PRESIDENT
ARTHUR
_______
SYNOPSIS OF ADDRESS.
I.
SADNESS
OF THE OCCASION.
II.
THE TRIBUTES TO ARTHUR'S MEMORY.
III.
ARTHUR'S LIFE TO THE CLOSE OF HIS COLLECTORSHIP.
IV.
ARTHUR'S NOMINATION FOR VICE-PRESIDENT.
V.
ARTHUR AS PRESIDENT.
VI.
ARTHUR'S REVIVAL OF THE NAVY.
VII.
ARTHUR'S SPECIAL RELATION TO SLAVERY AND TAU WAR FOR THE UNION.
VIII.
ARTHUR'S TRAITS OF CHARACTER AS DESCRIBED BY
HIS FRIENDS.
MR.
CHANDLER'S ADDRESS.
______
This
occasion must have a prevailing tone of sadness, first, because we cannot fail
to take notice that while the four years' term for which Garfield and Arthur were
elected is only eighteen years behind us, the leaders and nearly all the members
of the administration have passed from earth. "Vanity of vanities, saith
the preacher; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labor which he
taketh under the sun? One generation passeth away and another generation cometh.
SADNESS OF THE OCCASION.
Garfield
was inaugurated March 4, 1881, and was fatally stricken by the bullet of the
assassin on the 2nd of the next July. Arthur survived his term, which ended March
4, 1885, only until November 18, 1886. Blaine, Windom, Kirkwood, and Hunt; Frelinghuysen,
Folger, Howe, Brewster, McCulloch, Gresham, and Hatton have gone from earth. Only
McVeagh and James, Teller, Lincoln and myself --five out of thirteen --still live
as the survivors of an administration not so very long ago in existence. "For
we are but of yesterday and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow
and there is none abiding." "Man is like to Vanity.
His days are as a shadow that passeth away."
1
In
accordance
with invariable custom, as the impressive beginning of the inauguration of Pope
Pius X a torch of flax was held aloft which flamed up for a few seconds and then
wholly died out, whereupon the chaplain chanted the anthem, "Sic transit
gloria mundi.
Moreover,
the gloomy thoughts thus suggested are deepened as we approach consideration of
the career of President Arthur, by the solemn fact that he came to occupy and
administer his high office only by reason of the untimely taking off by assassination
of the president elected by the people. It has been my fortune to know and to
converse with eleven presidents, beginning with President Pierce, from my own
state, who employed me as a boy in his pleasant service in the summer and fall
of 1852, and made me his guest at the White House in March, 1855. By the three
martyred presidents I was treated with exceeding kindness and consideration. President
Lincoln, in March, 1865, signed my commission as judge-advocate-general of the
navy, and decided upon my subsequent transfer to the treasury department as assistant
secretary, which, however, did not take place while he was alive. President Garfield
nominated me for solicitor-general in the department of justice; and President
McKinley in many ways by his courtesies and other evidences of good will gained
my deepest affection. These personal facts it is proper for me to mention in order
to emphasize the effect upon me of the recollection of the tragic endings of the
lives of these presidents of the Republic.
Waiting
a few weeks ago in the ante-room of Presi
2
dent
Roosevelt, and noticing the absence of all mere form and ceremony and of all
signs of power at the White House, the same as in the days of 1865, 1881, and
1897, it was to me most difficult to realize that I had been very near to and
had almost witnessed the shooting to bloody death of three presidents by the
foul hands of brutal assassins. Are the unostentatious chiefs of a Republican
state, holding their offices for only four years, who are powerless to take
away any liberties or privileges of the people, to be no safer from the bullets
and bombs of regicides than the tyrant upon a despotic throne, who, if not forcibly
removed, may for the whole of a long lifetime oppress his helpless subjects?
Great as was the horror and grief of the American people at the murders of
their presidents, it is some relief to realize, as we now do, that in each of
the three cases the assassin stood practically alone in his deed of murder,
and represented no desire of any considerable number of persons of any class,
either south or north. Thank Heaven, our future presidents have no lessons in
conduct to take to heart by reason of the frenzied and fatal assaults on three
of their predecessors, made by wretched beings as to each of whom it may be
said that his motive cannot be comprehended, and that the responsibility for
his senseless act was his alone.
THE TRIBUTES TO ARTHUR'S MEMORY.
But,
however painful may be the feelings first aroused on the recollection of the
circumstances of the accession of Chester A. Arthur to the presidency, there
is nothing but joyousness in recalling the man himself, his charac-
3
ter
and conduct, and his relations with his fellow-men in private and public life.
Tributes to his memory have been spoken since his death by friends who knew
and loved him well. When the legislature of the state of New York honored their
citizen by appropriate proceedings in the capitol at Albany on April 20,
1887,
Benjamin H. Brewster spoke with elegance of diction and deep emotion concerning
the characteristics of the president whom he had admired and served as attorneygeneral
in his cabinet. At the same time Chauncey M. Depew, with more than his usual
felicity, depicted Arthur's °I
high
qualities;-his magnanimity, his gentleness, and all the other traits of his
nature which have commanded our love and honor." At a stated meeting of the
bar of the city of New York on December 13, 1887, Daniel G. Rollins laid upon
the altar of the memory of the president, with whom he had been most intimate,
a recital of affectionate and judicious praise.
Ben
Perley Poore, in the Bay State Monthly for May, 1884, while Arthur was
living, gave a brief sketch of his career; and, as a journalist of wide experience,
expressed in terms of moderation his favorable judgment of the president and his
existing administration.
On
June 13, 1899, personal friends unveiled in Madison Square a bronze statue of
President Arthur, and its formal presentation to New York city was made by Elihu
Root, our present secretary of war, who spoke of Arthur as one of his personal
associates and friends in his home, 11 who knew him as he was and admired and
loved him long before the world knew him."
4
The
friend of President Arthur, who now speaks to you, during the summer of 1886,
while the subject of his thought was painfully passing on toward the future
life, prepared a sketch of his career for Appleton's Cyclopaedia of American
Biography, which, except in the , closing paragraph, is only a narration made
with an accuracy which time has tested without complaint of the principal events
of Arthur's life, including his service as president.
Therefore
it is not my purpose to give the time which I am on this occasion permitted to
consume to any complete or lengthy repetition of facts of varying magnitude which
I have once carefully recorded in memory of the president who charmed me by his
unvarying friendship, and honored me by employing and sustaining me as the head
of the navy department during three years of his administration. I wish only (
1 ) to speak of the circumstances which led to his nomination as vice-president;
(2 ) to recall briefly some of the work of his administration as president; (3)
to dwell specially upon the most important part of his career; his opposition
to slavery and his zeal in the war for the Union, which together led to his public
prominence; and (4) to endeavor to depict the character of the man, coming from
heredity and his varied experiences, as that character was seen and understood
by those who knew him best.
ARTHUR'S
LIFE TO THE CLOSE OF HIS COLLECTORSHIP.
