IT

CHAPTER V.

THE REFORM MOVEMENT.

T was during the first years of this partnership, while Grover Cleveland, by industry, natural ability and strong good sense, was rapidly winning for himself a position in the first rank at the bar of Western New York, that new forces began to be felt in politics, and that vigorous efforts were made to readjust parties and principles of action to the changed requirements of public sentiment. The Civil War had ended nine years before, and during the intervening period the work of uniting again the Union, which had been sundered by the shot on Sumter, had long been virtually completed. The issues raised by the war had begun to pass out of the minds of men, and thoughtful and sober citizenship was already beginning to enlist itself in the endeavor to remove from government the evils that necessarily follow a long period of domestic conflict. So long as the war and its memories seemed to present sharply defined emotional issues there was little room in political discussion for consideration of the best methods to restore the balance between Federal and State authority, which the framers of the Constitution had wisely provided, and which the real or imagined urgencies of war had destroyed, and still less room was there for the consideration of the details of Federal administration and the return to purity, economy, and fidelity to the Constitution in government.

After the lapse of nine years, however, it was held that the perpetuation of war issues in politics served only to inflame and keep alive animosities that, left to themselves, were fast dying out. Attention, too, was being drawn to greater and greater usurpations by the Federal Govern

ment, when necessity could not be pleaded in palliation of them, and to extravagance and corruption, which the administration regarded with half-shut eyes, if it did not actually connive at. So thoroughly did the wrongfulness of much that was tolerated, encouraged and undertaken by the Government at Washington, impress itself upon men, that even the leading members of the party in power began to denounce it, and shortly afterward the need of organized movement to effect a change in administration was publicly acknowledged by them. It was not a change for change's sake that they asked. It was not a "swapping of horses in mid-stream." It was a demand for a change because the need of change was paramount to the artificial or dead issues by which it was sought to prevent change. It was a conviction that horse and heedless rider were both being swept down stream and that another and safer hand should be on the bridle.

Belief in the necessity of a change in government and apprehension that the Republican party designed to fasten itself permanently on the people, bore fruit in the remarkable series of Democratic and reform victories achieved in 1874, which was equaled only by the victory won in the Presidential election of 1876 on the same issue, brought even more directly before the people, and excelled only by the wonderful series of triumphs consummated in 1882. The political complexion of the House of Representatives was changed in the election of 1874 and the Democrats secured a decisive majority. The new House stood, Democrats 163, Republicans 103, Independents 9. Pennsylvania, which had gone Republican by nearly 40,000 in 1872, elected John Latta, Democrat, Lieutenant Governor by 4,600 majority; New Jersey, which had given General Grant over 15,000 majority two years before, elected a Democrat, Joseph D. Bedle Governor by over 13,000 majority. In Ohio, the Democratic candidate for Secretary of State was chosen by 17,200 majority, and Indiana gave about the

same majority to the Democratic candidates for State officers. In the West, a Republican majority of 56,000 in Michigan was cut down to 5,900, and in Wisconsin the Republican Presidential majority of 18,500 fell to less than 2,000 on the aggregate vote for Congressman. Even Republican New England was swept from its moorings by the reform tidal wave, and three of its States for the first time since the beginning of the war had Democratic Governors. Massachusetts elected William Gaston, Democrat, Governor, by 7,000 majority although it had given General Grant a Republican majority eleven times as large only two years before; Charles R. Ingersoll, Democrat, was elected Governor of Connecticut by a majority of 6,800 against a Republican majority of 4,800 two years previous, and even New Hampshire chose a Democrat Governor by nearly 1,500 majority.

The election of 1874 in New York State, however, was the most significant, as it brought to the front a man toward whom the country ultimately looked as the one who by ability and courage, was disposed and qualified above all others to institute the reforms in government, the need of which was conceded. Although he had long been a prominent figure in State politics, Samuel J. Tilden first rose to a commanding position by his determined assault upon the municipal and legislative "ring," which, in the name of the Democratic party, was debauching the government of New York city. In that "ring" the more prominent personages, as will be recalled, were William M. Tweed, Richard Connoly, Peter B. Sweeney, and A. Oakey Hall. In the struggle within the party which was required to suppress that ring Mr. Tilden came to be recognized as the embodiment of the reform idea. In the Democratic State Convention of 1874 he was chosen the candidate for Governor as the representative of an awakened public conscience and of a public determination to check license,

fraud and extravagance, which had fastened themselves upon the people of the State.

The election of that year, as has been said, was an overwhelming triumph for the idea, and a magnificent tribute to the man, who had compelled acknowledgment of its truth. Mr. Tilden was elected Governor by a majority of over fifty thousand, although the Republicans had carried the State in 1872 by almost a like majority. Thus causes which, in a more general form, had effected political changes in other States, brought about a political revolution in New York, where the issue was presented specifically in the candidate.

As Governor, Mr. Tilden immediately instituted war on the "canal ring," which held relatively the same position in State politics that the "Tweed ring" had held in municipal politics. Again the combined rascals of both parties were driven from the opportunities they enjoyed for pilfering from the public. Valuable reforms were instituted in the administration of the canals, taxes were reduced, and government generally brought back to economy and to constitutional principles. The brilliant record made by Governor Tilden attracted the attention of the Democracy of the country, and in 1876, again as the personification of forces combined to secure purity and honesty in administration, he was nominated for President.

The elevation of the reform idea into the leading national issue did not deprive it of its strength in the State. Lucius Robinson was elected Governor as the successor to push forward the work which Tilden had inaugurated, and for three years carried it still further toward completion. The new force had by this time acquired such strength that even when a Republican, Alonzo B. Cornell, was elected Governor in 1879, through a division of the Democratic vote, the policy of retrenchment was in the main scrupulously followed.

When we come to examine Governor Cleveland's

administration in detail, we shall observe the many points of identity it had with that of Governor Tilden, and shall discover that the same broad and essentially Democratic principles constituted the strength of both.

It is not necessary here to repeat the story of the election of Tilden and Hendricks in 1876, and to relate the methods by which they were defrauded out of the results of that election. Suffice it to say that a people who had elected an administration, pledged to effect reforms in government was defrauded by wicked conspiracy of the fruits of the victory.

Passing by the intervening period, in 1882, we find the same forces which were operative in 1874 again potent in American politics. The disclosure of dishonesty, corruption and incompetency at Washington, of which the unpunished Star Route frauds were the most conspicuous illustration, again forced upon the people the conviction that a change in government was imperatively demanded. The domination of the Federal government by military force over the Southern States had departed; but it was followed by the effort of the Federal government to dominate the Northern States by patronage.

The results of the elections of 1882 carried an even greater rebuke to the Republican party, and showed an even greater determination to drive it from power than Idid the elections of 1874. The Democrats elected 189 members in the new House of Representatives, while the Republican majority became a minority of 120. Ohio elected James W. Newman, a Democrat, Secretary of State, by a majority of nearly 20,000. Indiana chose a Democratic Secretary of State by more than 10,000 majority. A Republican majority of nearly 40,000 was cut down to less than 6,000 in Illinois, and in New Hampshire to 1,500. In Michigan the Republican party was beaten by 4,500, and in Kansas by 8,000. California elected General Stoneman Governor by 23,500 majority; Colorado