others, we propose to see who those others were. That frauds of more or less magnitude had been going on for some time previous to 1870 is tolerably certain, but in that year was passed, in the Legislature, at Albany, an "amended," or, more truly speaking, an altered charter for the City of New York, since known as the Tweed Charter." How was this accomplished?

The Legislature of 1867, “amended" the City Charter by providing that six Supervisors should be chosen by a Board selected from the two political parties. To the inexperienced this seemed just and fair; to the astute politician the result was seen to be fatal. It naturally opened the way to vicious deals; because neither party could be held responsible for the acts of the Board, cutting off at the same time the watchful criticism of opponents. If the political complexion of the Board had been wholly or mainly composed of one political tint, the city would have been the gainer; for, under the equal division system, whatever was wrongly done, neither party felt disposed to bring public censure upon its proceedings. Just at this juncture, Mr. A. Oakey Hall was elected Mayor. Tweed was already in the State Senate; and, as subsequently appeared, actually controlled a majority of that body, through the substantial considerations he had it in his power to offer. The Charter which he so successfully engineered through, gave all the power of the local administration into the hands of four persons, viz., the Mayor, the Comptroller, the Commissioner of Public Works, and the Commissioner of Parks, not by the title of these offices merely, but by name to the persons then in possession of these offices-Hall, Connolly, Tweed and Sweeney-for periods varying from four to eight years; so, that no matter how these departments were conducted, or misconducted, citizens had no remedy.

This charter had passed the Assembly without special trouble, but would have been blocked in the Senate, probably as a Democratic measure, had not Tweed foreseen and provided for the anticipated obstruction. He simply bought up eight Republican Senators, which gave him sufficient votes to get the bill through. Most of this venal bargaining was brought about by the promise of certain offices being reserved for the unfaithful Republicans. That these facts were substantiated at the time of their occurrence, it is only necessary to refer to the daily papers of that date to be convinced. The New York Times boldly commended the Tammany party for its good faith, saying, four days after the division. of offices had been made: "The Tweed party has not manifested the slightest disposition to evade its bargain, or to prevaricate. There was something to be bought, and plenty of money to buy it."

On August 17, 1870, there appeared in the Times the following explanation of how the charter was obtained: "Tweed and Sweeney had the votes already bought up, of all the Republican Senators, only one (Thayer) voted against it." Again, the same paper asserted. April 12, 1871, "That but for the aid of the Republicans, the Tammany Democracy might have been beaten by Democratic resistance," and, later, reiterated that "the charter could not have been passed without the help of the Republicans, and that the credit is as much theirs as it is that of the Tweed Democracy." In 1870 this same Times had ridiculed the efforts of the Reform Union League, and exulted in Tweed's success. But in 1871 it had materiaily changed its tone, saying, on August 17, 1871: "There were a few indignant protests against the scheme, uttered by such high-toned Democrats as

Samuel J. Tilden, but they were without effect, for Tweed and Sweeney had the votes already bought up." Besides this venal Legislature, were not the corrupt subsidized judges, the Broadway Bank (which facilitated the operations of the ring), and the contractors, manufacturers and mechanics, who were paid fraudulent and forged bills, all parties to the crimes of Tweed? And does it not present a curious condition of partisan feeling and ineradicable prejudice that for over a quarter of a century the political opponents of Tammany still continue to refer to that single event as a proof that the Democrats of New York city are irretrievably corrupt, notwithstanding the fact that it was the most distinguished Democrat in the city and State who brought the head conspirator to justice; also persistently ignoring the fact that Tammany Hall promptly ejected from its councils and membership all concerned in the frauds-continuing to talk, even up to this day, as if the deplorable incident of 1871 was a permanent condition of the Columbian Order.

To add to the measure of Republican inconsistency, in this respect, it is only necessary to recall the immensely greater and more permanently corrupting kinds of frauds which have been either excused, tolerated, or applauded by the "party of all the virtues." A really amusing confirmation of this statement is furnished by that staunch Republican, Stephen M. Allen. in his book entitled "The Old and New Republican parties." On pp.166-238, he gives an epitome of what each administration had done for the country, from Washington's to the end of Rutherford B. Hayes'; but, apparently appalled at the corruption of Grant's, he does not venture to describe that administration, but, instead, gives a sketch of the General's personal military career!

九龍

CHAPTER XXXVI.

THE GREELY CAMPAIGN,

NE of the curious episodes of the Tammany Society's history is the part taken by the organization in the National political campaign of 1872, in which a large portion of the Democratic forces worked and voted for their life-long opponent and former merciless critic, Horace Greely, the sometime Whig, and, later, Republican editor of the Tribune. There were two potent causes which led to this extraordinary proceeding. The first reason, undoubtedly, was that there was no reasonable prospect of the Democracy being able to elect a candidate of their own, and the candidate of the Republicans was more objectionable than the vituperative editor, who was, at least, honest, and fought fair. But a better and affirmative reason was found in the fact that the platform adopted by the original Greely men was such as any Democrat could support without serious objections. In 1872 the Grant Administration was sc strongly entrenched, and was using the opportunities of power with such a lavish, not to say unscrupulous hand, that the case looked hopeless of any improvement to be expected from his party. But light, at last, broke out from an unlooked for quarter; there was actually a revolt among the Republicans themselves. Some of the more thoughtful and conscientious among them perceived, with prophetic vision, the centralizing and corrupting tendencies of the partisan majority in Congress, and determined to try and stem the tide of extravagance and corruption that threatened to overwhelm the nation.