The childhood
of Arthur was fortunate. Born October 5, 1830, in a secluded Vermont village,
in this
5
lovely
town of Fairfield, his education was supervised by a patient, noble father,
the Rev. William Arthur, who was a clergyman, an author, and for a time the
principal of a country academy at Williston, Vermont, who spared no pains in
the instruction of his oldest bay. Under these conditions it is no wonder that
the exemplary youth, of gentle manners and sweet disposition, made rapid progress
in his books and became himself a teacher, and when eighteen years of age was
graduated at Union college, Schenectady, in New York, to which state his family
had removed in his earliest days.Few
distractions delayed the young man while studying law, and at the age of twenty-three
he was admitted to the bar in New York city, and had moderate success from the
first. Coming of age at the precise time when both the great political parties
had declared that the compromises of 1850 were a finality, and that thereafter
there should be no agitation of the slavery question, he voted as a Henry Clay
Whig for General Scott for president, but, by reason of his anti-slavery sentiments,
immediately entered into the work of combining the forces of liberty in the organization
of a new and true party, the Republican party of 1856. Before the war began, but
when 'the war clouds were in the horizon, on January 1, 1861, when he was only
thirty years of age, Gov. Edwin D. Morgan appointed him engineer-in-chief of the
militia of the state of New York with the rank of brigadier-general,
and he began his unpretentious but indispensable and important work, which he
continued as acting quartermaster-general, and as inspector-general, of so organizing
the forces of the Empire state that
6
this
commonwealth was able promptly to respond to the calls of President Lincoln
for troops for the suppression of the slaveholders' rebellion.
With
the exception of an inspection of the New York troops in the army of the Potomac,
he did not serve actively in the field; but, enlarging his law practice in 1862,
he also became active in Republican politics, and so continued for ten years,
working quietly but faithfully in, private and public duties, until, on November
20, 1871, he vas appointed by President Grant collector of the port of New York,
which post he held until suspended by President Hayes in July, 1878.
Mr.
Arthur's record as collector of the port of New York is as immaculate as is
his record seven years later as president of the United States. Why, then, was
that man removed from the smaller office who was worthy of the highest post
in this government? The true reason is easily seen and is unmistakable. He was
removed by President Hayes for political reasons,-in order to help one faction
in New York Republican politics in its efforts to overcome another faction.
General
Grant had been president for eight years. Senator Conkling had been made one
among several candidates for the presidential nomination in 1876, and the New
York state convention of March 27th elected delegates favorable to him, led
by Alonzo B. Cornell, then naval officer of the customs, and at the Cincinnati
convention held on June 14., 1876, sixty-nine of the delegates voted for Mr.
Conkling, while one delegate, George William Curtis, voted for Benjamin H. Bristow,
who was the candidate of the Reform Republi
7
cans,
so called, of New York and elsewhere. James G. Blame was the leading candidate
in the convention, so that the friends of all the others, Conkling of New
York, Morton of Indiana, Bristow of Kentucky, Hartranft of Pennsylvania, and
Hayes of Ohio, combined to defeat the candidate from Maine, who, nevertheless,
came very near to the nomination, receiving on the seventh ballot 351 Out
of 756 votes, lacking only twenty of the number necessary to nominate.
How
was Mr. Blame defeated and Mr. Hayes nominated? The former's name begun with
296 votes on the first ballot and went up to 351 on the seventh. Mr. Hayes'
name begun with sixty-four and went up to 384 on the seventh, which nominated
him by twelve majority. When the necessary retirements of candidates in order
to defeat Mr. Blame began, and Morton's name with its eighty-five votes, Bristow's
with ninety of its 111 votes, and Hartranft's with its fifty votes had been
withdrawn, sixty-one of the seventy New York votes were cast, by Mr. Conkling's
desire, for Mr. Hayes, and New York thus adversely decided the fate of Mr. Blame
and gave to the successful candidate his triumph.
Had
it not been for the strong will of the masterful senator from New York, communicated
to his supporters and to Secretary J. Donald Cameron of Pennsylvania, the result
of the convention, by the free will of a decided majority of its delegates,
would have given an overwhelming decision for Mr. Blame. But Mr. Conkling and
his lieutenants, saying to themselves, 11 Let us not forget," deliberately supplanted
James G. Blame as
8
the
desired candidate of the Republicans of the country and named in his place Rutherford
B. Hayes.
In
the close political canvass that ensued in the state of New York-where Mr. Cornell
had been a candidate for governor in the state convention but so opposed by the
name of Mr. William Al. Evarts, supported by the Reform Republicans led by Mr.
Curtis, that his name was withdrawn and ex-Governor Morgan nominated--Messrs.
Arthur and Cornell made greater exertions than they ever made in any other campaign;
and subsequently General Arthur's activity in connection with the contested countings
in the Southern states was of vital importance.
Seldom,
if ever, in the history of politics in a republic has there been exhibited such
ingratitude and injustice as are shown by the sequel of the tribulations through
which Mr. Hayes came to be president,
Mr. Evarts.secretary of state, and John Sherman secretary of the treasury. Forgetful
of the strange circumstances of the presidential nomination and election and the
duty they obviously owed to the Republican party in New York, then in the minority,
to reconcile factions and promote. harmony in all directions, the officials I
have named, urged forward by Mr. Curtis and his associates, deliberately decided
to drive from their places Messrs. Arthur and Cornell and to transfer the power
and patronage of their offices to the use of a minority faction in the Republican
party.
This
was not an easy thing to do, even for reformers willing to subordinate their pledges
for reform to their unsubdued desire for spoils and factional power. Pres
9
ident
Hayes in his inaugural of March 5, 1877, had declared in favor of civil service
reform; and that every officer "should be secure in his tenure so long
as his personal character remained untarnished and the porformance of his duties
satisfactory."
Yet
the seizure of the spoils could not be forborne,. and, as the characters of
Arthur and Cornell could not be assailed, it was necessary to aver and make a
show of proving that their duties at the custom house were not satisfactorily
performed. This transparent comedy was quickly undertaken. Special agents and
special commissions were set to work, spying, reporting, faultfinding, and condemning,
but it took four reports of the John Jay commission to lay a basis upon which
Secretary Sherman .would venture to act. In September, 1877, Collector Arthur
was requested to resign, yet this unsatisfactory officer was at the same time
offered a foreign mission, a newspaper announcement having been made on the previous
day that at a cabinet meeting it had been determined to remove him. When Mr. Arthur,
under such conditions, declined voluntarily to retire, the hostile pursuit became
fierce and relentless. On October 24th Theodore Roosevelt, father of President
Roosevelt, was nominated to the senate for collector, and L. Bradford Prince for
naval officer. On November 30th they were reported adversely by the committee
on commerce, but no action was taken by the senate and the nominations failed
with the session. December 6th they were renominated; on December 11th reported
adversely, and on December 12th rejected by a vote of twenty-five to thirtyone;
and no other
10
nominations
were made, although the senate remained in session for more than six months.
On July 11, 1878, and after its adjournment, Messrs. Arthur and Cornell were
suspended and Edwin A. Merritt designated as collector and Silas W. Burt as
naval officer, and they took possession of the offices. Their nominations were
sent to the senate December 3, 1878, and reported adversely January 27, 1879,
but the influence of the administration was sufficient to secure their confirmation
on February 3, 1879, by a vote of thirty-three to twenty-four.
It
can easily be understood that Collector Arthur made vigorous defence against
the complaints of his official service. These related principally to the systems
of removals and new appointments in the custom house, to promotions, and to various
methods of administration; no one of the charges being in any respect serious
in its nature and all being completely and conclusively refuted in a letter of
Arthur to Secretary Sherman on November 23, 1877, and a letter to Senator Conkling,
chairman of the committee on commerce, on January 21, 1879.
