapid Transit Company -and the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company. The Final Report of the Joint -Legislative Committee appointed to investigate the Public Service -Commissions severely criticizes the policy and the terms under which -the contracts were made by the Public Service Commission and the Board -of Estimate. On the other hand, defenders of the Board of Estimate’s -action point out that the reasons why that Board changed from city to -company subways were that by the cooperation of the companies, the city -had the benefit of $150,000,000 more in funds than would have been -the case without that cooperation; that the new subway lines instead -of being independent, disconnected routes, unrelated to existing -transportation lines, would be built in appropriate extenso of subway -facilities already in operation; and that by this arrangement not -only would the service be harmonized and improved but the payment of -double fares would be done away with and an aggregate of vast sums thus -saved to the traveling public. The circular routes by which the city’s -transportation problems will be more effectively and constructively -solved were adopted despite Gaynor’s favoring the Interborough Rapid -Transit Company’s perpendicular routes plan. - -One feature of the testimony later before the Joint Legislative -Committee especially attracting public attention was the imputation -that in the contract for the third-tracking of the Interborough -Rapid Transit Company’s elevated railroads, a fund of $2,000,000 -was surreptitiously provided in the form of a commission to John F. -Stevens. Formerly Mr. Stevens had been associated in the construction -of the Panama Canal with Mr. Shonts who now was president of the -Interborough Rapid Transit Company. This company, in the third-tracking -work, wanted exemption from supervision by the Public Service -Commission. According to a memorandum preserved by George W. Young, -an Interborough director, this contract with Mr. Stevens was entered -into (so, it was asserted, Mr. Shonts told Mr. Lane, another director), -because “in connection with the securing of the contract which had been -closed between the City of Greater New York and the Interborough, Mr. -Shonts had found it necessary to make certain commitments and incur -certain obligations, and that it was by means of the Stevens contract -that he expected to meet and pay these commitments and obligations.”[1] - -The Joint Legislative Committee thus comments on the testimony: “It -is perfectly clear that Mr. Shonts did tell Mr. Lane something about -commitments and obligations in respect to this strange proposition; -it is equally clear that he was not under any business commitment or -honorable obligation to Mr. Stevens. He made a request of the Public -Service [Commission] Chairman for an exception from the general -contract, relieving third tracking from official supervision, and -had told the reason for it in his desire to give the contract to Mr. -Stevens. He did obtain exemption from supervision, and that applied to -the contractor to whom finally the contract was awarded.”[2] - -The chairman of the Public Service Commission here referred to was -Edward E. McCall. Whatever may be the shadowy implications conveyed in -this report, no statement is made that any corruption was used, nor is -any proof presented that any official was improperly influenced. The -salient fact was that McCall, in an era when corporation activities -were more and more rigorously scrutinized by official bodies, should -have reverted to by-gone standards and graciously allowed a removal -of that very supervision which it was expected the Public Service -Commission would insist upon exercising. - -Tammany Hall’s nominee in the municipal campaign of 1913 was this same -Edward E. McCall. - -When an attorney, Mr. McCall had been connected with certain operations -of the New York Life Insurance Company, of which corporation his -brother, John A. McCall, was president. It appeared from the testimony -before the Legislative Insurance Investigating Committee, in 1905, that -Edward E. McCall had given notes, totalling about $10,000, to “Andy” -Hamilton, the chief legislative lobbyist at Albany of that company and -distributor of the “Yellow Dog Fund.” - -Precisely why Edward E. McCall should have given those notes was -not explained. Hamilton received great sums in all for legislative -purposes; in the transferring of some of the sums Edward E. McCall -figured. Both Edward E. McCall and “Andy” Hamilton received “excessive -remuneration” from the New York Life Insurance Company, apparently for -legal services in a certain case, which sums, according to the report -of Charles E. Hughes, there was no adequate reason for paying. At the -same time that these sums were paid to them, both Edward E. McCall and -Hamilton were under a regular retainer as attorneys by the New York -Life Insurance Company, each of them receiving $10,000 a year. - -Mr. McCall was put upon the Supreme Court Bench in 1902, by Tammany -backing, and remained there until his appointment, in 1913, by Governor -Sulzer as Chairman of the Public Service Commission, First District. - -The greatest exertions were made by Tammany to sway the electorate -so as to swing the election in its favor. Tammany realized that the -Sulzer episode would be an important issue, but it did not anticipate -that the summary removal of Governor Sulzer, with all the attendant -circumstances, would make so unpleasant an impression, driving large -numbers of voters to the other side. Tammany thought that it had -put Sulzer on the defensive; it did not quite foresee the effect -of revelations which, before the campaign was over, placed Tammany -seriously on the defensive and its leaders under the necessity of -making explanations. - -Moreover, in selecting its candidates and developing its campaign -tactics Tammany did not appreciate the very much altered attitude of a -large section of the public toward municipal politics. There had arisen -in New York City an increased public demand for proved administrative -capacity. The old days of public toleration of choosing politicians for -“good fellowship” or subservient qualities had about gone. The emphasis -was now placed by Tammany’s opponents upon the fact that cities should -be not merely governed, but well governed, by men of vision, ability -and integrity. - -The candidate for Mayor of the Republicans and Fusionists was John -Purroy Mitchel, a young Independent Democrat, who was credited with -having made a notable record as Commissioner of Accounts. Later he had -been President of the Board of Aldermen, and then Collector of the -Port of New York. Nominated with him were William A. Prendergast, for -Comptroller, and George McAneny for President of the Board of Aldermen; -all were eulogized by their supporters with having served the city with -constructive ability and marked efficiency, and with having opposed and -exposed Tammany graft and extravagance. - -The Socialist Party’s candidate for Mayor was Charles Edward Russell, a -writer of note and a man of high personal character. - -Full of bitterness was this campaign. Perhaps the most effective -speakers against Tammany Hall were John A. Hennessy and former -Governor Sulzer. Mr. Hennessy in a public speech on October 23, 1913, -specifically charged that he held a note for $35,000 that had been -signed by a Justice of the Supreme Court who had been Mr. Murphy’s -alternative candidate for Mayor. “I do not say that the $35,000 was -ever paid to anybody. I don’t suspect him of any vices that would -induce him to borrow $35,000.