CHAPTER XXV.

MICHAEL WALSH.

VERY vital personality which once made an integral part of the Tammany Hall political forces was the Hon. Michael Walsh, better remembered, perhaps, by his abbreviated name of "Mike." If he was in active politics now, he would probably be accused of being a Socialist, so ardent were his feelings in regard to everything bearing on the welfare of the working classes; but in his day the word had not become acclimated in America. Even the pungent Democracy of Tammany Hall was not broad enough to satisfy his aspirations after "liberty, fraternity and equality." Mr. Walsh's active career in politics commenced early in the "40's," a period of intense partisan excitement. Honorable gentlemen, both in the State Legislature and in Congress, indulged in an amount and virulence of personalities which would not now be tolerated.

Born and bred in New York City, in the Third Ward, he had all the characteristics of the young American let loose, with the addition of a veritable genius for effective oratory and a political discernment exceedingly rare in those whose early years have been largely consumed in manual labor. In later life, Mr. Walsh became a lumber merchant near the same locality where he had formerly worked with his hands. His intensity of conviction overcame the lack of scholastic training, and he became a clear and forcible writer on his favorite topics, as well as a brilliant orator.

Among his political followers he early attained the unique distinction of being considered as "always right." This was particularly true of his large constituency in the Fourteenth Ward, in which he resided for many years while in active politics. His cardinal principle was never to allow his followers to take a defensive position, but always the aggressive, even if physical force was necessary, which sometimes happened in those days at the polls, there being then no registry law and, consequently, many more chances of disorder. His followers were systematically divided into sections, each having their captain and lieutenant. Among these were Edward Sprague, who was commonly called "Major," the two Chanfraus, Henry and Joseph, John Ketcham, George Isaacs, John Austin and "Governor" McElroy. The discipline of the rank and file was very effective. He was sometimes called the "perpetual critic," because he was perpetually criticising the management of the political leaders in Tammany Hall, and though a useful and hard-working ally when the need arose, he was apt to be something of a thorn in the flesh at times.

In 1847, when in the State Legislature, a member from the rural district of Otsego took advantage on an occasion of Mr. Walsh's absence to make an unmanly attack upon him, his career and his constituency; going so far as to describe the latter as "dirty Democrats." Of course, Walsh was informed of what had taken place. To say that the lion was aroused would not begin to express his state of mind. Seizing upon the first opportunity which occurred,

Mr. Walsh entered upon a dissection of his assailant, a Mr. Fenno, with such a verbal avalanche of sarcastic retorts as would have made even Randolph of Roanoke pale with envy, and can only be compared in the sharpness of its virus, to the arraignment of the Duke of Grafton by Junius. Repeatedly Mr. Fenno appealed to the Chair for protection, but the whole Assembly sympathized with Mr. Walsh, feeling that Mr. Fenno had brought his punishment upon himself by his unwarranted attack on the New York member, and particularly by the unjustifiable stigma he had cast on Mr. Walsh's constituency. The Chair declined to interfere until the evident misery of his victim appeared to touch the feelings of even the angry orator, who had by this time made Mr. Fenno appear absolutely ridiculous, the Assembly having been repeatedly convulsed with laughter. At last Mr. Walsh, looking his subdued and utterly humiliated assailant in the face, concluded thus: "You can go, but remember, for the future, that bull-frogs should never undertake to grapple with lions." Nor did any one else attempt to assail Michael Walsh while he was a member of the State Legislature, to which after his first term of service had expired, he was re-elected. Subsequently, when Walsh was sent to Congress, he had a somewhat similar victorious contest with a Western member. On his renomination to Congress, in 1854, he was defeated by John Kelly, probably the only man at that time in New York who could have beaten him. Micheal Walsh first won his oratorical spurs in a speech at Tammany Hall against the "Know-Nothing" element to which he was most vehmently opposed, claiming that the sooner foreigners were admitted to the franchise, the sooner they became Americanized and good citizens.

T

CHAPTER XXVI.

WHO OWNS TAMMANY HALL?

O MOST outsiders it is more or less of a mystery how a society. incorporated as a purely benevolent association has grown to represent the most permanent political organization in the country. Another query to the uninitiated has been where to draw the line between the Sachems of the Columbian Order and the active politicians who run what is popularly known as the "Tammany machine," the same names frequently appearing in both rolls. The facts are not so difficult of explanation as they appear on the surface.

As stated in Chapter I, the founders of the Tammany Society, though not all then bearing the name of Democrats (or as they were then called Republicans), were, in fact, invariably persons imbued with Democratic ideas, as opposed to Federalism. As time advanced these early intuitions became more fixed and permanent. At the time of the incorporation of the Society it had become practically partisan in its character, though not claiming to be such, but only thoroughly American. Its form of application to the Legislature, and probably its then intent, was only for the purpose of looking after the welfare of its own members and their families, but in politics they were then, nearly all, anti-Federal. For over twenty years of the early existence of the Society it occupied hired halls and places of meeting, the rent being paid out of the general treasury, but in 1811-12, when their first permanent building was erected, it became absolute owner of the same. At first its large hall, particularly the ball-room, was let for temporary occupancy to various associations and parties, without much attention to the nature of the occupant's politics, but it was not very long before the question arose: "Should the Hall, owned by the Columbian Order, be let to political parties opposed to the doctrines of Democracy? Of course, discussion followed. as, by refusing to so let, a certain loss of revenue must be reckoned on; but principle triumphed over financial considerations, and it was finally decided that, though the Hall might be let for miscellaneous purposes, such as balls, banquets, etc., of a simply social character, and for lectures on scientific and literary subjects, it should not be let to or allowed to be used by opposing political parties.

A case which occurred in 1853, and therefore well within the memory of many of our readers, will illustrate, perhaps, better than any other mode of explanation how the Society, the successors of the original founders, controlled the use of the building.

In February of 1853, the Grand Council of the Society of Tammany or the Columbian Order issued a special "Address" on this very subject, and in defence of a recent decision made by them, "Relative to the Political Use of Tammany Hall." The Hall was then on the corner of Nassau and Frankfort streets, the present site of The Sun building. The substance of this address was as follows:

"Brothers, the action of the Grand Council, in a certain case recently decided, has been assailed. It is right that you should know the facts. You are scattered abroad through every State of our beloved Union, but your hearts are here with us, and our reputation is