even the law courts-which, indeed, could scarcely be said to exist, so completely were they dominated by military interference, most of the commanding generals having used the extraordinary powers confered upon them to the fullest extent.

Not so did General Hancock. With the true instinct of a patriot, who recognized that the war was over, and with the discrimination of a mature and unselfish statesman, he decided not to use the arbitrary power at his command, and plainly expressed in his commission, but to treat the citizens as he would have done those of any other State, so long as they remained quiet and peaceable, as he found them. Accustomed to the sharp rule of General Sheridan, from whom they had just been relieved, the people of the Fifth District could not, at first, understand that the new Commander was a man of very different metal, and that he regarded the inhabitants of Louisiana and Texas not as conquered rebels, but as restored citizens, and that it was his intention to reinstate, so far as possible, all the civil functions of these States.

It took some time for these Southern communities to understand, or put faith in this professed friendly attitude of a Federal General, and it was really not until the publication of his famous "Order No. 40," dated November 29, 1867, that the people began to realize that they had over them a friend and protector of their civil rights, and not a military tyrant. This renowned "Order" clearly announced that the people were expected to resume all the civil functions of an independent State; to reopen their courts, and resume all the duties and rights of American citizens, which their semi-territorial condition permitted, and that he, as military commander, was only there to preserve peace and to secure to all the inhabitants the equal administration of justice, to support the laws of the State, not to supercede them. In fine, he put the civil above the military power. Under the circumstances, this was a braver and more noble act than any recorded of a mere fighter on the battlefield.

But this moral courage and self-abnegation was not in the least appreciated by Congress; that partisan body was in no hurry to rehabilitate the defeated people of the South, and felt aggrieved at the fact that one whom they had placed as a military satrap over two States, with the express design of prolonging the unnecessary probation of the conquered sections, should develop into an expounder and defender of the constitutional rights of the States, and the promulgator of true Democratic principles. It was, indeed, a novel sight to the whole nation to see a man in that era voluntarily put away the power of an autocrat, which had been officially bestowed upon him, and proclaim himself a subject, like all other citizens, of the civil power.

General Hancock also declined to send Federal soldiers to watch the polls, unless in case of disorder. All this recognition of the people's rights interfered with the Congressional purpose of securing Republican majorities in the States of Louisiana and of Texas. In consequence, General Hancock found himself so constantly antagonized by the Federal authorities that he asked to be relieved from his command on the 27th of February, 1868. It was his wholesome and patriotic course, in endeavoring to re-establish the civil over military rule, which commended him to the consideration of the Democratic party as a candidate for the Presidency.

At the National Convention which met in St. Louis, January 27, 1876, Hancock's name was brought forward by a delegate from the General's native State.

Pennsylvania. He obtained seventy-five votes, but Tilden secured the nomination. In 1868, when the National Democratic Convention met in Tammany Hall, General Hancock's name was then introduced with a very sound and eulogistic speech by a delegate from Maine; but at this time Tammany had decided on Horatio Seymour, and he was nominated. Another opportunity proved more favorable. At the Democratic Convention which met in Cincinnati June 23, 1880, General Hancock's name was once more presented, this time by a veteran Democrat of Philadelphia-Daniel Dougherty, who had, in 1856, advocated the nomination of James Buchanan, and had afterwards voted for Lincoln and Grant, but who had returned to his original principles, and once more, after twenty years of errancy, made a splendid oration in a Democratic convention. General Hancock received the nomination, which was one eminently "fit to be made," but was defeated at the ensuing election by General Garfield, but by a very small majority, only 7,018 out of a popular vote of about 9,000,000, all the patronage and machinery of the government being in the hands of his opponents. In General Hancock's letter of acceptance he made use of essentially the same phrase since adopted by Mr. Cleveland-and which, in fact, is established Democratic doctrine-General Hancock said, "Public office is a trust; not a bounty bestowed on the holder."

CHAPTER XLI.

THE COUNTY DEMOCRACY.