… If he has had to pay $35,000 or more for -his [Supreme Court] nomination, why he simply followed a tradition in -the organization to which he belonged.” - -Mr. Hennessy charged Mr. McCall with not answering the question of -where he got his campaign money, and asked Mr. McCall whether, in 1902 -(when McCall was a candidate for the Supreme Court nomination) he, -McCall, had not met George W. Plunkett, a Tammany district leader--the -originator of the term “honest graft”--in a room in the Hoffman House, -and whether Anthony N. Brady was not in another room at the same -time. “I want to ask Judge McCall,” Mr. Hennessy continued, “whether -his sponsor, Charlie Murphy, had not seen Anthony Brady in respect -to McCall’s nomination in the Hoffman House, and I want to ask Judge -McCall if the gentleman who brought him and Plunkett together to -discuss that nomination, did not have something to do with Murphy and -Mr. Brady in respect of that nomination.” Mr. Hennessy charged that one -man that Mr. McCall paid was Plunkett, but he (Hennessy) did not know -whether he paid Murphy, or whether he paid the amount to somebody who -paid Murphy; he (Hennessy) did not undertake to assert that. - -The Anthony N. Brady here mentioned was a traction magnate, who, -beginning as a clerk in Albany, had by means of legislative -manipulation giving richly valuable railway and other franchises, -accumulated an estate of $90,000,000. - -In several speeches Mr. Hennessy pointedly asserted that James Stewart, -a contractor, had paid $25,000 to a former friend of Charles F. Murphy, -and inquired whether J. Sergeant Cram (a prominent Tammany light) had -not received $5,000, and Norman E. Mack another $5,000. - -At a public meeting on October 25, 1913, Mr. Sulzer declared that he -had sent to Charles F. Murphy $10,000 that Allan Ryan (Thomas F. Ryan’s -son), had contributed to his campaign fund, and that Mr. Murphy had -never accounted for it. - -Mr. Sulzer named John H. Delaney (later State Commissioner of the -Department of Efficiency and Economy), as the messenger who had -carried the $10,000 in bills to Mr. Murphy. This money, Mr. Sulzer -asserted, had originally been handed to him (Sulzer) in his New York -office by Mr. McGlone, Allan Ryan’s secretary, and that he (Sulzer) -gave the $10,000 to Delaney, who took it uptown and gave it to Murphy. -“Late that afternoon,” Mr. Sulzer continued, “I saw Mr. Murphy at -Delmonico’s. During our conversation, I said, ‘Did John give you the -ten from Ryan?’ Mr. Murphy replied: ‘Yes, that’s all right, but it’s -only a drop in the bucket. You’ll have to do better than that.’ So far -as I know,” Mr. Sulzer continued, “and I am pretty well advised, Mr. -Murphy never accounted for that $10,000, any more than he accounted -for the Brady $25,000 which I refused and which he accepted from -Judge Beardsley [Brady’s legal representative]. At all events, I -think Mr. Murphy should tell the voters what he did with the money.” -Mr. Sulzer declared that he (Sulzer) was still in debt, and that -“I am a poorer man to-day than I was when I became a candidate for -Governor.” No one acquainted with Sulzer’s career could doubt that had -he been essentially corrupt, he could have become a millionaire from -huckstering of legislation when he was Speaker of the Assembly; there -was no bribing him, however, with money; he was, in fact, a poor man. - -Mr. Sulzer then declared that Thomas F. Ryan was “Boss” Murphy’s master. - -This, in fact, was the very point made by the Socialists: that the -political “bosses” were only the tools of the great financial and -industrial magnates; and that where the political “bosses” gathered -in their millions, the magnates accumulated their tens or hundreds of -millions of dollars as their individual fortunes. Why, queried the -Socialists, concentrate attention on the instruments? Why not, said -they, attack the power of the whole social, political and industrial -system of which the political “boss” was merely one expression? This -system, according to the Socialist party, was the capitalist system -for the overthrow of which they declared and agitated. They pointed -out that behind Mr. Murphy and Tammany Hall, as well as behind the -Republican organization where it was in power, were traction, railroad, -telephone, electric lighting, industrial and other financial interests -all selfishly utilizing the power embodied in political “bosses” for -their own ends and aggrandizement, and that these were the real powers -that could make and unmake political “bosses.” - -Gaffney, Cram and Plunkett had all denied allegations aimed at them; -Murphy and McCall had remained silent. But on October 26, 1913, McCall -and Murphy both issued statements. Mr. McCall denied the charge that -he had paid $35,000 for the nomination for the Supreme Court in 1902. -Mr. Murphy made public an affidavit in which he (Murphy) denied that -McCall had ever paid him anything at any time, and branding the charge -as false. On the next day Mr. Murphy gave out a long statement making -a sweeping denial of Mr. Sulzer’s statements; he asserted that he had -received the $25,000 from Anthony N. Brady, but that he had returned -the money the next day; he also denied that he had ever received -$10,000 from Ryan. - -Mr. Hennessy returned to the attack. On the same day he charged that -a seat in the United States Senate (to succeed Senator Root) had been -offered to Sulzer if he would yield to Mr. Murphy, and that it was Mr. -McCall who acted as the intermediary. - -In a public speech on the following day, October 28, 1913, Mr. Hennessy -demanded the tracing of Mr. Brady’s $25,000, and suggested that it -might be well to examine the executors of Brady’s estate and find out -whether Brady had deposited $25,000 two days after Judge Beardsley -had handed that money to Mr. Murphy. “I knew Mr. Brady very well,” -Mr. Hennessy went on. “I have known Mr. Brady since he was selling -groceries in Albany twenty-five or twenty-six years ago, … and I know -that he never carried around $25,000 in bills every day in his pocket; -so if he got this $25,000 in bills from Mr. Murphy, he undoubtedly -deposited it somewhere.” Mr. Hennessy chided Mr. Murphy with having -been told by his district leaders to answer him, after he (Murphy) had -declared that he would not notice the charges, and said that Mr. Murphy -was “shoving it off on a dead man.” - -When, on October 29, 1913, former Judge Beardsley, counsel for the -Brady estate, issued a statement asserting that the $25,000 was -returned to Brady, Mr. Hennessy in a public speech demanded proof and -charged that an alibi was being proved over the body of a dead man. -Mr. Hennessy made the charge that in the campaign of 1910 Mr. Murphy -had collected fully $150,000 for which he had not accounted in the -statement filed with the Secretary of State. “Most of this money,” Mr. -Hennessy declared, “came from contractors who were clubbed into giving -it.” - -So this exciting campaign drew to a close amid sensational charges, -counter charges, denials and reiterations. - -Over in Queen’s Borough, the Democratic “boss” of that section, -“Joe” Cassidy, was in serious difficulties; he had long, with some -intermissions, ruled that part of the city; and although he was not a -Tammany man, nor did Tammany rule Queens, in the strict sense of the -meaning, yet he was an ally of Tammany and had always “consulted” Mr. -Murphy. - -Local “Boss” Cassidy and one of his lieutenants were under indictment -for conspiring in selling a nomination in 1911, to the Supreme Court -Bench to William Willett, Jr., and Willett was indicted for being a -party to the conspiracy. During his trial later, Cassidy admitted that -he was “boss,” but asserted his honesty. Questioned as to why he did -not deposit a certain sum in bank, he replied, “I was used to carrying -money in my pocket. I was lonesome without a roll in my pocket.” It -may be said here that Willett was convicted, and likewise were Cassidy -and one of his lieutenants by a jury on February 2, 1914; Cassidy and -Willett were each sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of not less -than a year in prison and a fine of $1,000, and Cassidy’s lieutenant -“go-between,” Louis T. Walter, received a sentence of three months and -a fine of $1,000. After serving a year in prison Cassidy was released -and later (January 19, 1917) was restored to citizenship by Governor -Whitman. - -Intelligent people contemplated with wonderment the antiquated tactics -that Tammany Hall was blindly following. Although the discussion of -pressing economic problems was vitally concerning great masses of -people, Tammany Hall seemed unaware of their existence. The rapid -development of the trusts, the concentration of capitalist power and -wealth, the tense unrest among different classes of people, were -reflected in various political and industrial movements, but in Tammany -Hall no attention was given to them. Oblivious to the great industrial -changes and popular agitations and thought, Tammany still adhered to -its old semi-feudalistic methods of “carrying its vote”; it concerned -itself only with matters of offices, jobs, contracts and interested -legislation; it depended upon immense campaign funds and the personal -following of its leaders in marshaling the army of voters all of whom -by jobs or other such self interest sought to perpetuate its power. - -New York City had also grown too vast for the Tammany district leaders -to control as they did in the decades when it was smaller and compact. -Great numbers of people had moved from Manhattan to other boroughs; -and this constant process of migration had much weakened the power of -Tammany organization leaders in keeping in touch with the voters. The -Jewish vote had grown to enormous proportions, and so had the Italian, -but the Jewish vote was generally a vote racially independent of -Tammany and not particularly sympathetic to the character, racial and -religious, of its leaders. - -Tammany Hall was overwhelmingly defeated. Mr. Mitchel’s plurality was -124,262. The vote resulted: Mitchel, 358,181; McCall, 233,919; Russell, -32,057. All of the anti-Tammany candidates for city offices were -elected by varying pluralities. Mr. Sulzer was triumphantly elected to -the Assembly. However, Tammany men could glean some slight consolation -in this hour of disaster; Lieutenant Governor Martin Glynn, who had -succeeded Sulzer as Governor, could be generally depended upon to -appoint some Tammany men to various appointive offices; when his list -of appointments was handed down they were not altogether disappointed. -Tammany was especially jubilant in getting control of the Public -Service Commission, not to mention a firmer hold in various State -departments. - -The results of the municipal election cut Tammany off from city, county -and national patronage; in such an extremity Mr. Murphy had little -to offer famishing followers except soothing words which counted for -nothing where practical results were demanded. - -The mutterings against Mr. Murphy in certain quarters grew to open -rebellion; no longer was he fulsomely praised as a sagacious political -strategist; he was now derisively called a stupid blunderer for his -successive actions and particularly for his campaign of reprisal -against Sulzer--a campaign producing so inflaming an effect against -Tammany. - -A resolution introduced in the Democratic Club, on February 2, 1914, -demanded that he retire from “all participation in the party’s -affairs,” to which Mr. Murphy defiantly replied in an interview, “I -am the leader of Tammany Hall. You can add that I am going to remain -the leader of Tammany Hall no matter what some others might think they -have to say about it.” Believing that at least thirty-two of the -thirty-four Tammany district leaders would vote to continue him in -power, “Boss” Murphy made this announcement with apparent confidence. -Indeed, it was reported that the Executive Committee of Tammany Hall -had voted to retain his leadership. - -A few days later some extracts from a letter written by Richard Croker -to John Fox were made public. “Murphy was a big handicap to McCall,” -Mr. Croker wrote. “The Hall will never win under Murphy’s management. I -hope some good man will get in and drive all them grafters contractors -out.” On March 10, 1914, at a meeting of the Democratic Club, Charles -F. Murphy, James E. Gaffney, Thomas F. Foley, George W. Plunkett and -Thomas Darlington were rudely read out of that club on the nominal -ground of non-payment of dues, whereupon Thomas F. Smith, Secretary of -Tammany Hall, styled that action “a joke” and declared that “the club -has cut no figure locally since 1896.” - -Mr. Murphy remained “the Chief” of Tammany Hall. - -The various official inquiries into the system of graft in State -contracts conducted by Special Commissioner James W. Osborne and -other officials continued after the election. In January, 1914, Bart -Dunn, an associate Tammany leader of the Eighteenth Assembly District -and a close friend of Charles F. Murphy, was convicted of conspiracy -in highways construction graft, and sentenced to ten months in the -penitentiary and to pay a fine of $500; he took an appeal and was let -out on bail. Subsequently, however, he was compelled to serve six -months in prison. - -On February 15, 1914, after he had been summoned to testify again in -an investigation by District Attorney Whitman, State Treasurer John J. -Kennedy committed suicide. As State Treasurer, Kennedy was ex-officio -a member of the State Canal Board which had control of contracts now -under investigation; his son was, in conjunction with others, one of -whom was under indictment, in the business of bonding contractors on -canal and other State work. It was believed that worry arising from the -forthcoming examination as to his son’s transactions, was the cause of -Kennedy’s suicide. - -At a hearing conducted by the District Attorney’s office, in New York -City, on February 26, 1914, Mr. Sulzer again related, this time in -testimony, the story of the $25,000 campaign contribution by Anthony N. -Brady and that of $10,000 by Allan Ryan, both of which contributions -were made in 1912. “Once,” Mr. Sulzer testified, “in a talk with -Murphy, he told me that Ryan had given a check for $25,000 in 1912. -Murphy said that he would report that, but not the $10,000. He said -he would find a dummy for that. He also found dummies for Brady’s -$25,000.” Mr. Sulzer explained that a certain $25,000 that Mr. Murphy -had returned to Brady was not the $25,000 that Brady had contributed to -the campaign of 1912. Brady, so Mr. Sulzer testified, had sued Murphy -for $40,000 and Murphy had settled the suit for $25,000; the records -would disclose this suit, Mr. Sulzer said. - -Thus far some of the smaller grafters have been convicted and sentenced -to jail, but the really powerful politicians involved have not -suffered. After two months’ consideration of the charges of graft and -official misconduct brought against C. Gordon Reel, State Engineer John -A. Bensel, Duncan W. Peck, State Superintendent of Public Works--the -three officials forming the highways Commission under the régime of -which, it was charged, the large grafting had been going on--the Albany -County Grand Jury, on April 28, 1914, reported that no indictments had -been found against any of these men, nor against Charles A. Foley, -Deputy Superintendent of Highways. According to facts disclosed by -Mr. Osborne’s investigation, many of the 318 repair contracts let by -Foley and passed by Reel, Bensel and Peck, were awarded only after -contractors had contributed to the Democratic campaign fund. Numerous -of the roads covered by these contracts were so badly constructed -that they went to pieces within a year; and the State, so Mr. Osborne -charged, thereby lost hundreds of thousands of dollars. - - -FOOTNOTES - -[1] _Final Report of the Joint Legislative Committee Appointed to -Investigate the Public Service Commissions_, March, 1917, p. 67. - -[2] _Ibid._, p. 68. - - - - -CHAPTER XXXVII - -TAMMANY’S PRESENT STATUS - -1914-1917 - - -Upon the removal of Governor Sulzer from office, Martin Glynn, as has -already been noted, had become Governor of New York State. A Democrat, -he consequently appointed men of the party to which he belonged to -various offices. Tammany and its auxiliaries now had control of the -Public Service Commission, First District. - -But this control was abruptly ended by the effect of the disclosures -made in the testimony before the (Thompson) Joint Legislative Committee -probing into the affairs of the Public Service Commissions. Mr. Glynn -was succeeded as Governor by Charles S. Whitman who had done such -notable service as District Attorney of New York County. During 1915 -the Joint Legislative Committee held many hearings at which much -testimony of an upheaving nature was given. - -One result of this inquiry was a series of grave charges against -Edward E. McCall, Chairman of the Public Service Commission, First -District, and, as we have seen, recent candidate of Tammany Hall for -Mayor. Accompanied, by a request for Mr. McCall’s removal from office, -these charges were made to Governor Whitman by the Joint Legislative -Committee on December 12, 1915, and were supplemented by a bill of -particulars, specifying twenty charges, formally filed ten days later. - -The charges declared that Mr. McCall’s acceptance of his appointment -to the Public Service Commission was in violation of law; that he was -at the time the owner of stock in a corporation subject to the Public -Service Commission’s supervision; that thereafter he attempted to -transfer this stock to his wife “which attempt was a mere subterfuge -and a clumsy effort to evade the statute”; and that as Chairman of -the Public Service Commission he participated in the consideration of -matters affecting the value of this stock. - -Further, the charges accused Mr. McCall of accepting a retainer for -legal services from a corporation, the chief owner of the stock of -which was commonly reputed to be a controlling factor in the management -of the Interborough Rapid Transit Company; and that in another case -he accepted a retainer in an action then pending in the Supreme Court -“in which action the engineers in the employ of the Public Service -Commission will be necessary as material witnesses.” Other charges -specified that he favored the public service corporations to the -detriment of public interests. The sixteenth charge particularized -that in the matter of the third tracking of the elevated railroads -in Manhattan he failed to reserve the power of supervision to the -Commission “and that as a result of such failure the lessee of -the Manhattan Railway Company [the Interborough] has entered into -extravagant and improvident contracts under which its stockholders and -the people of the City of New