It
may be safely said by the friends of Messrs. Arthur and Cornell that there is
nothing, in the long list of complaints, of any gravity, or which in the slightest
degree tends to impugn their reputations as upright customs officers, faithful
in the highest degree to their duty to their superiors and to their country.
The
elaborated criticisms of their conduct are nothing but trivial incidents, magnified
and distorted, and reiterated after refutation, in order to constitute some
pretence
for
the foregone determination to remove
faithful officers in violation of repeated public pledges to commit no such unjustifiable
acts. The criticisms made no impression whatever upon the minds of senators. What
secured the confirmation of Messrs. Merritt and Burt was the closing declaration
of Secretary Sherman, in his letter to the senate of December 15, 1879, that the
restoration of the suspended officers would create discord and contention, be
unjust to the president and personally embarrassing to the secretary, and that,
as Collector Arthur's term of service would expire December 1i7, 1879, his restoration
would be temporary, as the president would send in another name or suspend him
again after the adjournment of the senate.
Senator
Sherman in his "Book
of Recollections," published in 1895, gives chapter thirty-five to an effort to
justify the removal of Arthur and Cornell. He might well be anxious to succeed
in his attempt. When he conducted the removal to what he calls "the
final triumph of President Hayes" he was an avowed candidate for president, not
doubting that an Ohio president would be succeeded by another from Ohio, as indeed
he was, but by Garfield and not by himself. When he wrote his chapter he must
have realized that his unfortunate assault upon Arthur made the latter vice-president
and president, and he could not but feel that the New York delegation to the convention
of 1880, headed by Conkling and Arthur,, had made inevitable his own defeat in
that convention. But his attempted defense is fatal to him, and shows that the
persistent efforts of the Hayes administration from 1877 to 1879 to displace
12
Arthur and Cornell were not an honest movement for civil
service reform, but were, as I am sure and insist, a mere factional attempt
to obtain the spoils of office and political power to be used in the coming
presidential convention of 1880.
It
is true that
the movement began ostensibly to promote reforms in administration, and Mr. Sherman
in his letter to Arthur of May 28, 1877, said that what was desired was a
"
reform of
old abuses which existed many years before you became collector." But very soon
President Hayes showed the object to be merely one of removal; and after reading
the foregone conclusions of the Jay report of August 31,
he announced his desire to
11
make a change in the three leading offices in the New York custom house." Mr.
Sherman says of Mr. Hayes' decision: "He wished to place it upon the ground
that he thought the public service would be best promoted by a general change;
that new officers would be more likely to make the radical reforms required than
those then in the custom house." On September 6th Mr. Sherman wrote Assistant
Secretary McCormick, then near New York, that the public interests demanded the
change ; that there had been a cordial assent of the cabinet, and that "a
public announcement of that character was authorized"; and he adds, "I hope
General Arthur will be recognized in a most complimentary way."
Yet
the plan of inducing Arthur
and Cornell to resign did not make progress. Mr. Sherman
says, « The president was quite willing to base his request for their resignation,
not upon the ground that they were guilty
13
of the offences charged, but that new officers could probably deal with the
reorganization of the custom house with more freedom and success than the incumbents."
Mr. Sherman adds that he also saw General Arthur and °1
explained
to him the view taken by the president and his desire not in any way to reflect
upon the collector and his associates, Cornell and Sharpe," and he says that he
believed that « these gentlemen would resign and that their character and merits
would be recognized, possibly by appointment to other offices."
On
October 15th he wrote to Arthur: 44 I regret to, hear from Mr. Evarts that you
decline the consulship at Paris, which I supposed would be very agreeable to you."
Doubtless Mr. Evarts, in a humorous spirit and with a grave face, explained to
Arthur the policy of his reform associates by saying: « Of course we must remove
you. Our principle is against removals for political reasons only. Your principle
favors such removals. Therefore we remove you in order to give our principle a
good start. When we have taken possession of the offices on your principle we
shall vigorously enforce our own."
It
is difficult to imagine how all these proceedings can be treated as consistent
with the ostentatiously proclaimed Hayes-Sherman fundamental principle of civil
service reform-that incumbents of subordinate offices shall be secure in their
places and free from political removals. In one place Mr. Sherman grotesquely
says that there were "specific charges but of a general character." Elsewhere
he grows bolder,
14
and
incorrectly says "specific
and definite charges were made against the incumbents." His true motive is apparent
when he says that « it soon became manifest that these gentlemen had no purpose
to resign, and that Senator Conkling intended to make a political contest against
the policy of civil service reform inaugurated by President Hayes."
On
January 31,
1879,
he appealed to Senator Allison thus : "If the restoration of Arthur is insisted
upon, the whole liberal element will be against us, and it will lose us tens of
thousands of votes without doing a particle of good." "It will be a personal
reproach tome." "Arthur will not go back into the office. This contest will be
continued, and the only result of all this foolish madness will be to compel a
Republican administration to appeal to a Democratic senate for confirmation of
a collector at New York."
That
is to say: "Four votes are necessary to change the rejection to a confirmation,
and we stand ready to bargain with the Democrats to secure the four unless that
number of Republicans will recede." What wonder that the power of the national
administration obtained the four needed votes and four more, which raised the
majority for the "principle of reform " to nine !
Mr.
Sherman also wrote to Senator Morrill what he describes as I
I a
much longer letter, giving reasons in detail in favor of confirmation, and containing
specific charges of neglect of duty on the part of Arthur and 'Cornell, but I
do not care to revive them."
This
whole story is almost incredible, but it stands recorded in Mr. Sherman's deliberate
words. First the
15
denial
that there were charges, the request to resign and accept other honorable offices,
and at last the revelation that charges were privately made which L
were
concealed from the honorable gentlemen against whom they were made, and have not
seen the light even to this day. It is easy to see the feelings and motives which
influenced Mr. Sherman, when he says as to the last nominations, those of Merritt
and Burt: "I had definitely made up my mind that if the senate again rejected
them I would resign. I would not hold an office when my political friends forced
me to act through unfriendly subordinates." Here behold the spirit of Mr. Sherman's
kind of civil service reform. He should have said, "unfriendly subordinates
who will work against my nomination for president in 1880." Finally, he attempts
to felicitate himself that the result of the controversy with Arthur and Cornell
"was supported by public opinion generally throughout the United States," and
to prove his assertion adds only this : "I enclose a letter from John Jay
upon the subject." This letter is one of congratulation that the custom house
is no longer to be "a center of partisan political management." What a spectacle!
Mr. Jay, as the author of
the
pretences for the proscription and as the whole public, approves of the methods
by which the civil service reformers had wrested from the other side by duplicity
and false pretence the weapons of factional political accomplishment.
16
ARTHUR'S NOMINATION FOR VICE-PRESIDENT.
Looking
backward, after twenty-four years, it is interesting to see how surely and speedily
came the vindication, which was inevitable as soon as the controversy between
the administration and the wrongfully removed officials was remitted to the Republicans
of New York for their deliberate opinion and their responsive action. Mr. Cornell
was nominated for governor of New York September 3, 1879, and elected November
4, and Mr. Arthur was considered as a candidate for United States senator for
the term to begin March 4, 1881.