MONG the many anti-Tammany organizations which have sprung up, flourished a while, and then dissolved, or formed other combinations, while the elder society went on its wonted way, usually to success-less frequently to defeat the association calling itself the County Democracy was for some years a very formidable rival. It first came into open antagonism, under that name, in 1881. The conditions then presented a triangular fight, as the Irving Hall party was still an active force. So that Tammany had two organized Democratic opponents to meet. Even before 1881 there were frequently two sets of delegates sent to the Democratic State conventions-always one by Tammany, and the others, sometimes simply anti-Tammany, without other formal designation, sometimes with a more specific name. Now there were two claimants to recognition. The principal movers in this hostile faction of 1881 were those who convened on election night before the returns were made, when no one except themselves could know what treachery had taken place, to try and make it understood and believed that the Tammany men had treacherously betrayed the late Presidential nominee, General Hancock, by trading the national for the city ticket, thus causing the loss to the Democratic party of national administration for the ensuing four years.

Among those prominent in this revolt from machine methods were Abram S. Hewitt, Thomas Costigan, James O'Brien and Timothy Campbell.

It was only a few weeks after the Presidential election that certain members of Irving Hall came to the conclusion that their organization was being run in too much of a machine fashion, although opposed to Tammany on that very issue, and these dissatisfied "Irvingites," as they were often called, formed a combination with a number of Independent Democrats and decided to build up a reformed and purified Democracy, based on pure Jeffersonian principles. They went energetically to work and appointed committees to make an enrollment of Democrats of all existing parties or factions, so as to secure a representative organization in every election district. An Assembly District Association was also formed, as well as a County Committee elected. By these elaborate measures it was thought that a truly representative Democratic organization could be sustained. It was these transcendental philosophers who formed the basis of the County Democracy, which was fairly launched into the political arena in the spring of 1881. Primary elections were held in each election. district, and the Democrats whose names had been enrolled chose officers, as also delegates, to the County Committee. One reason for selecting the name "County" was that throughout the State county committees had previously been in existence, while the Democrats of the County of New York had always

been controlled in their course, either by the Society of Tammany or some offshoot from that association; and it seemed to the reformers that it was altogether fitting to have an organization in New York County corresponding to the custom in general usage throughout the State.

Among the actual organizers of the new party were Abram S. Hewitt, ex-Mayor Edward Cooper, William C. Whitney, E. Ellery Anderson, Hans S. Beattie, Maurice F. Powers, Hubert O. Thompson, Nelson J. Waterbury, Frank M. Scott, Charles W. Dayton, Henry S. Beekman, Allen Campbell, Francis Lynde Stetson, Thomas Costigan, Henry Murray, J. Henry Ford and James McCartney. The committee met at 21 West Twenty-fourth street, where the organization preiminaries were projected; the public meetings and County Committee meetings were held in Cooper Union.

At this time ex-Sheriff Peter Bowe, ex-Sheriff Alexander Davidson, W. Bourke Cockran, Nicholas Haughton, Robert B. Mooney, Edgar L. Ridgeway. Judge Erlich, Charles G. Cornell, Hugh H. Moore, and some others, kept up the old Irving Hall organization, which, in 1886, united with the "Henry George" labor movement, but most, if not all, of its former leaders, naturally, in time, drifted back to their old home-Tammany Hall, some joining the County Democracy, and some Irving Hall, as a distinctly anti-Tammany force, disappeared from city politics, though, in 1879, its delegates had been received as "regular" at the State convention held in Syracuse.

For several years the County Democracy proved a very successful organization, and at one period obtained control of nearly all the departments and city patronage. Hubert O. Thompson was its recognized leader. (It seems they could not get along without a "boss.") It was through the efforts of this association, undoubtedly, that Grace was elected Mayor in 1884, though he had the support of other Democrats at that time, a sort of three-cornered fight being on that year, to the great detriment of the National ticket, which just scraped through by a very small majority. Beginning with the purest intentions, the County Democracy soon fell into the enticing rut of machine politics; and the wiley politician inevitably succeeded to the patriotic organizers. Many of its members were Aldermen in 1884, and some of these were indicted for the acceptance of bribes. Later, this once immaculate party formed combinations with Republicans of easy political virtue. The result was a disintegration of its original elements. Most of its leaders returned to Tammany Hall, some went into the party calling itself the "Voorhis Democracy," but the great body, like so many others of the anti-Tammany factions, informally dissolved into its original elements. Those who clung to it longest and latest were found, in 1892, still in the role of protesters, among the anti-Hill Democrats. The latest notice that we find of any remnant of vitality in this association was that of a meeting held in a small room on the second floor of the Cooper Union, on the 23d of May, 1892, when Mr. Charles A. Jackson, who had vowed, the year before, that he "would remain a true County Democrat, even if he were left alone to turn out the gas," actually did so, in the company of some dozen equally devoted followers.