York have suffered and will suffer large -losses”. The seventeenth charge arraigned McCall for having authorized -the construction of connecting lines by the Interborough Rapid Transit -Company “at an extravagant and exorbitant price and without competition -to the disadvantage of the city of New York and its inhabitants.” The -eighteenth charge set forth that in the execution of the dual subway -contracts “he permitted the inclusion of a provision under which the -New York Municipal Railway Corporation will be permitted unwarrantedly -to deduct from the earnings of that company, before the division of the -net earnings between the company and the city can be accomplished, a -sum aggregating more than $10,000,000.” In brief, the charges declared -that McCall showed misconduct in office, favoritism, neglect of duty, -and inefficiency. - -After consideration of the charges, Governor Whitman, on December 6, -1915, removed Mr. McCall from office as the Chairman of the Public -Service Commission, First District. The particular charge substantiated -was that McCall violated that section of the Public Service Commissions -law forbidding a Commissioner to hold stock in a corporation subject to -the Commission’s supervision. - -McCall, however, was not the only Public Service Commissioner involved -in the revelations before the Joint Legislative Committee. At a session -on December 16, 1915, Sidney G. Johnson, vice-president of the General -Railway Signal Company, testified that Robert Colgate Wood, another -Public Service Commissioner, demanded $5,000 from the Union Switch and -Signal Company for using his influence as Commissioner to give that -company a subway signal system contract. The offer, it was testified, -was refused. On January 25, 1916, the Grand Jury in New York County -indicted Mr. Wood for the alleged solicitation of a bribe. Meanwhile, -on December 27, 1915, George V. S. Williams, another Public Service -Commissioner, resigned from office on the plea that for some time he -had been contemplating this step, and now that he was no longer “under -fire” he could retire in justice to himself. - -Serious as these developments were, they did not have the damaging -effect upon Tammany that might ordinarily be supposed. Except in -certain offices here and there Tammany was out of power, and therefore, -not being prominently on the defensive, could not be effectively -assailed. Moreover, in view of the results of a recently tried libel -suit, it was anything but a propitious time for Tammany’s Republican -opponents to make capital from such incidents. - -This libel action, which conspicuously held public attention, was -one brought by William Barnes, Jr., Republican State leader, against -Theodore Roosevelt. In a published article, Colonel Roosevelt had -practically charged that there was a corrupt alliance between Mr. -Barnes and Charles F. Murphy, the Tammany leader, and that Mr. Barnes -had worked through a corrupt alliance between crooked business and -crooked politics. The article did not charge personal corruption in the -sense of bribery, but emphasized the nature of the political methods -used. The trial of this action resulted, on May 22, 1915, in the jury -finding a verdict in favor of Roosevelt. - -The proceedings of this trial directed general notice much more to the -workings of the Republican machine system than to Tammany methods. -To the initiated it had long been known that the Republican machine, -as the power usually controlling the Legislature, was the preferred -instrument through which the powerful financial, industrial, utility, -commercial and other corporations operated to get the legislation -that they wanted. This fact was now confirmed and disseminated by -the outcome of the libel suit. Long, too, had it been suspected that -between the apparently hostile political machines there often existed -secret understandings or alliances cloaked over by pretended political -warfare which was merely mock opposition intended for credulous public -consumption. The court proceedings and the verdict showed that the -stating of this fact was not a libel. - -The effect upon public opinion of this libel action was far more -injurious to the Republican State organization than to Tammany, a -reaction naturally to be expected in judging an organization which -had so long found campaign material in strong virtuous denunciations -of “Tammany corruption.” At the same time public disfavor of the -Republican organization was increased by the bad record of the -Republican Legislature in 1915--a record that in many respects was -worse than that of a Tammany Legislature. These influences were to -Tammany’s advantage. Always rushing to excesses when in prosperity, -Tammany in times of adversity moderated its action by observing -prudence and deferring to public proprieties. Its chief candidates in -the 1915 election were men of accredited good character and reputed -ability. These conditions, together with the fact that the Republicans -and the Progressives did not unite in opposition to Tammany, helped -to bring a measure of success to Tammany. For the first time in more -than fifteen years Tammany managed to elect a District Attorney in the -County of New York in the person of Judge Edward Swann, and it elected -Alfred E. Smith to the office of Sheriff. - -From the beginning of 1916 Tammany was thus in full control of the -criminal machinery of the law in New York County. District Attorney -Swann showed such energy in the sustained prosecution of the infamous -“white slavers,” that the formulating of charges against him came as -a surprise to many citizens who had formed a good estimate of his -activities in office. These charges, made by Judge James A. Delahanty -of the Court of General Sessions, on December 30, 1916, alleged -misconduct in office in the matter of certain assault cases resulting -from the garment trades strike of 1914. - -In the list of charges forwarded to Governor Whitman Judge Delahanty -accused District Attorney Swann of having deliberately presented a -false recommendation to a Judge of General Sessions on the strength -of which he obtained the discharge on bail of more than a score of -defendants indicted in March, 1914, on various charges of assault, -riots, and injuries to property occurring during the course of labor -disputes on the East Side. Judge Delahanty further charged that -District Attorney Swann even sought to have the indictments against -these men dismissed, although seven of them had offered to plead -guilty. Judge Delahanty had been an Assistant District Attorney when -Mr. Whitman was District Attorney, and hence could claim an intimate -familiarity with the details of those very cases. Among the characters -concerned in the clothing trades strike were such notorious gangsters -as “Dopey Benny” Fein, “Waxy” Gordon, “Jew” Murphy and others such -widely known for their activities in the section east of the Bowery. - -Assistant District Attorney Lucian S. Breckinridge who had had charge -of the preparation of many of these cases for trial, had resigned on -March 28, 1916, on the ground that District Attorney Swann’s action -in the cases was “a travesty on justice, and an outrage to decency,” -and that he (Mr. Breckinridge) did not purpose to acquiesce in that -action either actively or by silence. In his letter of resignation Mr. -Breckinridge asserted that the investigation of the strike “disclosed -a tale of wrong and outrage, and a use of gangsters and thugs in labor -troubles unparalleled in the history of this country.” On the other -hand, Morris Hillquit, chief counsel for the labor unions involved, -asserted in an interview that “the indictments were based on evidence -furnished by a combination of notorious lawbreakers, who were known -as such to the prosecuting officials.” Mr. Hillquit denounced their -story as “a most clumsy concoction, bearing evidence of deliberate -fabrication.” - -After the filing of the charges against him, District Attorney Swann -declared that the charges were actuated by politics. He made a bitter -personal attack upon Mr. Breckenridge, and retaliated later by causing -Mr. Breckinridge to be indicted upon the allegation that he had -received a bribe from manufacturers. On January 14, 1917, the City -Club presented charges to Governor Whitman and asked for District -Attorney Swann’s removal from office. The first charge included Judge -Delahanty’s statements, and declared that District Attorney Swann’s -efforts to procure the dismissal of indictments against labor union men -charged with assault constituted an attempt to perpetrate a fraud on -the Court of General Sessions, and that its object was to pay a Tammany -election debt to East Side labor unionists. The second charge asserted -that by various means Mr. Swann had sought to coerce and intimidate -Mr. Breckinridge, who