Upon
retiring from the office of collector, General Arthur resumed law practice as
a member of the firm of Arthur, Phelps, Knevals & Ransom; but he continued
to be active in politics, and in 1880
advocated
the nomination of General Grant to succeed President Hayes. He was a delegate-at-large
to the Chicago convention which met June 2,
and
during the heated preliminary contest before the Republican national committee,
which threatened to result in the organization of two independent conventions,
he conducted for his own side the conferences with the controlling anti-third-term
delegates relative to the choice of a temporary presiding officer, and the arrangement
of the preliminary roll of delegates in the cases to be contested in the convention.
The result of the conferences was an agreement by which all danger was avoided;
and when, upon the opening of the convention an attempt was made in consequence
of a misunderstanding on the part of certain
17
Grant
delegates to violate this agreement, he resolutely adhered to it, and insisted
upon and secured its observance. Too much credit cannot be given to Mr. Arthur
for his tactful and conciliatory course on this occasion.
The
prolonged and bitter controversy in the national committee grew out of the refusal
of Chairman Cameron to say that if the convention should divide upon the question
of electing as chairman of the convention the nominee to be proposed by vote of
the committee, being Senator Hoar, an Edmunds delegate, against any Grant delegate
who might he proposed, he would not undertake to enforce the unit rule. The question
seemed likely to be a vital one. A vast majority of the committee were determined
to run no risks, and even went so far as to decide that a new chairman of the
committee must be elected to call the convention to order. The arrangement of
the preliminary roll of delegates from certain states included those from Utah
and Louisiana. The controversies over these two questions were adjusted with difficulty,
but they were adjusted on the very morning of the first meeting of the convention,
Mr. Arthur representing the Grant delegates. His insistence upon the observance
of the agreement which had been made took place in connection with the colloquy
between Senator Frye and Senator Conkling at the beginning of the proceedings,
when, by accident, the territory of Utah had not been called. What the report
does not show is Mr. Arthur's vigorous and imperative remonstrance with Mr. Conkling,
which led to the tatter's withdrawal of his objection to Mr. Frye's request in
behalf of Utah.
18
As the convention
proceeded, it appeared that a majority of the delegates had combined to defeat
General Grant for a third term, and that a majority, differently made up, had
combined to defeat Mr. Blame; and that the nomination of Mr. Sherman was impossible.
When, on the thirty-sixth ballot, General Garfield,
citizen of the West, was selected as the most available nominee by a combination
of the Blaine delegates and other anti--Grant delegates, the nomination of Arthur
for vice--president, as an advocate of Grant and a resident of the state of
New York, was inevitable. Before the roll-call began, the foregone conclusion
was evident. He received 468 votes against 283 for
all others, and the nomination was made unanimous.
The
canvass which ensued was closely contested,
with General Hancock as the Democratic candidate for president, but the Republican
party became well united and was successful. Grant, Conkling, and Blame gave willing
support to the ticket. New York state gave Garfield and Arthur a plurality of
21,000 against a plu rality in 1876 for Tilden and Hendricks of 32,000
Familiar to every person present are the vents so rapidly following the inauguration
on March 4 1881of Garfield and Arthur;--the factional controversy in the Republican
party, the nomination by Garfield for collector of New York of William H. Robertson,
the leader of the anti-third-term delegates in the Chicago convention, the resignation
of Senators Conklmg and Platt, their defeat for reelection m the legislature of
New York, although actively aided by Vice-President Arthur, the assassination
of Garfield, July 2, 1881, his
19
death
on September 19th, and Arthur's elevation from the vice-presidency to the presidency.
ARTHUR AS PRESIDENT.
Naturally
and wisely the administration brought into power by such extraordinary events
was conservative and conciliatory in every possible direction. If an opportunity
for turning the tables by one faction in the dominant political party upon another
,faction was afforded by the tragic events of a few months, President Arthur refused
to take the advantages thus offered to him. He recognized little if any difference
between the faction to which he had belonged and that which he had opposed, and
he endeavored to obliterate all distinctions within his party. There is an impression
that Mr. Conkling, then in private life, urged that a less conciliatory policy
should be pursued, but I have no evidence that such a desire was expressed. At
all events, the desire, if it existed, had no influence upon the president, who,
however, treated his former leader with real consideration, nominating him as
a justice of the supreme court, which office he did not accept, but he did not
give way to the urgings, if any were made, for the removal of Collector Robertson,
who served from August 1, 1881, to July 1, 1885, or for the indulgence in any
other revengeful or factional act.
Nor
did the times or circumstances demand that there should be an administration
straining for effect or exhibiting exciting deeds or promoting radical measures;
but the contrary course was the true and patriotic conduct. The whole service
of President Arthur seems to
have
been performed with wisdom and ability. Between his participation on October
19, 1881, in the dedication of the Yorktown monument and his address as a part
of the ceremonies attending the completion of the Washington monument on February
21, 1885, there was a long line of administrative acts, none of which have been
severely criticised or justly condemned from any quarter.
The
administration was emphatically one of peace and quietness. Mr. Depew, in the
address to which I have alluded, speaking succinctly of the acts of Arthur, names
two which he says are of dramatic picturesqueness and historical significance;
one, at the Yorktown centennial, when the president directed the firing of a salute
in honor of the British flag, "and especially as a mark of the profound respect
entertained by the American people for the illustrious sovereign and gracious
lady who sits upon the British throne"; the other, the insistence, as the last
act of his administration, on the restoration of citizen Ulysses S. Grant in his
old age and sickness to be again the general of the United States army.
One
assertion I may confidently make, namely, that teach department of the government
was honestly, energetically, and faithfully administered, with the aid and, to
the satisfaction of our president;--the state department by Theodore Frelinghuysen
; the treasury department by Charles J. Folger, Walter Q. Gresham, and Hugh McCulloch;
the war department by Robert T, Lincoln (who was a member of both cabinets, from
march 4, 1881, to March 4, 1885) ; the department of
21
justice
by Benjamin H. Brewster; the post-office department by Timothy O. Hove, Walter
0;, Gresham, and Frank Hatton; and the interior department by Henry M. Teller.
ARTHUR'S
REVIVAL OF THE NAVY
Because to
the credit of the administration of President Arthur belongs the beginning of
the reconstruction of the American navy, which so well served its. purpose in
battle in the year 1898, I may be pardoned, especially as I have been requested
so to do, for saying a few words concerning that important and satisfactory revival.
In
the days of wooden ships and ancient cannon the United States navy made a high
reputation among the nations,--in the War of the Revolution, in the War of 1812,
and in the War for the Union in 1861; and the merchant vessels of America also
came to be superior to those of any other country.
But
during the War for the Union our commercial vessels had to encounter the corsairs
of the Confederacy fitted out in British shipyards, and therefore such merchant
vessels disappeared from the carrying trade of the world. About this time, largely
from the combat of the iron-clad Monitor of Ericsson with the iron-covered
Merrimack, it became apparent that the day of wooden battleships had passed.
Why the United States so long delayed recognition of the radical change in the
character of warships and their armament it is difficult to determine, but in
1882 the lamentable condition of our navy was thus officially described. We
had thirty-three
22
wooden
steamships, but it was said: "They are of low speed, their engines are not
modern, only fourteen being compound, and their steaming, manoeuvring, and destructive
powers are inferior to those of the present warships of other navies." There were
also thirteen single turreted monitors. It was said: "These monitors were
built in 1862 and 1863 ; have no speed; carry each two large smooth-bore guns
of small power and short range; and have been mostly laid up since their use in
the late war. As they are our only vessels for harbor defense they have not yet
been broken up." The guns of the navy were a large number of smooth-bore muzzle-loading
cannon, and some Parrott muzzle-loading forty and eighty pound rifles, and a few
converted rifles, only thirty-six of which were breech-loading. Truly it was said,
"With not one modern high-powered cannon in the navy, and with only eighty-seven
guns worth retaining, the importance of action for the procurement of naval ordnance
seems apparent, if the navy is to longer survive."
It
is more than probable that the delay for sixteen years from 1865 to 1881 in recognizing
changed conditions, in casting aside the old navy and beginning a new navy, grew
out of the unwillingness to supersede the system then existing of building at
large .cost and repairing extravagantly and with dilatoriness the wooden vessels
of the navy in the vast navy yards of the country. But fortunately the work of
dispensing with obsolete ships and guns and building new ones was not too long
delayed. Assistant Secretary Roosevelt, in a paper printed at the government printing
23
office
in 1897, recites the recommendations in favor of a strong navy of the various
presidents,-Washington, John Adams; Madison, Monroe, Tyler, Polk, Lincoln, Grant,
and Arthur; and says:
"After
the close of the Civil War there came a period of reaction and decline. In spite
of President Grant's repeated warnings and protests, a spirit of economy prevailed,
and our navy was suffered to sink below the level of that of even the third-rate
powers. Then, in the middle of President Arthur's administration, the turn came;
the people and their representatives awoke to what was demanded by national self-respect,
the foundations of our present navy were laid, and ever since then under every
administration the work of building it up has gone steadily on."
The
first actual movement for a radical change and the construction of a new navy
not only originated with President Arthur and Secretary William H. Hunts but it
proceeded in a general way upon the lines laid down by an advisory board organized
by that secretary on the 29th of June, 1881. The act of congress of August 5,
1882, was the initial legislation for the discontinuance of extensive repairs
of old wooden ships, the diminution of navy yard expenses, and the beginning of
the construction of a new navy of modern steel ships and guns. Here we find for
the first time in the construction of vessels of the United States the adoption
of homogeneous iron or mild steel of great tensile strength and of great ductility.
Nor
was the desire of the administration confined to a revival of the navy alone,
but the report of the navy
24
department in 1882 asserts that the "interests of the navy are inseparably involved
with those of the commercial marine of the country."
The
spirit of the Arthur administration was further shown by the following unequivocal
declarations of the load of the navy department: "If the naval establishment
is not to be made effective, it should be discontinued, and the fifteen, millions
annually expended should be reserved to procure, in national emergencies, the
assistance of foreign ships and guns. If governmental measures are not soon adopted
to promote the parrying trade and to arrest the disappearance of American ships
from the ocean, we shall soon cease to be a seafaring people and shall not need
to maintain a navy of our own. These are strong expressions, but they are justified
and required by the present condition of cur naval and maritime interests."
These,
then, were the beginnings
of the new modern navy. The sequel the world knows. In the senate on July 15,
1892, I lad the privilege of saying:
"Assuming
that all the old wooden vessels
will soon go out of existence and that two years from now we shall have no vessels
except the new ones already built or authorized by congress, there will be a fleet
con- in ten years which will be the equal of any fleet of a similar general and
diversified character that can be made up from any navy in the world."
On
May 13th I expressed an opinion as to our future policy:
"Coast defence should be amply provided for. All the arts of naval warfare
should be kept alive among
25
our people. Industries necessary to the construction of any kind of war vessels
or guns should be domesticated. We should restore the flag of our merchant
ships and revive the carrying trade in American vessels in all the waters and
in all the commercial ports of the globe, and protect our mercantile marine when
thus
reestablished.
"We
should construct and maintain a navy superior, to that of any nation of the western.
hemisphere, and to that of the nation owning the island of Cuba; and there we
can stop, it is to be hoped, for many years."
Six years later, on March 7, 1898, I ventured to predict as follows with reference
to the coming naval war:
Spain
will probably not release
her hold upon Cuba without a collision of war with the United States which will
last from fifteen minutes to three months; no longer. Our Asiatic squadron from
safe harbors will watch its chance to descend upon the Philippine Islands, where
rebellion will break out anew and they will be lost to Spain . . . . The short
conflict will soon show Spain her helplessness, and she will yield to the inevitable
and make peace and acknowledge the independence of Cuba and Porto Rico . . . .
She will give one gasp, strike one blow, and a short conflict will ensue, the
end of which will come almost before we realize that it has begun. This is my
prediction and confident hope."
Thoughtful
and imaginative persons who like to speculate about what might have been can find
an interesting field of conjecture in the inquiry whether, if there had been four
years' more delay in the destruc
26
tion of the old navy and the beginning of the construction of the new navy, the
Spanish sovereignty in Cuba would have been terminated within a half century,
or in the Philippines within a century. Those senators and representatives in
congress who in the April days of 1898 pressed for an immediate war as the only
means of ending Spanish dominion in this hemisphere, believed that every day's
delay was perilous. So it undoubtedly was. If there had been further delay, Spain
within a few months would have aroused a concert of the Continental powers to
ask the United States not to liberate Cuba, and Spain might have remunerated her
allies by the partition among them of the Philippines.
We
begun our navy none too soon. We promptly made it larger than the navy of the
nation which owned the island of Cuba. The ships and guns of Dewey at Manila,
and of Sampson at Santiago, conferred unsurpassed glory upon the American navy
in a war the most disinterested in the annals of the world's history.
The
last report of the navy department,
that of Secretary Moody of December, 1902 shows that we have eleven vessels classed
as first rates, being nine battleships and two armored cruisers, carrying 360
modern high-power guns as their main batteries; fifteen secondrate war vessels,
consisting of eight protected cruisers, one second-class battleship, two monitors,
and four converted cruisers; seventy-two third-rate and fifty-six fourth-rate
fighting ships ; thirty-three torpedo boats; and miscellaneous vessels without
number; while there are under construction thirty-four combatant ships and
27
thirteen
torpedo-boat destroyers, and seven torpedo boats. The country may well be satisfied
with the progress which has been made in twenty years in the construction of
the navy necessary to make the United States again a great sea power, and of
the use which has so far been made of its new navy. The progress has been unintermitting,
and has been continued alike by both political parties and all presidents and
secretaries of the navy.
ARTHUR'S
SPECIAL RELATION TO SLAVERY AND THE
WAR
FOR THE UNION.
But
while erecting to-day's memorial to Chester A. Arthur, in order to remind those
who knew him of their associate and friend and to challenge the attention of the
present and future generations to the memory of one we delight to honor, we do
not attach the most importance to his acts as president during three and one half
years of unpretentious administration marked by no exciting events or startling
crises;--and as he so soon after retirement lost health and life, there are no
subsequent events except his patience in sickness and his resignation as death
approached from which his admirable character can be learned and understood.
What
he was and what he did as president resulted from the character of the man, and
that character was fully formed when at' the age of fifty-one he became president.
It can be best understood by contemplating his early hostility to American chattel
slavery and his unrestrained zeal for the cause of the Union in the war which
the aggressions of that slavery brought upon the country.
28
Unquestionably the greatest fact in the 115 years of our national life has been
the destruction of slavery through the greatest civil war the world has ever seen.
The change from bondage of five millions of men, women, and children to free citizens
was accomplished by the expenditure in war on the winning side of 300,000 lives
and 6,000 millions of treasure, and attended on the losing side by nearly as great
a loss of life and
by the almost total destruction of property values among nine millions of people.
In
a Decoration day address at Nashua, N. H., on May 30, 1889, I endeavored faithfully
to depict the origin and growth of the anti-slavery struggle. After slavery had
grown from a feeble paternal institution to become through the invention of the
cotton-gin a source
of wealth to the South, it was also soon seen that dispro portionate political
power in the new nation had been unexpectedly given to that section by the clause
in the
constitution which, in fixing a basis for the number of
representatives in congress and presidential electors from each state, had added
to the white population three-fifths of all other persons,--meaning the slaves.
With
this wealth and power at their
command, theslave aristocracy took possession of the national government in all
its branches. When northern consciences were aroused southern interests met every
ten dency by unhesitating measures, and it became the
policy of the South that the slave states should always equal, and if possible
should exceed, the free states in number.
In the beginning the thirteen states were seven free,
29
six
slave; but in 1812 Louisiana was admitted and thenceforth the new states came
only in pairs.-Kentucky and Vermont, Tennessee and Ohio, Indiana and Mississippi,
Illinois and Alabama, Maine and Missouri (the free states here in 1820 gaining
the promise of freedom to all that remained of the Louisiana purchase except Missouri),
Arkansas and Michigan, Florida and Iowa, Texas and Wisconsin.
When
Chester A. Arthur, a boy of fifteen, began to take
an interest in the politics of his country, the admission of Texas was being forced
by the South with the purpose of providing at some time four slave states
from Texan territory, and this was promised in the act of admission. By the time
Arthur had become twenty one and prepared to cast his first vote, northern fears
for the dissolution of the Union had resulted in the compromises of 1850, by which,
however, the North had gained one advantage which the sudden growth of California
had made possible, and the free states again exceeded the slave states in number--sixteen
to fifteen--the South obtaining the organization of New Mexico, which included
what is now Arizona, and of Utah, as territories with no prohibition of slavery
therein; the scandalous and corrupt payment for nothing of ten millions of dollars
to Texas; and a new fugitive slave law.
Now
in truth came the initial mistake of the slave holders which ultimately led, within
a little over a decade, to the total destruction of slavery. Had the South then
stood still and remained on the defensive the accursed institution would have
existed at least
30
over into the twentieth century; but the South had become proud and haughty, the
North had become timid; the "doughface" period had arrived; and under
Pierce and Buchanan, two presidents, aided by Stephen A. Douglas, a presidential
aspirant, the announcement was made that the pledges of 1820 and 1850 were to
be deliberately broken, and that from territory then dedicated to freedom Kansas
and Nebraska should be formed and admitted with slavery, the free state preponderance
destroyed, and a majority of the states for the first time in our history given
to the slave owners.
The
course and outcome of this
new contest for slavery-nationalization and extension is a vivid picture in the
eyes of all Americans, not only of those who saw it, but of those younger citizens
who know it only from narration; the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, the administration
of Pierce and the bloody struggle upon the plains of Kansas, the administration
of Buchanan, the Lecompton constitution, the Dred Scott decision, the rise of
the Republican party, the advent of Abraham Lincoln, the disappearance of the
" doughface," who wished to concede everything to slavery, and of the professional
Union-saver, who was willing to give pledges for perpetual slavery, and the irresistible
determination of the North that slavery should be restricted within its existing
limits, the consecration to liberty of all the great unorganized territories of
the United States, and the ascendency of universal freedom in America.
Even
this determination of the
North would not have
31
brought on the war for slavery if it had not been for the folly and madness of
the slaveholders themselves. After the election and before the inauguration of
Mr. Lincoln compromisers again appeared. Virginia called a voluntary conference,
known as the peace congress, wherein were represented thirteen free and seven
slave states, which recommended new guarantees for the return of fugitive slaves
and for the perpetuation of slavery in the states. The Crittenden compromise,
giving broad similar guarantees, would have beet adopted by congress if it had
been voted for by ail the slave states ; and congress did adopt a proposition
for an amendment to the constitution whereby any future amendment giving the United
States power to abolish slavery in the states was forbidden. In addition to this
prohibition the North was willing (1) to unite in a call for a convention of the
states to settle differences as suggested by Kentucky; (2) to agree to pay the
value of all fugitive slaves not returned to bondage, and (3) to admit the vast
territory of New Mexico, including what is now Arizona, as a slave state.
But
whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. Southern leaders were infatuated
with the idea. of starting and controlling for their own aggrandizewent and power
a great slave nation on this continent. They knew that all the great governments
of Europe, except that of Russia, desired the downfall of the American Union in
order to prevent the growth of a great free republic anywhere in the world and
in order to afford to themselves the opportunities which the Monroe doctrine did
not allow for colonization by the
32
nations of Europe,' within all the available territory of North and South America.
So
the South would accept no new compromise with the Union to remain undisturbed.
Fatuously they determined to meet by secession the issue which, in 1858, Lincoln
at Springfield and Seward at Rochester had foreshadowed--whether as Mr Lincoln
put the question, the government could permanently endure half slave and half
free ; whether the further spread of slavery should be arrested and it should
enter into the course of ultimate extinction, or whether, as Mr. Sewand stated
the case the cotton and rice fields of South Carolina and the sugar plantations
of Louisiana will ultimately be tilled by free labor, and Charleston and New Orleans
become marts for legitimate merchandise only, or else the rye fields and wheat
fields of Massachusetts and New York must again be surrendered by their farmers
to slave culture and to the production of slaves, and Boston and New York become
once more the markets for trade in the bodies and souls of men."
The
Southerners saw the force
of the logic of these great
anti-slavery statesmen and, to avoid the ultimate result predicted by them, decided
to attempt to dissolve the union of the states, to allow a northern free nation,
and to establish a southern slave nation. So resulted the organization of the
Southern Confederacy with Jefferson Davis as its president, Robert E. Lee, a West
Point graduate, an officer of the Union army, as the military chieftain of the
rebellion against his flag, and with slavery as the chief corner-stone of the
nation. The stars and stripes were fired on at Fort Sumter and
33
the great conflict came on, the end of which left the Southern Confederacy but
a name, while the United States stood a free republic with no vestige of slavery
remaining to pollute her soil, degrade her national conscience, or stain her national
honor.
It is easy to see the effect produced upon the mind and heart of a sensitive boy
like Arthur, who, in 1844, begun to comprehend the significance of the political
events going forward under his keen scrutiny;---the election of Polk and the annexation
of Texas through a war with Mexico in order to enlarge the domain of slavery;
and who, in 1852, as a new voter, found his country renewedly pledged to the return
of escaped and hunted fugitive slaves to their cruel masters.
As
soon as the South began its
still further aggressions, he entered with all his soul and strength into the
conflict on the side of humanity. We can see the influence derived from his father's
anti-slavery associations with his friend, Gerritt Smith, and his participation
in the early anti-slavery movements. We can see Arthur after casting his first
vote for president in 1852 enlisting himself as a young lawyer, the partner of
the Free Soiler, Erastus D. Culver, in the successful efforts made to liberate
the slaves of Jonathan Lemmon brought from Virginia to New York on the way to
Texas. Here, in these initial labors for the downtrodden, grew the character of
Arthur which made him strong and great and noble. It is no wonder that when slavery
raised its mailed hands to destroy the Union in order to extend slavery, Arthur,
who had given his sympathies and his friendship to the oppressed, should
34
enter with his whole might into the war for the Union. The character thus formed
governed him in all his actions as a public man in later life; and it is this
char acter which to-day most commands our admiration and respect.
It
is not inappropriate here and now to conjecture what Arthur would do, or try to
do, or wish to do if he lived in this beginning of a new century when the con
dition of the colored race as defined and supposed to be made secure at the close
of the war for the Union by three amendments of the national constitution, is
being
radically and wickedly changed.
The
thirteenth amendment gave freedom to
five millions of slaves. The fourteenth guaranteed to the new citizens the equal
protection of the laws, with the whites, including due process of law when charged
with crime. The fifteenth gave them the right of suffrage as the most potent protection
when exercised, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
But
now so it is that the existing ten
millions of colored citizens are to live and endure under three new principles
whose advocates deliberately defy the constitution of the country. First, they
are not to vote. This is
the avowed purpose of the controlling southern whites. In some states they are
kept from the ballot-box under cunningly contrived constitutions and laws which
are in direct conflict with the fifteenth amendment. In other states intimidation
and violence continue to be the method of suppressing the colored votes. The suppression
is overwhelming, radical, and com
plete by direct purpose of the South. The fifteenth
35
amendment says that congress shall
enforce the right of suffrage by appropriate laws. Congress wholly omits to do
this, and under President Cleveland, in 1894; the national election laws then
existing were repealed. The North continues to submit to their repeal. By the
suppression of the suffrage, southern states obtain a representative in congress
and a presidential elector for every 200,000
of the colored people--fifty congressmen and fifty electors in all for the ten
millions; the power of which fifty congressmen and fifty electors is controlled
and exercised by the white southerners. Possibly these fifty electors will change
the result of the next presidential election. The North continues to submit to
this wrong.
Second,
emboldened by northern apathy
in reference to the suppression of the votes of the colored people, the South
has adopted another principle. The colored men are not to have the equal protection
of the laws in the exercise of their fundamental rights as citizens. When charged
with crime they are not to be duly indicted and formally tried by jury. They are
to be charged with crime by irresponsible mobs; they are to be found guilty by
the outcries of the same mob, and they are to be summarily put to death by the
violent hands of the same mob,--by shooting, hanging, burning, with maiming, mutilation,
and excruciating torture. This is almost the universal practice as to every colored
citizen charged with a crime of violence. This principle is generally adopted
at the South, and it is extending northward. No power of the nation is exerted
to oppose it. No sincere and earnest declaration
36
is made against
it by any political party willing to stake its whole existence on the issue of
the conflict, as were the men of 1856
and
1880.
Third,
not even is the thirteenth amendment
abolishing slavery sacred in the sight of the oppressors of the colored people
of America. The infamous vagrancy laws by which, in 1865,
it
was sought to re-enslave the newly emancipated colored man, but which were, in
1867, swept away by the rising tide of northern indignation, are being
re-enacted thirty-eight years later. in some of the southern states; and the practice
of peonage--the virtual enslavement of colored laborers--has been going forward
for several years without discovery by the North, consequently without resistance.
No
man desires less than I to revive sectional
issues, with the war for secession more than a third of a century behind us, and
a history rather than an experience to most of the American people,--only a history
to the active, influential, and powerful men who control America to-day. But the
wrongs to which I am calling attention are real and terrifying, and they will
not down because it is disagreeable for the politicians of both parties to face
the uncomfortable situation. Because the negro is black the Republican party has
existed and practically controlled the government for forty-seven years with great
power, prominence, and profit to the greatest Americans of the last half century.
It will not serve for the Republican party now to find fault because the negro
is black, and to abandon him to subjugation, peonage, and barbarous slaughter
without trial because his oppressors are southern whites.
37
If
Abrabam Lincoln and his associates had lived till now how would they have met
the new southern American principles; ( 1) no suffrage for the colored men;
(2) trials by mobs and lynchings for the colored men; (3) peonage for the colored
men? How would General Grant and his associates meet them if alive to-day? How
would Chester A. Arthur and his associates meet them if alive to-day? How will
President Roosevelt and his associates, who are alive to-day and making history,
meet the flagrant violations of constitutional right and privilege which look
the American rulers boldly in the face and are more clearly visible to us than
are the murders by the Turks of Bulgarian and Armenian Christians, and the slaughter
of unoffending Jews by misguided Russian subjects? President Arthur clearly
saw the issue which was coming when in his letter of July 15, 1880 accepting
his nomination, he said: "It is a suggestive and startling thought that
the increased power derived from the enfranchisement of a race now denied its
share in governing the country-- wielded by those who lately sought the overthrow
of the government--is now the sole reliance to defeat the party which represented
the sovereignty and nationality of the American people in the greatest crisis
of our history."
It is true
that the result of a presidential election has not yet been changed by the increased
representation given by reason of the colored inhabitants, but such an outcome
is not improbable in 1904- If the white men of the solid South take possession
of the presidency by an electoral majority of ninety or less, it will be seen
38
that
the work has been done by the fifty electors who represent ten millions of colored
people, substantially all of whose legal voters would vote the other way, if not,
as Arthur charged, "debarred
and robbed of their voice and their vote." To keep the colored man from the polls
he must be held in terror of the whites, and to arouse and keep alive that terror
any colored man obnoxiously active in politics will be charged, truly or falsely,
with crime, and tried and lynched by mobs. To the peril which Arthur so clearly
pointed out, and to avert which he recommended new legislation in his message
of December, 1883, the northern states of the Union cannot be too soon or too
thoroughly aroused.
Since
these words were written President
Roosevelt has spoken unmistakably in his letter to Governor Durbin of Indiana.
The president shows the tendency of lynchings and the disregard of law which they
engender toward the destruction of civilized government and the substitution of
savagery. It cannot be possible that the states of the Union and the national
government of the United States will allow the twentieth century to long continue
to witness the lynchings with which the century has so inauspiciously opened.
Where there is a will there can be found a way. The president being the leader,
the ,American people will follow till the accursed and demoniac spirit which is
now abroad in this land is exorcised and driven out.
ARTHUR'S
TRAITS OF CHARACTER AS DESCRIBED BY
HIS
FRIENDS.
Indulge me
a few additional moments in which to speak of the character of Arthur, as it.
appeared to me
39
and
to others who knew him with equal or greater intimacy. In Mr. Depew's address
at Albany, he said: "Tact, sense, and quick appreciation of the right were
qualities he possessed in such high degree that they were the elements of his
success, not only. at the bar, but in the administration of public trusts." "He
was capable of the greatest industry and courage." "He said to me early in
his administration, 'My sole ambition is to enjoy the confidence of my countrymen.'
Toward this noble ideal he strove with undeviating purpose."
In
Mr. Brewster's address at Albany he spoke of Arthur's " high qualities, his magnanimity,
his greatness." " His purpose was the public good, not the perpetuation of party
rule or personal power." "His only law of official or personal life was to
think the truth, act the truth, and speak the truth." 11 His mind was very prompt.
He was resolute upon all principles of general public policy; but where his act
would prejudice persons to their injury, such was the benevolence and gentleness
of his nature that he would hesitate and act with reluctance. But when he did
act he acted firmly always. He was stern with himself, but liberal and forbearing
with others." "He had not a mean, unmanly element in his character." "He
was heroic, but not ostentatious." "These fine qualities of his character
were not unconsecrated by religious convictions." "He was trained in a home
of religious. teaching, by a father who taught him and others the truths of revealed
religion." "By these convictions he lived and died." Similar opinions Mr.
Brewster had
40
expressed on May 31, 1886 (while Arthur was alive),in a private letter, in which
he said:
"This much I will ever say of General Arthur: I have never known a man for whom
I had a stronger sense of respect and affection. The tenor of his life was noble.
He was forbearing with others, but stern with himself. His aims were high His
ways were direct and open. His purpose just; rational, and generous. His mind
calm and clear, his heart pure."
Postmaster-General
Hatton wrote to me on June 1,1886 : "The country well knows under
what trying circumstances Arthur went into the White House, and how grandly he
conducted himself during the dark days immediately following Garfield's death.
At the time he took his seat, the party of which he had been a distinguished leader
was distracted and divided, and there were not many who thought it would again
have a chance to win a national victory ; and there were few of its leading men
who would at that time have cared for a nomination. By his wise, conservative,
patriotic, and unfactional course all admit that he made possible a Republican
victory in 1884. The general features of his administration are well known to
the country. During his entire term there was peace at home and abroad, and in
his administration of the financial affairs of the nation business men had the
most supreme confidence. His leading appointments were approved by the country.
Especially is this true of his judicial appointments. No president was ever more
careful or more intelligent in his selection of judges for the federal bench,
and no political influence served to swerve him
41
in
making these appointments. No man ever went into the White House under more unfavorable
circumstances, and no man ever left it with a cleaner record, and with the confidence
of the people to a greater extent than did President Arthur."
The
one person best qualified
to speak deliberately of Arthur was Secretary Lincoln, who was selected for the
war department by General Garfield, and had the distinction of being the only
member of the cabinet who remained in office under Arthur, whose confidence and
affection he possessed in the fullest possible measure, and with whom he enjoyed
unequaled intimacy. On June 7, 1886, Mr. Lincoln wrote to me: "The
administration was remarkable for the absence of the possibility of imputations
upon the conduct of any prominent member of it, either in the performance of his
appropriate functions, or in relation to the succession. It is a general feeling
that the circumstances of Mr. Arthur's accession were handled by him with a marvelous
discretion, and this wise discretion in all his public acts, and an avoidance
of mere political display, were the chief characteristics of his administration.
Mr. Arthur was, in my judgment, guided by lofty ideas of his duties, and was gifted
with great discretion."
Fortunately
we are privileged to have
Mr. Lincoln with us to-day, and I believe that his estimate of the president whom
we loved so much, and who returned our affection without stint, will be more reliable
in its conclusions than those which any other associate of Arthur can give. Secretary
Teller's high opinion was deliberate
42
and
most sincere. He said: "I think he was in all his dealings the fairest
and most just man I ever knew."
Mr.
Root, in his address of presentation
to New York city of the statue of Arthur, adverted to "the
unusual esteem and admiration accorded to him by the whole people in his later
years--not a revelation, but a recognition, of his character and qualities," and
specified "his clear and bright intelligence, his commanding character, the
sweetness and gentleness of his disposition, the rich stores of his cultivated
mind, the grace and charm of his courtesy, his grave and simple dignity, and his
loyal and steadfast friendship."
He
also said: "His
actions were informed and guided by absolute self--devotion to the loftiest conception
of his great office." "He was wise in statesmanship, and firm and effective
in administration." "Good causes found in him a friend, and bad measures
met in him an unyielding opponent." "The genuineness of his patriotism, the
integrity of his purpose, and the wisdom of his conduct changed general distrust
to universal confidence, reestablished popular belief in the adequacy of our constitutional
system in all exigencies, and restored an abiding trust in the perpetuity of our
government. He himself greatly aided to make true the memorable words of his inaugural,
'Men may die, but the fabrics of our free institutions remain unshaken.' The strain
of that terrible ordeal and the concentrated and unremitting effort of those burdened
years exhausted the vital forces of his frame, and brought him to the grave in
the meridian of his days. He gave his life to his
43
Country as truly as one who dies from wounds or disease in war."
My
own, estimate, written immediately
after Arthur passed from earth, was not extravagant or too eulogistic to be reiterated
after the lapse of seventeen years:
" No
human being who knew President
Arthur, either--from personal acquaintance or from studying his character as developed
in his official life, will fail to mourn his death as that of a true and good
man, honest, upright, and faithful in the performance of every private and public
duty.
''His
early home training, by a
father who was a clergyman of high literary as well as religious culture, made
him a young man of lofty aspirations and pure principles. He was also subjected
to anti-slavery influences, which took deep root in his mind and caused him, as
the first work of his manhood, to espouse the cause and secure the freedom of
the Lemmon slaves; and he continued always radically and intensely hostile to
the nation's crime of slavery.
''In
the practice of his profession
of the law he developed learning, sagacity, and the faculty of cool judgment,
combined with remarkable , persistency, which, notwithstanding he never became
a noted advocate, made his legal career remarkably successful. His hatred of slavery
naturally brought him actively into the last great political struggle made by
the South for the extension of the atrocious system into free territory. When
the slaveholders' rebellion broke out he held the office of quartermaster-general
of New York, under Gov. E, D. Morgan, and threw his whole soul into his
44
work
of sending the soldiers of that state to the field of battle.
"As collector of New York he made a record which is not surpassed by that of any
who preceded or have followed him. He was a model public official, and his conduct
may be searched in vain for a proven error or offence.
"As
president
of the United States, succeeding as
vice-president to the place of an assassinated president, whose death caused the
greatest public excitement and apprehension, he comported himself most worthily
in his high office. He gained the confidence of the whole people. He exhibited
the highest sense of public duty. He made himself president of the nation, and
riot of a party; still less of a faction within his party, while he yet violated
no real obligations to the friends of his past. He gave the country an administration.
with which little fault has been found; of which no just
complaint has been made; and which cannot be tarnished by any of the changes of
time.
"He
wore out his life by his assiduous
devotion to the duties of his office, which gave him no opportunity for exercise
or rest. During the later months of his fatal illness he exhibited in the highest
degree that serene patience and self-control which had character-.
ized his whole career; and he died as he shad lived, a courteous Christian gentleman.
"We
bid farewell to a generous
and noble spirit. All
who have had the precious privilege of seeing his inner life and of comprehending
his soul's high aims will gain patience and strength from his example; and
45
his countrymen can never fail to learn
wisdom and patriotism while contemplating the life and death of one who served
them faithfully and nobly, according to the capacity and light which were given
him by his Maker."
Almost
unwillingly do I close. Impressed
by the emotions which accompany thoughts of Arthur and any effort to speak of
his life and character, I can truly say, as did Mr. Brewster at Albany: "My
heart is full of sorrow, my eyes are filled with tears "--as I give my last earthly
tribute to my considerate superior, my charming comrade, my gentle friend, whose
noble qualities of heart and mind are imperishably impressed upon the memories
of all his fellow-men, whom he delighted to help and honor during his life of
patient service for those he loved and for his country. He has gone to a celestial
region. He will not come back to us. But we shall go to him; and we may reverently
hope to renew our joyous companionship in our new home in a bright star of God's
firmament; in a House of Many Mansions eternal in the Heavens.
46