One of the daily papers, published about the time of the "Mid-Winter Convention," thus describes the mode sometimes adopted for silencing opposition: "The Voorhis faction was finally disposed of in this manner: On the 29th of

February, 1892, Mayor Grant appointed John R. Voorhis, founder, and for years the leader, of the so-called New York Democracy, as Police Justice, to succeed Mr. Ford, a County Democrat; then, to make all things satisfactory, Aqueduct Secretary John C. Sheehan (brother of the Lieutenant-Governor), was appointed Police Commissioner to succeed Voorhis, at the nominal sum of $5,000 per annum. This kept the Voorhis faction solid for Tammany, and shows why Voorhis did not join either the Steckler party, or other factionists. Mr. Voorhis received appointments respectively from Mayors Havemeyer, Cooper and Grace. Mr. Voorhis was always a Democrat. He early joined the County Democracy, but bolted it in 1890, to set up his own wing, called somewhat ostentatiously, the New York Democracy. In the election of 1891 he claimed to have carried 20,000 votes."

One of the spicy episodes illustrative of the contests, and also semi-affiliations between Tammany and the County, Democracy, took place in the autumn of 1886, and related to the nomination of Abram S. Hewitt for Mayor. Tammany had previously rejected the nomination of Mr. Hewitt as an unsuitable candidate, for Governor, when he was nominated for that office by the County Democracy, and was consequently severely criticised by political opponents for its apparently inconsistent action in 1886. In the State convention held the previous year, when Mr. Hewitt was nominated for Governor, he had received but 33 votes out of 384, and the attitude of Tammany was held responsible for this signal failure. Greatly chagrined at the result, the County Democracy held a meeting, at which the following resolution was passed, Mr. Hewitt being at that time a member of that wing of the Democracy:

"Resolved, That it is for the interest of the party, in the City and State, that the constant deals and disgraceful trades between the rival county conventions and their favorite candidates should cease. The issue between Tammany Hall and the New York County Democracy is perfectly clear and well defined. In the former the leaders, or bosses, control their organization for personal and selfish objects. The issue we make with Tammany Hall must be met, and decided. The cause of good government, the cause of honest administration of municipal affairs and the cause of the peace of the party itself, demand it."

To this assault, at a meeting held soon after, Tammany made the following scathing reply:

"The declaration that disgraceful trades and deals between the rival County Conventions 'must cease' is at least an admission that these immaculate statesmen have invited and participated in such deals during the past; and the assertion that they were 'disgraceful' is a cheerful confession of infamy by men who ask public confidence on account of the purity of their methods. The sentiments of opposition to 'disgraceful deals and bargains,' which the members of the County Democracy profess, are as fervent as new-born convictions usually are. Their abortive attempt to induce this organization to unite with them in support of a preposterous candidate for Governor, at the last State Convention, might be considered an attempt to make a particularly disgraceful bargain or deal.... The peaceful overtures of this convention have been rejected in the name of good government, and sound politics, by a tumultuous disorderly mob of employees from. the city departments, acting under the dictation of a band of political mercenaries, whose shameful abuse of public trusts has escaped the corrective process of the criminal courts, through the imbecility or connivance of the District Atttorney."

A principal cause of Tammany's rejection of Hewitt, when nominated for Governor, was a speech he made soon after connecting himself with the County Democracy, and which was delivered at Cooper Union. He said: "As to Tammany Hall and John Kelly, here is to be found the proximate cause of our defeat