was a valuable witness into any inquiry into the -charges against the District Attorney. - -At this writing (March, 1917), it is not possible to give the outcome -of these charges; the determination of them and the decision are still -to be forthcoming from Governor Whitman when sufficient time shall have -been allowed for adequate inquiry. - -By the end of 1916 the municipal administration headed by Mayor John -Purroy Mitchel had been in power for three years with another year to -serve. Usually in past times after a fusion administration had been -in office for a year or two its unwise repressive acts only the more -strengthened Tammany, which always put forth the boast that it was -the real democratic bulwark against aristocratic property rule and -that it was the genuine representative of the masses. On this claim it -generally had succeeded in elections for nearly two decades, returning -a majority of from 75,000 to 100,000 for the Democratic candidates, -especially in State and National elections. In the 1916 election -Tammany was able to give Wilson a plurality of only about 40,000 over -Hughes. To accept the results of any one particular election would be -unsafe. Nevertheless, it would seem to be the case that as compared -with its past Tammany is in a moribund condition; its only large hold, -the decline of which is relieved by but an occasional victory, is in -Manhattan Borough. The population of Manhattan is not growing nearly as -rapidly as some of the other boroughs which at the same time show an -increasing anti-Tammany or Republican tendency. - -While Tammany has been clinging to outworn tactics and aims out of -keeping with the rising standards of the times, the anti-Tammany -farces have learned much from the experiences of previous movements. -Likewise they have proved responsive to the broadening currents of the -age. Whatever their minor mistakes they have not regarded New York -City as an object of low political tyranny and brutal spoliation. They -have, in the main, applied constructive ability to administration, and -have evinced a keen sense not merely of the cleanly appearance and -well-ordered functions of the great city but of its architectural and -other aesthetic values as well, as shown by several measures recently -adopted. This is a very different condition from that prevailing during -the times when the city’s affairs were dictated by ignorant politicians -whose sole aim was to enrich themselves quickly and satisfy the -predatory desires of their followers. - -The anti-Tammany forces have learned, too, that repression -only nullifies in the popular mind the good effects of other -accomplishments. In the last few years New York City officials have -allowed absolute freedom of speech and freedom of assemblage on the -public streets, designating certain places for the purpose, and -qualifying this liberty only by the salutary proviso that the speakers -be held responsible for any unlawful utterances. An instructively -different attitude, this, from that in days not so long gone by when -assemblages of citizens were forbidden to use streets and were mauled -and clubbed by the police, and when they were prohibited from holding -discussions in public buildings. - -Judged by the performances of many exploiting administrations that -have ruled and robbed New York City, Mayor Mitchel’s administration -has been one of wholesome tendencies and accomplishments. Its -opponents have bitterly attacked some of its policies, but however -of a debatable nature these may have been or are, the antagonists of -this administration have not been able to assail it on the score of -endorsed graft and incompetence as has been the case with so many -other city administrations. It is not contended that evils have -entirely disappeared, but at any rate the base, ignoble practices and -the repellant incompetence characteristic of past “boss” rule have -been much supplanted by improved methods, expert judgment, technical -experience, a higher tone, and good spirit. - -The police department, so long the special canker, has been placed on -a different basis. A recent report of the Bureau of Social Hygiene, -which has closely investigated that department, does not claim that -graft has been entirely eliminated but it points out that “tremendous -gains have been made.” The “vice ring,” it reports, has been broken -up; the gambling evil has been greatly reduced; organized graft is -no longer the sinister and secure system that it was. “Collusion -between exploiters of vice and officials in the Police Department -has ceased. Petty grafting still occurs. The man on the beat may -take a small bribe to overlook a breach of the law, but protection -can no longer be purchased.” The Committee of Fourteen gives credit -for this transformation largely to the “clean-up” movement started -by Police Commissioner Cropsey under Mayor Gaynor, and continued and -elaborated by Police Commissioner Arthur Woods under Mayor Mitchel’s -administration. Some survivals of old standards still remain, -particularly in the selection of policemen too much for physical -capacity and not enough for technical intelligence as applied to -detective work. From these continuing old standards serious incapacity -has often resulted in the unearthing of crimes. - -Had New York City a homogeneous population the movement for a general -elevation of civic standards would have proceeded faster. But New -York City’s conglomerate population with its polyglot diversities has -naturally presented great difficulties in the solid formation of a -unity of understanding and purposes. Nevertheless the progress has -been very considerable. In spreading its educational measures for -the conservation of health, the Health Department of New York City -for example, has obviously encountered serious obstacles, in dealing -with a heterogeneous and in many quarters a congested population. -Yet by intelligent perseverance it has succeeded so well that in -1916, notwithstanding an infantile paralysis epidemic, the death rate -was only 13.82 per 1000--the lowest death rate in New York City’s -history. The notable improvements brought about by these and other -departments attest ever-increasing proficiency. Where formerly the -traditional conception of politics in New York City was one cynically -regarding office as a legitimate means of spoils, graft, corruption and -corporation pillaging, new traditions have been gradually substituted. -The old influences may here and there persist, but they are no longer -accepted by masses of voters as a fixed creed. The stage has been -passed when the open venality of politics can be successfully flaunted; -it is now the subtle influences often seeking surreptitiously to use -government for their own invidious ends that require the watching. - -The supporters of Mayor Mitchel’s administration hold that by -eradicating partisan politics it has been able to concentrate its -whole attention upon the one duty of providing efficient government -for the city. They point out, that contrary to the careless methods -of some former administrations, the Mitchel administration has, by -prudent supervision of finances reduced the budget annually by several -million dollars, and yet has made notable extensions in service. They -further call attention to the fact that the Mitchel administration -has put a stop to the ruinous practice of mortgaging the credit of -the city for generations in advance. For the first time, they also -tell, New York City has protested against the old arbitrary practice -of making enormous State appropriations for objects in which New -York City had no share; that as result of this protest the State has -already made partial restitution; and that the program of city relief -in this direction should eventually mean an annual reduction of -$12,000,000 in New York City’s tax burdens. The Mitchel administration -forces emphasize the great increase in the collections from taxes, -assessments, water rates, docks, ferries, subway and miscellaneous -revenue. These are some of the financial improvements enumerated. - -In the line of departmental progress Mayor Mitchel’s administration is -credited with a large list of reforms and innovations: The transformed -morale of the Police Department; the efficiency of the Fire Department -in greatly curtailing the number of fires while at the same time that -department has cost $200,000 less a year than formerly; the humanizing -of the activities of the Charities Department and of the correctional -system; the progressive work of the Health, Education and other -departments; the enterprise of the Dock Department in adding seven -miles of wharfage and vast areas of dock space to New York harbor’s -piers. This is but the merest synopsis of the abundant details set -forth showing what Mayor Mitchel’s administration has