The reforming party took the name of Liberal Republicans. Their immediate object was to bring the people back to a sense of the danger which a continued violation of constitutional obligations involved. This was in exact accordance with the opinions of all conservative Democrats, and proved a great attraction to them. A convention was called to meet at Cincinnati, from whence the leaders, in this movement, issued an address, justifying their repudiation of the old Republican party. In this address they say: That the administration (Grant's) now in power has wantonly disregarded the laws of the land, and usurped powers not granted by the Constitution, and has acted as if the laws were only made for those governed, and not for those who govern; thus striking at the fundamental principles of constitutional government, and the liberty of the citizen. The President has used his office for personal ends, has kept about him corrupt and unworthy men, and has stimulated demoralization by rewarding those who made him valuable presents, keeping others in office by the unscrupulous use of power." The convention invited the co-operation of all patriotic citizens.

The platform put forth by this body of Liberal Republicans was received with great favor by the leading Democrats of the country. Horatio Seymour was one of the first to come out publicly in its favor. Its principal features were as follows: "The recognition of the equality of all men before the law. The inviolability of the Constitutional Amendments. Universal amnesty. Local self-gov

ernment. Impartial suffrage. The reform of the civil service. The remission of the tariff question to the action of Congress. The sacredness of the public credit. Opposition to farther land grants to corporations. A dignified, but peaceful foreign policy." Such a platform could not fail to receive the approbation of all liberal Democrats; but that the Liberal Republicans could not find a more fit candidate than Horace Greely is one of those political mysteries which has never been explained, probably because it is inexplicable, except, possibly, on the supposition that all clear-headed politicians knew that electoral success was impossible, and the reformers were well aware that all their candidate could be was a figure-head, and, therefore, they could get no one else to accept the rôle of standing up merely for the purpose of being knocked down. Probably there was not a man in the United States who believed Greely could be elected but Horace himself.

A Liberal Republican and Democratic rally took place at Cooper Institute on the first of November, on which occasion Mr. Augustus Schell nominated John Kelly for Chairman, as "a sterling Democrat and an honest man." The nominees of the Liberal Republicans were adopted at this meeting; they were also adopted by Tammany Hall, by the National Reformed Democracy, and, indirectly, by the Apollo Hall faction, which had some time previously broken away from the old Wigwam. It is also to be noted that at this ensuing election Tammany Hall supported, for Judge of the Supreme Court, W. H. Leonard, the judge before whom the famous "ring" suits had been tried.

Greely received a popular vote of 2,834,079. Grant's majority was 762,991. A sufficiently crushing defeat, but it was worse in the Electoral College, in which Greely received only the vote of five States. He was really the victim of a political combination formed under the impulse of the popular saying, “ Anything to beat Grant," but the movement was defeated, in the main, by the "soldier vote," on sentimental rather than on political grounds. Horace Greely died a few weeks after his defeat, worn out with mental and physical exertion, increased by a domestic calamity, disappointment, and, above and worse than all, the loss of his controlling position on the Tribune, which had passed into other hands. It was frequently said, publicly, during the exciting contest of 1892, that David B. Hill was the first and only aspirant for the Presidency that ever made a personal canvas in his own behalf. This is not true. Mr. Greely took the stump for himself and his ticket, going to speak in nearly all of the Eastern, Middle and Southern States. With the most damaging result, as above stated, he had, however, the grace to defer this tour until after his nomination.

B

CHAPTER XXXVII.

FOURTH OF JULY 1873.

Y 1873 Tammany had almost entirely recovered from the shock inflicted upon her by the expelled members, and the annual celebration of that year was carried out with a fresh infusion of enthusiasm. The marked feature of this occasion was the very special interest which was awakened by the reading of the Declaration of Independence; a stranger might have imagined that, instead of its being a document which they knew by heart, it was being listened to for the first time. There was a cause for this. A great many Democrats, at that period, felt that the general government was usurping powers somewhat after the fashion of royal rulers, and when that portion of the Declaration was reached containing the colonists' indictment of their oppressor, King George, with his unjustifiable taxation, and the annoyance of his meddlesome troops, many of those present thought they perceived a striking resemblance in the conduct of the Federal government, especially in the partially reconstructed States, and the audience manifested this appreciation in a very lively manner.

Mr. Clarkson N. Potter was the orator of the day. After referring to the material prosperity of the country and its "growing political corruption," as he expressed it, he could not forbear reverting to the Society's disaster of the preceding year. Among other remarks, he said: "While men without principle, seeking personal profit, through political organizations, call themselves Republicans in Philadelphia, and Democrats in New York, in order to wield the influence, and control the patronage of the party, for personal and selfish ends, until only now and then some flagrant enormity raises a temporary indignation, and the unworthy are driven out-as these walls bear witness, from the power which they have abused, and from the shelter of the names and the society which they have outraged." He then earnestly besought his audience to revert to the old gospel of government," namely, that this Union of States and its government was created for the benefit of the governed, not for the benefit of the party governing, including the theory that power should be legally localized, as likely to be better administered thus; for the reason that local authorities were nearer to and better acquainted with the needs of the people whom they represented. Resenting the charge that Democrats had favored the continuance of slavery, he said: "Those Democrats who espoused the cause of the South did so, not because they favored slavery, but they favored the States as States which had helped to form the Union, and whose rights as States were encroached upon."

Hon. Abraham Lawrence followed in some very energetic and practical remarks, in which he warned the members of the organization that if they would fully recover their standing and perpetuate Democratic principles, they could only hope to do so by putting forward as candidates for office, pure, able and honest men, who are desirous of giving the city good government, men who believe in economy-not meaning by that to stop public works, but to stop squandering