Reminiscences of Sixty Years in Public Affairs, Vol. 2

by George S. Boutwell

XL BLAINE AND CONKLING AND THE REPUBLICAN CONVENTION OF 1880

The controversy between Mr. Blaine and Mr. Conkling on the floor of the House of Representatives in the Thirty-ninth Congress was fraught with serious consequences to the contestants, and it may have changed the fortunes of the Republican Party.

Mr. Conkling was a member of the Thirty-seventh Congress, but he was defeated as a candidate for the Thirty-eighth. He was returned for the Thirty-ninth Congress. During the term of the Thirty-eighth Congress he was commissioned by the Department of War as judge-advocate, and assigned for duty to the prosecution of Major Haddock and the trial of certain soldiers known as "bounty jumpers." That duty he performed.

When the army bill was before the House in April, 1866, Mr. Conkling moved to strike out the section which made an appropriation for the support of the provost-marshal general. General Grant, then in command of the army, had given an opinion, in a letter dated March 19, 1866, that that office in the War Department was an unnecessary office. Mr. Conkling supported his motion in a speech in which he said: "My objection to this section is that is creates an unnecessary office for an undeserving public servant; it fastens, as an incubus upon the country, a hateful instrument of war, which deserves no place in a free government in a time of peace."

Thus Mr. Conkling not only assailed the office, he assailed the officer, and in a manner calculated to kindle resentment, especially in an officer of high rank. General James B. Fry was provost-marshal-general. He was able to command the friendship of Mr. Blaine, and on the thirtieth day of April, Mr. Blaine read from his seat in the House a letter from General Fry addressed to himself. Thus Mr. Blaine endorsed the contents of the letter.

In that letter General Fry made three specific charges against Mr.
Conkling, but he made no answer to the arraignment that Mr. Conkling
had made of him and his office. Thus he avoided the issue that Mr.
Conkling had raised. His charges were these:

1. That Mr. Conkling had received a fee for the prosecution of Major Haddock, and that the same had been received improperly, if not illegally.

2. That in the discharge of his duties he had not acted in good faith, and that he had been zealous in preventing the prosecution of deserters at Utica.

3. That he had notified the War Department that the Provost-Marshal in Western New York needed legal advice, and that thereupon he received an appointment.

The fourth charge was an inference, and it fell with the allegation.

Upon the reading of the letter a debate arose which fell below any recognized standard of Congressional controversy and which rendered a reconciliation impossible.

At that time my relations to Mr. Conkling were not intimate, and I am now puzzled when I ask myself the question: "Why did Mr. Conkling invite my opinion as to his further action in the matter?" That he did, however; and I advised him to ask for a committee. A committee of five was appointed, three Republicans and two Democrats. Mr. Shellabarger was chairman, and Mr. Windom was a member.

The report was a unanimous report. The committee criticised the practice of reading letters in the House, which reflected upon the House, or upon the acts or speeches of any member.

At considerable length of statement and remarks, the committee exonerated Mr. Conkling from each and every one of the charges, and, with emphasis, the proceedings on the part of General Fry were condemned. The most important of the resolutions reported by the committee was in these words:

Resolved, That all the statements contained in the letter of General James B. Fry to Hon. James G. Blaine, a member of this House, bearing date the 27th of April, A. D. 1866, and which was read in this House the 30th day of April, A. D. 1866, in so far as such statements impute to the Hon. Roscoe Conkling, a member of this House, any criminal, illegal, unpatriotic, or otherwise improper conduct, or motives, either as to the matter of his procuring himself to be employed by the Government of the United States in the prosecution of military offences in the State of New York, in the management of such prosecutions, in taking compensation therefor, or in any other charge, are wholly without foundation truth, and for their publication there were, in the judgment of the House, no facts connected with said prosecutions furnishing either a palliative or an excuse.

The controversy thus opened came to an end only with Mr. Conkling's death. It is not known to me that Mr. Conkling and Mr. Blaine were unfriendly previous to the encounter of April, 1866. That they could have lived on terms of intimacy, or even of ordinary friendship, is not probable. Yet it may not be easy to assign a reason for such an estrangement unless it may be found in the word incompatibility. My relations with Mr. Blaine were friendly, reserved, and as to his aspirations for the Presidency, it was well understood by him that I could not be counted among his original supporters.

Only on one occasion was the subject ever mentioned. About two weeks before the Republican Convention of 1884, I met Mr. Blaine in Lafayette Square. He beckoned me to a seat on a bench. He opened the conversation by saying that he was glad to have some votes in the convention, but that he did not wish for the nomination. He expressed a wish to defeat the nomination of President Arthur, and he then said the ticket should be General Sherman and Robert Lincoln. Most assuredly the nomination of that ticket would have been followed by an election. To me General Sherman had one answer to the suggestion: "I am not a statesman; my brother John is. If any Sherman is to be nominated, he is the man."

I did not then question, nor do I now question, the sincerity of the statement that Mr. Blaine then made. My acquaintance with Mr. Blaine began with our election to the Thirty-eighth Congress, and it continued on terms of reserved friendship to the end of his life. That reserve was not due to any defect in his character of which I had knowledge, nor to the statements concerning him that were made by others, but to an opinion that he was not a person whose candidacy I was willing to espouse in advance of his nomination. I ought to say that in my intercourse with Mr. Blaine he was frank and free from dissimulation.

I was on terms of intimacy with Mr. Conkling from the disastrous April, 1866, to the end of his life. Hence it was that I ventured upon an experiment which a less well-assured friend would have avoided. I assumed that Mr. Blaine would close the controversy at the first opportunity. It may be said of Mr. Blaine that, while he had great facility for getting into difficulties, he had also a strong desire to get out of difficulties, and great capacity for the accomplishment of his purposes in that direction.

On a time, and years previous to 1880, I put the matter before Mr. Conkling, briefly, upon personal grounds, and upon public grounds in a party sense. He received the suggestion without any manifestation of feeling, and with great candor he said: "That attack was made without any provocation by me as against Mr. Blaine, and when I was suffering more from other causes than I ever suffered at any other time, and I shall never overlook it."

General Grant's strength was so overmastering in 1868 and 1872 that the controversy between Blaine and Conkling was of no importance to the Republican Party. The disappearance of the political influence of General Grant in 1876 revived the controversy within the Republican Party, and made the nomination of either Blaine or Conkling an impossibility. Its evil influence extended to the election, and it put in jeopardy the success of General Hayes. At the end, Mr. Conkling did not accept the judgment of the Electoral Commission as a just judgment, and he declined to vote for its affirmation.

I urged Mr. Conkling to sustain the action of the commission, and upon the ground that we had taken full responsibility when we agreed to the reference and that there was then no alternative open to us. I did not attempt to solve the problem of the election of 1876 either upon ethical or political grounds. The evidence was more conclusive than satisfactory that there had been wrong-doing in New York, in Oregon, in New Orleans, and not unlikely in many other places. As a measure of peace, when ascertained justice had become an impossibility, I was ready to accept the report of the commission, whether it gave the Presidency to General Hayes or to Mr. Tilden. The circumstances were such that success before the commission did not promise any advantage to the successful party.

For the moment, I pass by the Convention of 1880 and the events of the following year. In the year 1884 Mr. Conkling was in the practice of his profession and enjoying therefrom larger emoluments, through a series of years, than ever were enjoyed by any other member of the American bar. He once said to me: "My father would denounce me if he knew what charges I am making." That conjecture may have been well founded, for the father would not have been the outcome of the period in which the son was living. The father was an austere county judge, largely destitute of the rich equipment for the profession for which the son was distinguished. After the year 1881, when Mr. Conkling gave himself wholly to the profession, Mr. Justice Miller made this remark to me: "For the discussion of the law and the facts of a case Mr. Conkling is the best lawyer who comes into our court."

If this estimate was trustworthy, then Mr. Conkling's misgivings as to his charges may have been groundless. If a rich man, whose property is put in peril, whose liberty is assailed, or whose reputation is threatened, will seek the advice and aid of the leading advocate of the city, state, or country, shall not the compensation be commensurate with the stake that has been set up? Is it to be measured by the per diem time pay of ordinary men?

Whatever may have been Mr. Conkling's pecuniary interests or professional engagements in the year 1884, he found time to take a quiet part in the contest of that year, and to contribute to Mr. Blaine's defeat.

In the month of November, and after the election, I had occasion to pass a Sunday in New York. It happened, and by accident, that I met Mr. Conkling on Fifth Avenue. After the formalities, he invited me to call with him upon Mr. William K. Vanderbilt. Mr. Vanderbilt was absent when we called. Upon his return, the election was the topic of conversation. Mr. Vanderbilt said that he voted for Garfield in 1880, but that he had not voted for Blaine. Mr. Conkling expressed his regret that Mr. Blaine had come so near a success, and he attributed it to the fact that he had not anticipated the support which had been given to Blaine by the Democratic Party.

On a time in the conversation Mr. Conkling said: "Mr. Vanderbilt, why did you sell Maud S.?"

Mr. Vanderbilt proceeded to give reasons. He had received letters from strangers inquiring about her pedigree, care, age, treatment, etc., which he could not answer without more labor than he was willing to perform. As a final reason, he said: "When I drive up Broadway, people do not say, 'There goes Vanderbilt,' but they say, 'There goes Maud S.'"

When General Grant was on his journey around the world I wrote him a letter occasionally, and occasionally I received a letter in reply. In two of my letters I mentioned as a fact what I then thought to be the truth, that there was a very considerable public opinion in favor of his nomination for President in 1880, and that upon his return to the country some definite action on his part might be required. Upon a recent examination of his letters, I find that they are free from any reference to the Presidency. If Mr. Conkling, General Logan, Mr. Cameron, and myself came to be considered the special representatives of General Grant at the Chicago Convention of 1880, the circumstance was not due to any designation by him prior to the Galena letter, of which I am to speak and which was written while the convention was in session, and when the contest between the contending parties was far advanced.

Our title was derived from the constant support that we had given him through many years and from his constant friendship for us through the same many years. We were of the opinion then, and in that belief we never faltered, that the nomination and election of General Grant were the best security that could be had for the peace and prosperity of the country. That opinion was supported by an expressed public sentiment in the conventions of New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois, and in other parts of the country there were evidences of a disposition in the body of the people to support General Grant in numbers far in excess of the strength of the Republican Party.

The mass of the people were not disturbed by the thought that General Grant might become President a third time. They did not accept the absurd notion that experience, successful experience, disqualified a man for further service. Nor did that apprehension influence any considerable number of the leaders. They demanded a transfer of power into new hands. This, unquestionably, was their right, and as a majority of the convention, as the convention was constituted finally, they were able to assert and to maintain their supremacy.

It is too late for complaints, and complaints were vain when the causes were transpiring, but there were delegates who appeared in the convention as opponents of General Grant who had been elected upon the understanding that they were his friends. Upon this fact I hang a single observation. If there is a trust in human affairs that should be treated as a sacred trust it is to be found in the duty that arises from the acceptance of a representative office in matters of government. When a public opinion has been formed, either in regard to men or to measures, whoever undertakes to represent that opinion should do so in good faith.

To this rule there were many exceptions in the Republican Convention of 1880, and it was no slight evidence of devotion to the party and to the country when General Grant and Mr. Conkling entered actively into the contest after the fortunes of the party had been prostrated, apparently, by the disaster in the State of Maine.

Of the many incidents of the convention no one is more worthy of notice than the speech of Mr. Conkling when he placed General Grant in nomination. Whatever he said that was in support of his cause, affirmatively, was of the highest order of dramatic eloquence. When he dealt with his opponents, his speech was not advanced in quality and its influence was diminished. His reference in his opening sentence to his associates who had deserted General Grant: "In obedience to instructions which I should never dare to disregard," was tolerated even by his enemies; but his allusion to Mr. Blaine in these words: "without patronage, without emissaries, without committees, without bureaus, without telegraph wires running from his house to this convention, or running from his house anywhere," intensified the opposition to General Grant.

In many particulars his speech is an unequaled analysis of General Grant's character and career, presented in a most attractive form. An extract may be tolerated from a speech that can be read with interest even by those who are ignorant of the doings, or it may be, by those who have no knowledge of the existence, of the convention:

"Standing on the highest eminence of human distinction, modest, firm, simple, and self-poised, having filled all lands with his renown, he has seen not only the high-born and the titled, but the poor and the lowly, in the uttermost ends of the earth, rise and uncover before him."

Mr. Conkling was the recognized leader of the three hundred and six who constituted the compact body of the supporters of General Grant.

Suggestions were made that the substitution of Mr. Conkling's name for General Grant's name would give the nomination to Mr. Conkling, and there was a moment of time when General Garfield anticipated or apprehended such a result. There was, however, never a moment of time when such a result was possible. The three hundred and six would never have consented to the use of any name in place of General Grant's name unless General Grant's name were first withdrawn by his authority.

A firmer obstacle even would have been found in Mr. Conkling's sturdy refusal to allow the use of his name under such circumstances. Among the friends of General Grant the thought of such a proceeding was never entertained, although the suggestion was made, but without authority, probably, from those charged with the management of the organizations engaged in the struggle.

After many years had passed, and the proceedings of the convention were well-nigh forgotten, Mr. John Russell Young printed a letter in which he made the charge that Conkling, Cameron, Boutwell, and Lincoln had concealed the contents of a letter from General Grant in which he directed them as his representatives to withdraw his name from the convention. Mr. Young was in error in two particulars. Lincoln was not named in the letter. General Logan was the fourth person to whom the letter was addressed.

Young brought the letter from Galena, where Grant then was, and he claims that the letter was addressed to himself. General Frederick D. Grant, who was then at Chicago, claims that the letter was addressed to him, and that, after reading it, he handed it to Mr. Conkling.

As late as the first half of the year 1897, Mr. Conkling's papers had not been examined carefully. The contents of the letter are important, and for the present the evidence is circumstantial; but to me it is conclusive against Mr. Young's statement that Conkling, Cameron, Logan, and Boutwell were directed by General Grant to withdraw his name from the convention. I cannot now say that I read the letter, but of its receipt and the contents I had full knowledge, and I referred to it in these words in a letter to my daughter dated May 31, 1880:

"Grant sent for Young to visit him at Galena. Young returned to-day, and says that Grant directed him to say to Cameron, Logan, Conkling, and Boutwell that he should be satisfied with whatever they may do."

Without any special recollection upon the point, the conclusion of reason is that my letter was written from a conversation with Young, and before I had knowledge of the contents of Grant's letter. I may add, however, that his letter produced no change in my opinion as to our authority and duty in regard to Grant's candidacy. My mind never departed for a moment from the idea that we were free, entirely free, to continue the contest in behalf of General Grant upon our own judgment.

Upon the views and facts already presented and with even greater certainty upon the correspondence with General Frederick D. Grant, I submit as the necessary conclusion of the whole matter that the letter of General Grant of May, 1880, did not contain any specific instructions, and especially that it did not contain instructions for the withdrawal of his name from the convention; in fine, that the further conduct of the contest was left to the discretion and judgment of the four men whom he had recognized as his representatives.

I annex the correspondence with General Frederick D. Grant:

BOSTON, MASS., May 28, 1897.
COL. FRED. D. GRANT, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Dear Sir: You will of course recall the fact that John Russell Young, some months ago, made a public statement in which he declared that he brought from Galena to Chicago, during the session of the Republican Convention of 1880, a letter from General Grant in which he gave specific directions to Conkling, Cameron, and Boutwell to withdraw his name as a candidate from the convention. Some months ago I had some correspondence with A. R. Conkling, and also with yourself, in regard to the contents of the letter written by General Grant. Mr. A. R. Conkling sent me a copy of a portion of a letter which, as he advised me, he had received from you. A copy of that extract I herewith enclose. As one of the friends of General Grant and as one of the persons to whom bad faith was imputed by Mr. Young, it is my purpose to place the matter before the public with such evidence as I can command, for the purpose of showing the character of the letter.

I wish to obtain from you such a statement as you are willing to make, with the understanding that whenever the case shall be presented to the public your letter may be used.

Aside from actual evidence tending to show that Young's statement is erroneous, I cannot believe that General Grant would have recognized as a friend either one of the persons named, if his explicit instructions for the withdrawal of his name had been made by him and disregarded by them.

Yours very truly,
GEO S. BOUTWELL.

25 EAST 62D STREET, NEW YORK, May 30, 1897.

My Dear Senator: I received yesterday your letter of May 28th, in which you asked me what I remember about a letter which my father, General Grant, wrote to his four leading friends during the session of the Republican National Convention at Chicago in 1880.

With reference to this matter my recollection is, that Mr. John Russell Young, who had been visiting father in Galena, brought from him a large sealed envelope, which he delivered to me at my home in Chicago, with directions from my father that I should read the letter contained therein, and then see that it was received safely by his four friends, Senators Conkling, Boutwell, Cameron, and Logan.

The substance of General Grant's letter was, that the personal feelings of partisans of the leading candidates had grown to be so bitter, that it might become advisable for the good of the Republican Party to select as their candidate some one whose name had not yet been prominently before the convention, and that he therefore wrote to say to those who represented his interest in the convention, that it would be quite satisfactory to him if they would confer with those who represented the interests of Mr. Blaine and decided to have both his name and Mr. Blaine's withdrawn from before the convention.

I delivered in person this letter from my father, to Senator Conkling—
I do not know what disposition he made of it.

With highest regards, my dear Senator, for your family and yourself, believe me, as ever,

Faithfully yours,
FREDERICK D. GRANT.

Following the visit of General Grant and Mr. Conkling to Mentor in the autumn of 1880, I was informed by Mr. Conkling that he had not been alone one minute with General Garfield, intending by that care-taking to avoid the suggestion that his visit was designed to afford an opportunity for any personal or party arrangement. Further, it was the wish of General Grant, as it was his wish, that the effort which they were then making should be treated as a service due to the party and to the country, and that General Garfield should be left free from any obligation to them whatsoever.

After the election and after Mr. Blaine became Secretary of State, he volunteered to speak of the situation of the party in New York and of Mr. Conkling's standing in the State. Among other things, he said that Mr. Conkling was the only man who had had three elections to the Senate, and that Mr. Conkling and his friends would be considered fairly in the appointments that might be made in that State.

When in a conversation with Conkling, I mentioned Blaine's remark, he said, "Do you believe one word of that?"

I said, "Yes, I believe Mr. Blaine."

He said with emphasis, "I don't."

Subsequent events strengthened Mr. Conkling in his opinion, but those events did not change my opinion of Mr. Blaine's integrity of purpose in the conversations of which I have spoken.

My knowledge of the events, not important in themselves, but which seem to have the relation of a prelude to the great tragedy, was derived from three persons, Mr. Conkling, Mr. Blaine, and Mr. Marshall Jewell. At the request of the President, Mr. Conkling called upon him the Sunday preceding the day of catastrophe. The President gave Mr. Conkling the names of persons that he was considering favorably for certain places. To several of these Mr. Conkling made objections, and in some cases other persons were named. As Mr. Conkling was leaving he said, "Mr. President, what do you propose about the collectorship of New York?" The President said, "We will leave that for another time." These statements I received from Mr. Conkling.

From Mr. Jewell I received the following statement as coming from the President: When the New York nominations were sent to the Senate, the President was forthwith in the receipt of letters and despatches in protest, coupled with the suggestion that everything had been surrendered to Conkling. Without delay and without consultation with any one, the President nominated Judge Robertson to the office of collector of New York. Further, the President said, as reported by Mr. Jewell, Mr. Blaine heard of the nomination, and he came in very pale and much astonished.

From Mr. Blaine I received the specific statement that he had no knowledge of the nomination of Judge Robertson until it had been made.

These statements are reconcilable with each other, and they place the responsibility for the sudden and fatal rupture of the relations between Mr. Conkling and the President upon the President. Mr. Conkling could not fail to regard the nomination of Robertson as a wilful and premeditated violation of the pledge given at the Sunday conference. It was, however, only an instance of General Garfield's impulsive and unreasoning submission to an expression of public opinion, without waiting for evidence of the nature and value of that opinion. That weakness had been observed by his associates in the House of Representatives, and on that weakness his administration was wrecked.

Mr. Conkling was much misrepresented and of course he was much misunderstood. As a Senator from New York he claimed a right to be consulted in regard to the principal appointments in the State. His recommendations were few and they were made with great care. He confined himself to the chief appointments. It was quite difficult to secure his name or his favorable word in behalf of applicants for the subordinate places.

In my experience with him, which was considerable in the Internal Revenue Office and in the Treasury, I found him ready to concede to the opinions of the Executive Department. He was one of those who held to the opinion that it was the duty of Representatives and Senators to give advice in regard to appointments and to give it upon their responsibility as members of the Government. Senators and Representatives are not officers of the Government, they are members of the Government, and the duty of giving aid to the administration rests upon them.

When a man is chosen to represent a State or a district, a presumption should arise that he will act for the good of the country to the best of his ability. Advice in regard to appointments is a part of his duty, and in the main the Senators and Representatives are worthy of confidence. The present Civil Service system rests upon the theory that they are not to be trusted and that three men without a constituency are safer custodians of power.

Upon the death of Garfield and the accession of Arthur, Mr. Conkling looked for one thing, and one thing only—the removal of Robertson. When this was not done he separated from Arthur. I have no knowledge of the reasons which governed the President, but I think his career would have been more agreeable to himself if he had so far vindicated his own course and the course of his friends as to have removed from office the man who had contributed so largely to the defeat of the wing of the Republican Party with which Mr. Arthur was identified.

When General Garfield died, the Republican Party was broken, and it seemed to be without hope. President Arthur's conciliatory policy did much to restore harmony of all the elements except the wing represented by Mr. Conkling.

It is probable, however, that a better result might have been secured by the early removal of Robertson. That course of action would have been satisfactory to Conkling, and given strength to the party in New York, where strength was most needed. With Mr. Conkling's aid in 1884, Mr. Arthur might have been nominated, and if nominated it is probable that he might have been elected with Mr. Conkling's aid. Arthur's error was that he offended two important factions of the party. By retaining Robertson he alienated Conkling, and by the removal of Blaine he alienated him and his friends. Hence in 1884 two elements of the party that were bitterly opposed to each other harmonized in their opposition to Arthur.