done. - -So attractive is this record that the description may possibly seem -open to the suspicion of being one-sided, if not effusive. Recalling -how often New York City has suffered from flagrant maladministration, -the skeptic may be tempted to regard these attributed deeds as being -too good to be true. Besides, campaign documents are to be scrutinized -not so much for their assertions as for their omissions. - -It is true that the great bulk of the accomplishments of Mayor -Mitchel’s administration may be justly claimed by his supporters -as genuine services which are bound to become fixed standards any -overthrow of which will not be easily tolerated by the educated -public. These Administration annalists, however, have not separated -the reforms essentially enduring from those which by their nature are -merely experimental, as, for example, certain educational policies. -But experiments have their distinct value; better that they should be -tried than inertia should prevail. - -One of the few specific charges brought against Mayor Mitchel’s -administration is the assertion that a coterie of real estate -speculators has profited unduly by the sale of park sites and other -real estate to the city and State during recent years. In reply the -supporters of Mayor Mitchel’s administration say that the acquisition -of these properties was indispensable to great public improvements -planned; that whatever payments have been made have been paid by the -regularly determined award of the courts; and that there is not the -slightest evidence of collusion on the part of city officials. - -Thus far the opponents of Mayor Mitchel’s administration have devoted -much of their energy to attempts at personal onslaughts. This line -of action has called forth the comment that it is because of the -very absence of administrative scandals that the administration’s -adversaries resort to vague personal attacks. From these opponents has -come the persistent innuendo that because of Mayor Mitchel’s occasional -social associations with rich and powerful personages, his official -activities must necessarily be influenced by that contact. It is aptly -pointed out that the hypocrisy and demagogery of such an aspersion may -be properly estimated when it is recalled that the elements mainly -concerned in spreading it have been the identical organized forces -that year after year were the tools of designing men and corporations -that by the adroit use of corrupt politics vested in themselves huge -corporate privileges and powers and enormous wealth. - -THE END - - - - -INDEX - - - A - - Abolitionist movement, 122-123 - - Ackerman, Simon, 24 - - Adams, John, 5 - - Adams, John Quincy, 5, 61-65, 70-74, 82 - - Ætna Fire Insurance Co., 97 - - Ahearn, John F., 316, 324-326 - - Aldermanic corruption, 81, 98-99, 103, 105, 132-133, 155, 156, 167-171, - 181, 197-198, 252, 263-265 - - Allds, Jotham P., 312 - - Allen, Stephen, 57, 60, 88, 89, 106 - - Alley, Saul, 106 - - Amory, William N., 293, 320-321, 332, 334-335 - - Andrews, Avery D., 279 - - Anti-Masonic party, 83, 87 - - Anti-Monopolists, 103, 109, 113-114, 119 - - Apollo Hall Democracy, 254 - - Arcularius, Philip I., 23 - - Astor, John Jacob, 232 - - - B - - Bailey, Benjamin, 88 - - Baker, Gardiner, 7 - - Baker, Ray Stannard, 321 - - Bank of America, 96, 126 - - Bank of the Metropolis, 64 - - Bank of the United States (see U. S. Bank) - - Banks, abuses of, 13-14, 18, 79, 96-98, 106-107, 114 - - Bannard, Otto, 341-342 - - Bar Association, 253, 276, 284, 373 - - Barker, Isaac O., 179-180 - - Barker, Jacob, 13, 31, 44, 48, 49, 66, 70-71 - - Barker, James W., 174 - - Barnard, George G., 223, 242, 244, 248, 268 - - “Barnburners,” 140-149, 161 - - Barnes, William, Jr., 395 - - Barr, Thomas J., 163, 165, 170 - - Barrett, George C., 237 - - Becker, Charles, 356-357, 359-360 - - Bedell, Louis, 347 - - Beecher, Henry Ward, 237 - - Bell, Isaac, Jr., 192 - - Belmont, August, 230-252, 350-351 - - Bennet, William M., 338 - - Bennett, James Gordon, 72, 144 - - Bermel, Joseph, 329-30 - - Bensel, John A., 389 - - Betts, Peter, 96 - - Biddle, Nicholas, 89 - - Billings, Rev. H. W., 225 - - Bingham, John, 24-25 - - Bingham, Theodore A., 339-340 - - Binkerd, Robert S., 331 - - Birney, James G., 137 - - “Blackbirds,” 186 - - Blake, George W., 363, 369-370, 377 - - Bleecker, Anthony J., 179-180 - - Bloodgood, Abraham, 118 - - Bloodgood, John M., 118, 125, 144 - - Blunt, Orison, 205 - - Bogardus, Cornelius, 165 - - Bogert, John A., 147 - - Boole, Francis I. A., 199, 202, 203, 205, 206, 208 - - Bowne, Walter, 42, 81, 82, 88, 89, 98, 121, 127 - - Breckinridge, Lucian S., 397-398 - - Bradley, Gaffney & Steers, 365 - - Brady, Anthony N., 332, 351, 383, 385-386, 390 - - Brady, James T., 144, 194 - - Brady, William V., 141-142 - - Briggs, John R., 213 - - Broadway Railroad Co., 263-264 - - Broadway Surface Railroad Co., 263-264 - - Brooklyn Rapid Transit Co., 378 - - Broome, John. L., 16, 50, 60 - - Brown, E. D., 232 - - Brownell, J. Sherman, 141 - - Brush, Jacob, 165 - - Bryan, William J., 281 - - Bryant, William Cullen, 100, 116 - - Buchanan, James, 178, 180, 194, 251 - - Buckmaster, George, 40, 41, 60 - - Buckley, William H., 343 - - Bureau of Municipal Research, 325 - - Bureau of Social Hygiene, 400 - - Burr, Aaron, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 126 - - Butler, Benjamin F., 206 - - Butler, W. O., 143 - - Byrnes, Thomas F., 316 - - - C - - Calhoun, John C., 64 - - Cambreleng, C. C., 89, 140 - - Campbell, Allan, 262 - - Cardozo, Albert, 220, 248 - - Carroll, John F., 284-298 - - Cass, Lewis, 87, 143, 157 - - Cassidy, Edward F., 341-342 - - Cassidy, Joseph, 330, 386-387 - - Catholics, feeling against, 30, 134 - - Cebra, John Y., 95 - - Chatham Fire Insurance Co., 97 - - Cheetham, James, 26, 27, 28 - - Chemical Bank, 96-97 - - Chittenden, S. B., 197-198 - - Choate, Joseph H., 240 - - Church, Sanford E., 252 - - Cisco, John J., 150 - - City Club, 278, 291, 303-304, 325, 327, 331 - - Citizens’ Union, 282, 327 - - City Reform party, 172-174, 178-180 - - Civic Alliance, 341 - - Civil War, 49, 194, 196-197, 306 - - Cleveland, Grover, 262, 265, 271, 274-275 - - Clark, Aaron, 109, 110, 118, 120, 144 - - Clark, William H., 273 - - Clay, Henry, 82, 137, 157 - - Clinton, DeWitt, 16, 17-19, 26, 28-30, 31-32, 34, 36, 38-40, 45-48, 52, - 54-55, 61, 64, 68, 75, 88 - - Clinton, George, 2, 17-19, 26 - - Cochran W. Bourke, 267-273 - - Cochrane, John, 165, 172, 188 - - Cockroft, William, 168 - - Coddington, Jonathan I., 134-135 - - Cohalan, Daniel F., 353-354, 355, 373-374 - - Colden, Cadwallader D., 8, 47, 48, 51, 52-53, 60 - - Coler, Bird S., 304, 316 - - Commercial Bank, 103 - - Committee of Seventy, 253, 278 - - Conkling, Frederick A., 218-219 - - Conner, William C., 192 - - Connolly, J. A., 373 - - Connolly, Richard B., 122, 152, 165, 202, 214-215, 221, 227, 235, - 240-241, 244, 248, 249 - - Conover, Daniel D., 182 - - Cook, Noah, 119 - - Coogan, James J., 271 - - Cooper, Edward, 184, 259, 260 - - Cornell, Alonzo B., 260, 262 - - Cornell, William H., 273 - - Corruption, 77, 96-98, 126, 132-133, 153-154, 167-171, 181-182, - 191-192, 197-199, 200, 203, 206-207, 212-213, 219-220, 222-223, - 227, 229, 232-233, 238, 239, 241, 263-264, 271-273, 277-278, - 288-289, 307-308, 317, 318, 338, 342-350, 358-359, 363-371, 372, - 386-387 - - Coulter, James E., 167 - - Cram, J. Sergeant, 383-385 - - Cravath, Paul D., 334 - - Crawford, William H., 61, 63-64 - - Creek Indians, 6 - - Croker, Richard, 226, 255, 263-264, 267-270, 278-282, 284, 287-289, 292, - 293, 295-298, 310, 360, 389 - - Crolius, Clarkson, 86 - - Cromwell, George, 317 - - Cullen, Edgar M., 376-377 - - Cutting, Francis B., 147 - - - D - - Darling, William A., 208 - - Darlington, Thomas, 389 - - Davies, Thomas E., 168 - - Davis, Matthew L., 12, 24, 25, 28, 45, 70-71 - - Davis, William A., 16, 83 - - Davis, Vernon M., 367 - - “Dead Rabbits,” 186, 189, 191 - - Debt, imprisonment for, 94-95 - - Delaney, John H., 364-365, 368, 383 - - Delavan, Daniel E., 152 - - Delahanty, James A., 396-397 - - Democratic Club, 388 - - Denniston, Isaac, 51 - - Devlin, Charles, 182, 204 - - Dix, John A., 259, 331, 353, 354 - - Dolan, Thomas, 293 - - Douglas, Stephen, 195 - - Dowd, William, 260 - - Downes, Samuel, 197 - - Drake, Ellis G., 141 - - Dunn, Bartholomew, 326, 328, 389 - - Dunn, Thomas J., 326 - - Duryea, Stephen C., 152 - - - E - - Eckford, Henry, 70, 71 - - Edson, Franklin, 262, 264, 268 - - Edwards, Ogden, 89 - - Eighth Avenue railroad, 167 - - Einstein, Edwin, 274-275 - - Elder, Robert, 350 - - Election frauds, 73-75, 90-91, 114, 118-122, 135, 137, 147, 158-159, - 177-180, 191, 195-196, 203-204, 206, 208-209, 218, 220, 275, 276 - - Election violence, 73-75, 92, 159, 177-180 - - Ellingwood & Cunningham, 346-347 - - Ellis, William A., 275 - - Elkins, William L., 332 - - Ely, Smith, Jr., 208, 259 - - Emmett, Thomas Addis, 46 - - Empire Club, 136-138 - - Engeman, William A., 349 - - Equitable Life Assurance Society, 307-308, 334 - - Equal Rights party, 93-95, 98, 100-102, 105-108, 110-111, 114 - - Erhardt, Joel B., 271 - - Erie Canal, 16, 40, 45, 48, 49, 54, 65-68 - - Erie Railway corruption, 223, 231 - - Evarts, William M., 237-242 - - Exchange Bank, 48, 70 - - - F - - Fairlie, James, 72 - - Farley, Terrence, 200 - - Fassett Committee, 263-264, 272-274 - - Fassett, J. Sloat, 272 - - Federalists, 9, 11, 13-14, 16, 25-26, 29, 34-37, 40-41, 44, 45, 47, 49, - 61, 109, 114 - - Fellows, John R., 264 - - Fenton, Reuben E., 208 - - Ferguson, John, 38, 39 - - Fidelity & Casualty Co., 344 - - Fields, “Tom,” 244 - - Fillmore, Millard, 80 - - Fish, Preserved, 101 - - Fisk, James, Jr., 223, 230 - - Flack, James A., 271 - - Flannery, Joseph A., 328 - - Foley, Charles A., 390 - - Foley, John, 232, 242 - - Foley, Thomas F., 389 - - Fornes, Charles V., 306 - - Fowler, Isaac V., 146, 165, 190-191, 194 - - Fowler, John Walker, 195-251 - - Fox, John, 225, 389 - - Francis, John W., 4 - - Franklin, Morris, 134-135 - - Freedman, Andrew, 296-297 - - Free Soilers, 161 - - Fremont, John C., 80 - - French Revolution, 8, 9 - - Fulton Bank, 71 - - - G - - Gaffney, James E., 302, 310-311, 313, 349, 362, 366-369, 371-372, - 385, 389 - - Gallagher, Ernest, 329-330 - - “Gangs,” 130-132, 185-186, 267, 299 - - Gardiner, Asa Bird, 289 - - Garvey, Andrew J., 216, 221-222, 248-249 - - Gaynor, William J., 340-341, 349, 356, 378-379, 400 - - General Railway Signal Co., 394 - - Genet, E. C., 50 - - Genet, Harry W., 225, 226, 244 - - George, Henry, 269, 270, 282 - - George, Henry, Jr., 282 - - Gibbs, Frederick S., 262 - - Gilbert, Garrit, 103 - - Gilroy, Thomas F., 267, 274, 275 - - Glynn, Martin, 388-392 - - Goff, John W., 276 - - Goodsell, Louis F., 347 - - Gorham, Daniel, 114 - - Gould, Jay, 223 - - Grace, William R., 260-261, 262 - - Grady, Thomas F., 343-4, 349 - - Grant, Hugh J., 262-264, 265, 267-269, 271-272, 274, 278 - - Grant, U. S., 218, 256 - - Greeley, Horace, 115, 117, 188, 254 - - Green, Andrew H., 241, 248 - - Green, Duff, 87 - - Greene, Francis V., 304 - - Gresser, Lawrence, 316, 330-331 - - Grinnell, Moses H., 119 - - Griswold, John A., 217 - - Grout, Edward M., 306 - - Gumbleton, Henry A., 260 - - Gunther, C. Godfrey, 189, 201, 205, 208, 252 - - Guthrie, W. D., 328, 373 - - - H - - Hadfelt, Richard, 36 - - Haff, John P., 13, 51, 60 - - Haffen, Louis F., 294, 297, 298, 316, 326-329 - - Hackett, John K., 204 - - Hackley, Andrew J., 198 - - Hagan, James J., 363 - - Haight, D. H., 168 - - Hall, A. Oakey, 216, 218, 224, 227, 230, 239, 240-242 - - Halleck, Fritz Greene, 11 - - Hallett, William Paxen, 95, 124-125 - - Hamilton, Alexander, 2, 3, 14, 19, 66 - - Hamilton, Andrew, 308, 381 - - Hammond, Judah, 1, 10 - - Hancock, Winfield S., 260 - - Hanford, Benjamin, 295 - - Hanger, Harry B., 366 - - “Hardshells,” 161-165, 173, 174-175 - - Harlem Railroad, 99, 103, 123 - - Harper, James, 134-136 - - Harrison, William Henry, 129-130 - - Hart, Emanuel B., 141, 184 - - Haskell, Job, 104, 114 - - Havemeyer, William F., 138-139, 140, 142, 152, 192-193, 237, 239, 241, - 252, 254, 255, 256, 261, 279 - - Hayes, Jacob, 13 - - Hearst, George, 309 - - Hearst, William R., 309, 322-323, 341-342 - - Hennessy, John A., 363-365, 369, 377, 382-386 - - Herrick, John J., 174-175 - - Hewitt, Abram S., 268-271, 273 - - Hill, David B., 275 - - Hillquit, Morris, 397 - - Hoffman, John T., 208, 216-218, 224, 230, 250 - - Hoffman, Josiah Ogden, 7 - - Holmes, Silas, 96 - - Home Insurance Co., 343 - - Hone, Philip, 69 - - Hotchkiss, William H., 342-347 - - Houston, Sam, 141 - - Hoyt, Gould, 41 - - Hoyt, Jesse, 106, 124 - - Hubbard, Ruggles, 50, 60 - - “Huckleberry” railroads franchises, 280 - - Hudson Insurance Co., 98 - - Hughes, Charles E., 323, 326-331, 334, 346, 347, 398 - - Humbert, Jonas, 23, 24, 25, 60 - - “Hunkers,” 140-149, 159, 161 - - Hunn, John S., 44 - - Hunt, Wilson G., 174-175 - - Hyde, Charles H., 348-349 - - - I - - Ice Trust, 286 - - Immigration, 134, 154-155, 209 - - Immigrants, marshalling in politics, 128-129, 151, 188, 209, 217 - - Ingersoll, James H., 214-215, 221, 238 - - Interstate Commerce Commission, 315-318 - - Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 378-380, 393 - - Ireland, W. H., 72, 89 - - Irish, prejudice against, 30, 45 - - Irish, mob Tammany Hall, 46 - - Irving Hall, 226 - - “Irving Hall Democracy,” 258, 260-262, 274 - - Irving, “Jimmy,” 244 - - Ives, Henry S., 272 - - Ivins, William M., 322-323 - - - J - - Jaehne, Henry W., 264 - - Jackson, Andrew, 5, 52, 61-65, 70, 73-76, 80, 85-89, 90-91, 115, 123, 188 - - Jacques, Moses, 94, 106, 110 - - Jefferson, Thomas, 4, 5, 9, 15, 116, 188 - - Jerome, William Travers, 291-292, 294, 319-322, 331-335 - - Johnson, Sidney G., 394 - - Judah, Naphtali, 51, 60 - - - K - - Keating, James P., 272 - - Kelly, John, 215, 218-219, 250-257, 258-261, 267, 268 - - Kendall, George H., 372 - - Kennedy, John J., 389-390 - - Kennedy, William D., 196 - - King, Charles, 41 - - Kingsland, Ambrose C., 152 - - Kingsley, Darwin P., 345 - - Kipp, Solomon, 167 - - Knights of Labor, 269 - - Know-Nothings (see also Native Americans), 174, 191 - - - L - - Laimbeer, Francis E., 287 - - Lawrence, Abraham R., 254 - - Lawrence, Cornelius W., 92, 102 - - Lawrence, John L., 72 - - Ledwith, Thomas W., 229-230 - - Lee, Gideon, 101 - - Legislative corruption, 77, 96-98, 103-104, 200, 222-223, 227, 244, - 342-350, 352, 372 - - Leggett, William, 100, 110, 116, 122, 123 - - Lexow, Clarence, 276 - - Lewis, Morgan, 18 - - Liberal Republicans, 253 - - Libby, James S., 177, 179-180 - - Life & Fire Insurance Co., 71 - - Lincoln, Abraham, 196, 206 - - Livingston, Edward, 9, 16 - - Livingston family, 30 - - Locofocos, 102, 108, 115 - - Loew, Charles E., 206-207 - - Long Sault Development Co., 377 - - Lovejoy, Reuben, 170 - - Low, Seth, 282, 290, 294-295, 302, 303-306 - - Lowber, Robert W., 181 - - Lotteries, 51, 52 - - Lynch, John R., 213 - - Lyons Beet Sugar Refining Co., 352 - - - M - - McAneny, George, 382 - - McCall, Edward E., 345, 362, 371, 380-382, 385, 388, 392-394 - - McCall, John A., 380-383 - - McCarren, Patrick H., 317, 339, 349, 351 - - McCann, Patrick H., 263, 268 - - McClave, John, 278 - - McClellan, Gen. George B., 206 - - McClellan, George B., 305, 316-317, 322-325, 327, 338-340 - - McCullough, John, 285 - - McGillivray, Alexander, 6 - - McGowan, Patrick F., 316, 317 - - McKane, John Y., 340 - - “McKeon Democracy,” 205, 208 - - McKeon, John, 141, 152, 184 - - McLaughlin, Hugh, 306 - - McLean, George W., 221 - - McMahon, Daniel F., 297 - - McQuade, Arthur J., 264 - - McQuade, John, 282 - - Mack, Norman E., 383 - - Madison, James, 5, 32, 33 - - Manhattan Bank, 13, 14, 18, 37, 126-127 - - Manning, John J., 147 - - Marcy, William L., 91, 119 - - Martin, Bernard F., 272 - - Martin, James J., 278 - - Martling, Abraham, 11 - - Mason, Daniel, 334 - - Maxwell, Hugh, 36 - - Mazet Committee, 280, 284-286 - - Mechanics’ Fire Insurance Co., 71 - - Medical Science lottery swindle, 51 - - Mellen, Charles S., 314-318 - - Merchants’ Bank, 96, 100 - - Merritt, Henry W., 125 - - Metcalfe, Luke, 96 - - Metropolitan Securities Co., 332 - - Metropolitan Street Railway Co., 293-294, 319, 320, 333-334, 348 - - Metz, Herman A., 317, 338 - - Mickle, Andrew H., 139, 147, 152 - - Ming, Alexander Jr., 114 - - Mitchel, John Purroy, 322, 326, 382, 388, 398-403 - - Monroe, James, 5, 39, 49, 51, 83 - - Montgomery, General, 52 - - Mooney, William, 1, 12, 24, 25, 34, 52, 87 - - Morgan, Edwin D., 27 - - Morgan, John J., 110 - - Morgan, J. Pierpont, 351 - - Morgan, J. P. & Co., 314-315 - - Morgans, Morgan, 160 - - Morris Canal & Banking Co., 71 - - Morris, Robert H., 127, 130, 132, 134 - - Morrissey, John, 225, 250, 252, 255 - - Morse, Samuel F. B., 130 - - Morss, John, 89 - - Moss, Frank, 279, 287 - - Mozart Hall, 188, 190, 196, 198, 200-205, 208, 219 - - Municipal Ownership League, 309, 322 - - Municipal Taxpayers’ Association, 253 - - Murphy, Charles F., 297-298, 299-303, 306, 310-311, 317, 322, 324, 326, - 338-340, 344, 349, 351, 353, 355, 356, 360-364, 369-373, 375-376, - 378, 382-386, 388-389, 395 - - Murphy, John J., 301, 310 - - Murphy, John M., 366 - - Mutual Life Insurance Co., 307 - - - N - - Nast, Thomas, 235, 239 - - National Republican party, 85-86; - election frauds, 90-91 - - Native American party, 103, 108, 121, 128, 134-135, 138, 139, 142, 155, - 174-175, 179, 187, 191 - - Naughton & Co., 297 - - Nestell, Christian, 24 - - Newcomb, Colin G., 127 - - New York Contracting & Trucking Co., 302, 309-312, 314, 318 - - New York County Democracy, 261-262, 269, 274 - - New York Life Insurance Co., 307-308, 346, 381 - - New York Municipal Railway Corporation, 393 - - New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co., 312-318 - - New York & Portchester Railroad, 