The New York Legislature began balloting for successors to Senators Conkling and Platt on the 31st of May. The majority of the Republicans (Independents or “Half-breeds”) supported Chauncey M. Depew as the successor of Platt for the long term, and William A. Wheeler as the successor of Conkling for the short term, a few supporting Cornell. The minority (Stalwarts) renominated Messrs. Conkling and Platt. The Democrats nominated Francis Kernan for the long term, and John C. Jacobs for the short term; and, on his withdrawal, Clarkson N. Potter. The contest lasted until July 22, and resulted in a compromise on Warner A. Miller as Platt’s successor, and Elbridge G. Lapham as Conkling’s successor. In Book VII., our Tabulated History of Politics, we give a correct table of the ballots. These show at a single glance the earnestness and length of the contest.

The factious feelings engendered thereby were carried into the Fall nominations for the Legislature, and as a result the Democrats obtained control, which in part they subsequently lost by the refusal of the Tammany Democrats to support their nominees for presiding officers. This Democratic division caused a long and tiresome dead-lock in the Legislature of New York. It was broken in the House by a promise on the part of the Democratic candidate for Speaker to favor the Tammany men with a just distribution of the committees—a promise which was not satisfactorily carried out, and as a result the Tammany forces of the Senate joined hands with the Republicans. The Republican State ticket would also have been lost in the Fall of 1881, but for the interposition of President Arthur, who quickly succeeded in uniting the warring factions. This work was so well done, that all save one name on the ticket (Gen’l Husted) succeeded.

The same factious spirit was manifested in Pennsylvania in the election of U. S. Senator in the winter of 1881, the two wings taking the names of “Regulars” and “Independents.” The division occurred before the New York battle, and it is traceable not alone to the bitter nominating contest at Chicago, but to the administration of President Hayes and the experiment of civil service reform. Administrations which are not decided and firm upon political issues, invariably divide their parties, and while these divisions are not always to be deplored, and sometimes lead to good results, the fact that undecided administrations divide the parties which they represent, ever remains. The examples are plain: Van Buren’s, Tyler’s, Fillmore’s, Buchanan’s, and Hayes’. The latter’s indecision was more excusable than that of any of his predecessors. The inexorable firmness of Grant caused the most bitter partisan assaults, and despite all his efforts to sustain the “carpet-bag governments” of the South, they became unpopular and were rapidly supplanted. As they disappeared, Democratic representation from the South increased, and this increase continued during the administration of Hayes—the greatest gains being at times when he showed the greatest desire to conciliate the South. Yet his administration did the party good, in this, that while at first dividing, it finally cemented through the conviction that experiments of that kind with a proud Southern people were as a rule unavailing. The reopening of the avenues of trade and other natural causes, apparently uncultivated, have accomplished in this direction much more than any political effort.

In Pennsylvania a successor to U. S. Senator Wm. A. Wallace was to be chosen. Henry W. Oliver, Jr., received the nomination of the Republican caucus, the friends of Galusha A. Grow refusing to enter after a count had been made, and declaring in a written paper that they would not participate in any caucus, and would independently manifest their choice in the Legislature. The following is the first vote in joint Convention:

OLIVER.
Senate 20
House 75
Total 95
GROW.
Senate 12
House 44
Total 56
BREWSTER.
Senate
House 1
Total 1
M’VEAGH.
Senate
House 1
Total 1
WALLACE.
Senate 16
House 77
Total 93
AGNEW.
Senate 1
House
Total 1
BAIRD.
Senate
House 1
Total 1

Whole number of votes cast, 248; necessary to a choice, 125.

On the 17th of January the two factions issued opposing addresses. From these we quote the leading ideas, which divided the factions. The “Regulars” said:

“Henry W. Oliver, jr., of Allegheny county, was nominated on the third ballot, receiving 79 of the 95 votes present. Under the rules of all parties known to the present or past history of our country, a majority of those participating should have been sufficient; but such was the desire for party harmony and for absolute fairness, that a majority of all the Republican members of the Senate and House was required to nominate. The effect of this was to give those remaining out a negative voice in the proceedings, the extent of any privilege given them in regular legislative sessions by the Constitution. In no other caucus or convention has the minority ever found such high consideration, and we believe there remains no just cause of complaint against the result. Even captious faultfinding can find no place upon which to hang a sensible objection. Mr. Oliver was, therefore, fairly nominated by the only body to which is delegated the power of nomination and by methods which were more than just, which, from every standpoint, must be regarded as generous; and in view of these things, how can we, your Senators and Representatives, in fairness withhold our support from him in open sessions; rather how can we ever abandon a claim established by the rules regulating the government of all parties, accepted by all as just, and which are in exact harmony with that fundamental principle of our Government which proclaims the right of the majority to rule? To do otherwise is to confess the injustice and the failure of that principle—something we are not prepared to do. It would blot the titles to our own positions. There is not a Senator or member who does not owe his nomination and election to the same great principle. To profit by its acceptance in our own cases and to deny it to Mr. Oliver would be an exhibition of selfishness too flagrant for our taste. To acknowledge the right to revolt when no unfairness can be truthfully alleged and when more than a majority have in the interest of harmony been required to govern, would be a travesty upon every American notion and upon that sense of manliness which yields when fairly beaten.”

The “Independent” address said:

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