312-318 - - New York Stock Exchange, 377 - - New York, Westchester & Boston Railroad Co., 312-318 - - New York, Westchester & Connecticut Traction Co., 332 - - Nicholl, Francis S., 63 - - Ninth Avenue Railroad, 167 - - Nixon, Lewis, 292, 295-296 - - Noah, M. M., 47, 60-62, 66, 75, 80, 88, 89, 123, 147 - - Norton “Mike,” 225, 244 - - - O - - O’Brien, James, 225, 238, 254, 268 - - O’Brien, John J., 262 - - O’Conor, Charles, 147, 242, 252 - - O’Gorman, James A., 353-354 - - Ogden, Henry, 123 - - O’Neil, “Honest” John, 264 - - Opdyke, George P., 170, 192-193, 201 - - Ordway, Samuel H., 330-331 - - O’Rourke, Matthew, 237-238, 248 - - Osborne, James W., 319-320, 365, 389 - - Owego Lottery, 51 - - Owen, Robert, 78 - - Owen, Robert Dale, 78-79 - - - P - - Page, William H., Jr., 334 - - Page, Samuel L., Jr., 24 - - Panics, 109, 117, 186-187 - - Parkhurst, Charles H., 278 - - Parton, James, 117 - - Partridge, John N., 303-304 - - Paulding, William, Jr., 47, 60, 69, 127 - - Parker, Andrew D., 279 - - Patterson & Co., 366 - - Peaconic Co., 101 - - Peck, Duncan W., 390 - - Peckham, Wheeler H., 242 - - Pendleton, Nathaniel, 19 - - Penn, William, 2 - - People’s Gas Light Co., 206 - - People’s Municipal League, 274 - - People’s Traction Co., 332 - - Perkins, James, 98, 179 - - Phelps, William Walter, 237 - - Philbin, Eugene A., 289-291 - - Phoenix Insurance Co., 342-345 - - Phoenix, J. Philips, 129 - - Pierce, Franklin, 157, 159, 194 - - Pierson, Isaac, 13 - - Pierrepont, Edwards, 240 - - Pintard, John, 7 - - Platt, Thomas C., 288, 305 - - Plunkett, George W., 383, 385, 389 - - Polk, James K., 136-137, 141 - - Populist party, 275 - - Porter, Peter B., 45, 46 - - Potter, Henry C., 289 - - Prendergast, William A., 382 - - Price, William M., 124 - - Prince, Benjamin, 41, 60 - - Prohibitionists, 275 - - Progressive party, 371, 396 - - Public Service Commission, 333, 379-380, 388, 392-394 - - Purdy, Elijah F., 122, 141, 146, 152, 163, 165, 168, 184, 192, 197 - - Purser, George H., 206 - - - Q - - Queens’ Borough Property Owners’ Ass’n, 329 - - Quincy, Josiah, 179 - - Quigg, Lemuel Eli, 333 - - - R - - Radcliff, Jacob, 29, 36, 39, 41, 42, 47 - - Raines, John, 352 - - Ramapo Water Company, 286 - - Rathbone, William P., 71 - - Reel, C. Gordon, 362, 365, 371, 390 - - Republicans, 161, 187, 191, 212, 217-218, 229-230, 243, 256, 262, 275, - 282, 306-308, 346, 351-352, 382, 394-396 - - Revolution, American, 1, 3, 82 - - Reynolds, William B., 171 - - Riker, Richard, 15, 36 - - Ringgold, Benjamin, 107-108 - - Riots, 109, 131-132, 162, 182, 184, 185, 191 - - Roberts, Marshall O., 208, 231 - - Robinson, Lucius, 259-260 - - Roche, Walter, 213 - - Rogers, G. Tracy, 346-348 - - Rogers, H. H., 351 - - Romaine, Benjamin, 13, 22, 23, 25, 33, 34, 61, 72 - - Romaine, Samuel B., 77 - - Roosevelt, Robert B., 240 - - Roosevelt, J. J., 95 - - Roosevelt, Theodore, 270, 279, 285, 289, 395 - - Rosenthal, Herman, 256-257 - - Russell, Charles E., 382, 388 - - Russell, William Hepburn, 302 - - Rutgers, Col., 42 - - Ryan, Allan, 383-384, 390 - - Ryan, Thomas F., 293, 332-334, 353, 383-384 - - Rynders, Isaiah, 136, 138, 157, 195 - - - S - - Sanford, Nathan, 33 - - Savage, J. Y., 176-177 - - Schell, Augustus, 252-259 - - Schell, Edward, 232 - - Schureman, Nicholas, 70 - - Scott, Francis M., 274 - - Shandley, Edward J., 233 - - Seagrist, Nicholas, 188 - - Seaver, Joel P., 101 - - Selden, Dudley, 90, 138 - - Seventh Ward Bank, 97, 123, 124, 179 - - Seward, George F., 344-345 - - Seward, William H., 119 - - Seymour, Horatio, 152, 204, 216, 218, 230, 252 - - Sharp, George, 99 - - Sharp, Jacob, 168, 169 - - Sharpe, John, 44 - - Sharpe, Peter, 72, 77, 89 - - Shaw, James G., 367 - - Sheehan, John C., 278, 280, 281, 297 - - Sheehan, William F., 353 - - Shepard, Edward M., 290-295 - - Shepard, Lorenzo B., 141, 290, 295 - - Shonts, Theodore, 379-380 - - Sickles, Daniel E., 144, 158, 189 - - Single-Taxers, 269 - - Skidmore, Burtis, 168 - - Skidmore, William E., 114 - - Slamm, Levi D., 94-110 - - Slavery, Tammany’s support of, 143-148 - - Small, Wilson, 176-183 - - Smith, Alfred E., 396 - - Smith, Isaac L., 106 - - Smith, Morgan L., 107-108 - - Smith, Robert, 133 - - Smith, Thomas, 389 - - Smith, Thomas R., 81 - - Smythe, John F. B., 272 - - Socialist Labor party, 306 - - Socialists, 269, 275, 382, 384 - - “Softshells,” 161-165, 173, 174-175 - - Spencer, Mark, 71 - - Stagg, Abraham, 24, 25, 72, 77 - - Stagg, Peter, 72 - - State Bank, 107 - - Stayner, George H., 272 - - Stevens, John F., 379-380 - - Stewart, James C., 367, 383 - - Stilwell, Silas M., 80 - - Stilwell, Stephen J., 352, 372, 378 - - Stoneall, James C., 107 - - Strahan, Edward, 141 - - Straus, Nathan, 278 - - Strong, Roger, 41, 60 - - Strong, William L., 278-279 - - Sulzer, William, 360-373, 375-378, 381-385, 388, 390, 392 - - Sullivan, “Big Tim,” 315, 344-345 - - Sullivan, “Little Tim,” 311 - - Swann, Edward, 396-398 - - Swartwout, John 13, 18, 19, 33, 44 - - Swartwout, Robert, 13, 16, 33, 63, 97, 118 - - Swartwout, Samuel, 63, 76, 103, 106, 123-124 - - Sweeny, Peter B., 151, 176-177, 184, 214-215, 224, 247 - - - T - - Taintor, Henry F., 248 - - Tammany election frauds, 73-75, 90-91, 120, 135, 137, 154, 158, 159, etc. - - Tammany Hall, violence in, 63, 113-114, 131, 138, 158, 161-162, 177, 189 - - Tammany leaders, frauds of, 23-26, 50-51, 70-71, 123-124, 126-127, 152, - 167-171, 182, 194-195, 221-249, 263-264, 272-273, 325-329, 389 - - Tammany sachems in elections, 114-115, 162-165, 183-185, 189-190, 225 - - Tallmadge, Nathaniel P., 87 - - Tappan, Lewis, 123 - - Taylor, Douglas, 184-194 - - Taylor, Gen., 143 - - Taylor, James B., 168-170 - - Taylor, Joseph S., 182 - - Third Avenue surface railway franchise, 167-168 - - Thompson, Jonathan, 126-127 - - Thorne, Oakley, 314-315 - - Tibbits, Elisha, 95 - - Tiemann, Daniel F., 181, 187, 188, 192 - - Tilden, Samuel J., 140, 184, 227, 242, 245, 252, 256, 259 - - Todd, William, 64, 72 - - Tompkins, Daniel D., 15, 22, 39, 45, 53-54, 96 - - Tompkins, Minthorne, 140 - - Tories, 2, 3 - - Tradesmen’s Bank, 71 - - Tracy, Benjamin F., 282 - - Travis, Eugene M., 350 - - Tucker, Gideon J., 195 - - Tweed, Richard M., 246 - - Tweed, William M., 151, 156, 167-168, 191-192, 209-210, 211-224, 225-236, - 239-247, 255, 259, 265, 281, 310, 318 - - Tyler, John, 137 - - - U - - Ulshoeffer, Michael, 77 - - Unionist Club, 137 - - United Labor party, 270, 271 - - United States Bank, 71, 84, 86, 89-92, 112-114 - - Untermeyer, Samuel, 334 - - - V - - Valentine, Abraham M., 31 - - Van Buren, Martin, 13, 72, 87, 88, 108, 112-114, 115, 124, 129, 130, - 143, 205 - - Vanderbilt, William K., 351 - - Vanderpoel, Judge, 129 - - Van Ness, John, 13, 63 - - Van Ness, William P., 13, 15, 19, 65-66 - - Van Wyck, Robert C., 282, 286, 289, 295, 301 - - Van Schaick, Myndert, 144, 148 - - Van Tuyl, George C., 354 - - Varian, Isaac L., 102, 105, 118, 120, 121, 123, 129 - - Vermilyea, Thomas, 71 - - Verplanck, Gulian C., 36, 89, 90, 92 - - Viaduct Railroad, 231 - - Voorhis, Peter R., 191 - - Vreeland, H. H., 347-348 - - - W - - Wales, Salem H., 256 - - Waldron, William J., 97 - - Wall & Cortland St. Ferries Railroad, 332, 334 - - Wallach, W. D., 145 - - Walsh, “Mike,” 130-131, 144, 157, 251 - - War of 1812, 32-34, 35, 49 - - Ward, Jasper, 97 - - Waring, George E., Jr., 279 - - Warner, Cornelius, 23 - - Washington, George, 5, 6, 9, 10 - - Waterbury, Nelson J., 165, 190, 195-196 - - Webb, James Watson, 80, 87, 89 - - Weed, Thurlow, 98 - - Webster, Daniel, 188 - - Wendover, Peter, 61 - - Westervelt, Jacob A., 159-160 - - Western, Henry M., 146, 160 - - Wetmore, Prosper M., 107-108 - - Wetmore, Robert C., 119 - - Whig frauds, 108, 118-122, 154 - - Whigs, 92, 101, 103, 108-110, 114, 117-122, 128-129, 133-134, 137-139, - 155, 159, 160, 171, 179, 211 - - White, Campbell P., 126 - - Whiting, James R., 125, 179 - - Whitman Charles S., 357, 359, 367, 387, 389, 392, 394, 396, 398 - - Whitney, William C., 293, 332, 351 - - Wickham, William H., 256 - - Widener, P. A. S., 293, 332, 351 - - Willett, Marinus, 6, 73 - - Willett, William, Jr., 386-387 - - Williams, George V. S., 394 - - Williams, Talcott, 184 - - Wilson, Woodrow, 398 - - Women’s Municipal League, 291 - - Wood, Fernando, 122, 146, 148, 149, 150-152, 159, 165, 174-180, 181-193, - 196-205, 208-209, 219, 220 - - Woodford, Stewart, L., 230 - - Woodhull, Caleb S., 144 - - Woodruff, Thomas T., 86 - - Woods, Arthur, 400 - - Wortman, Tennis, 15, 25, 41, 51, 60 - - - Y - - “Young Democracy,” 225-226, 238 - - Young, George W., 379 - - - Z - - Zimmerlin, Henry F., 352 - - - -***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY OF TAMMANY HALL*** - - -******* This file should be named 53115-0.txt or 53115-0.zip ******* - - -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: -http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/5/3/1/1/53115 - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |