*****
LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.
Class
/
/
Si
THE DISPUTED PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION OF 1876
LIBRARY
OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.
Class
m
J
THE DISPUTED PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION OF 1876
THE HAYES-T1LDEN
DISPUTED PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION OF 1 876
BY
PAUL LELAND HAWORTH
Lecturer ia History, Columbia Uaiversity
CLEVELAND
THE BURROWS BROTHERS COMPANY
MCMVI
COPYRIGHT, 1906
BY
THE BURROWS BROTHERS COMPANY
ICPUBLICAN PRINTING CO.
CKDAM RAPIDS, IOWA
To My Sister R. H.
Whose Self-sacrifice is not Forgotten
919/1 17
CONTENTS
Preface ix
I. The Republican Dynasty in Danger . i
II. The Republicans Cast About for a
Leader ..... 10
III. A Democratic Moses ... 26
IV. The Centennial Campaign . . 36
V. The Election — Republican Hope after
Despair ..... 45
VI. The Contest in Florida 57
VII. Bulldozers and Returning Officers in
Louisiana ..... 81
VIII. Rifle-Clubs in the Palmetto State . 122
IX. The Ineligible Elector in Oregon . 157
X. Compromise or Civil War? . . 168
XL Eight to Seven 220
XII. The Adjustment in the South . . 284
XIII. The Potter Committee and the Cipher
Dispatches 305
XIV. Legal Aspects and the Equities . 329
Appendix 345
Index 351
PREFACE
Thirty years have now elapsed since the beginning
of the presidential campaign which culminated in the
most remarkable electoral controversy in the history
of popular government. As yet, however, no adequate
account of that controversy has been published. It
has seemed to me that there is some need for such an
account, and this book is the result of my effort,
successful or otherwise, to supply it.
The book is based in large measure upon a collection
of more than twenty thousand pages of congressional
material, consisting of debates in Congress, of evidence
gathered by various investigating committees, and of
the proceedings before the electoral commission. This
collection constitutes perhaps the most extensive and
exhaustive one upon any subject of equal importance
in American history, and the labor involved in exam
ining and sifting it has been rendered all the greater
by the fact that so much of the evidence contained in
it is untrustworthy. As the reference notes will show,
I have, in addition, drawn material from a great variety
of other sources. I have, in fact, spared no pains to
make my investigation as complete as possible. Upon
most of the matters which are really vital I have, I
believe, succeeded in obtaining the essential facts ; but
x Preface
I feel constrained to admit that I have not succeeded
in penetrating the veil which surrounds some others.
These last are matters which will, in all probability,
always remain secrets, for the simple reason that those
actors who could tell the truth concerning them will
never do so. I may remark in passing that I have
brought to light much that has never before been
published, and that I have also learned many other
interesting, though usually not very important things,
which cannot be published because told to me under
pledge of secrecy. In all cases, however, I have been
able to make use of such facts in drawing conclusions.
It may be worth while for me to add that in inter
preting the evidence regarding the situation in the
contested states of Louisiana, Florida, and South
Carolina I have been greatly aided by experience
gained some years ago while making an extended
investigation in certain southern states of the workings
of negro suffrage under present day conditions. In
fact, I may say that without the insight thus gained
my task would have been well-nigh a hopeless one.
There remains only the pleasant duty of acknowl
edging my obligations to the many persons who have
assisted me in the work. To Hon. Carl Schurz, Hon.
John Bigelow, Col. A. K. McClure, Hon. John Goode,
Hon. William Dudley Foulke, Dr. Charles R. Wil
liams, and Mr. Yates Snowden of the Charleston News
and Courier; to Col. Webb C. Hayes, who allowed me
to see his father's papers and who read the entire
manuscript; tq Mr. Edward Cary of the New York
Preface xi
Times, who furnished me with information and read
a portion of the manuscript; to Professor John R.
Ficklen and Mr. Benjamin Rice Foreman, who read
the chapter on Louisiana; to Hon. W. E. Chandler,
who furnished me with much material and who read
several of the chapters; to Mr. Joseph M. Rogers,
who had himself intended to write a book on the sub
ject but retired in my favor and with rare generosity
gave me the results of his investigations and read the
more important chapters — to these gentlemen and to
many others I owe a debt which I fear I shall never be
able to repay. Nor must I forget to mention the many
kindnesses shown me by my publisher, Mr. Charles
W. Burrows, and the assistance rendered me by my
father and iby my wife in correcting the manuscript.
Above all, I am indebted to Professor William A.
Durming, leading authority in this period of our
history, for reading both the manuscript and the proof
and thereby helping me to avoid many errors.
In justice to some of the persons named it should,
however, be added that I alone am responsible for
statements of fact and for conclusions. In many
cases, perhaps unwisely, I have disregarded their
suggestions.
PAUL LEXAND HAWORTH.
Columbia University.
THE DISPUTED PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION
•
CHAPTER I
THE REPUBLICAN DYNASTY IN DANGER
The year 1876 was the most notable of the period
in American history betweenthe close of tne war of
Secession and the beginning of the war with Spain.
It wasT~the year in which occurred the last o? our
important Indian outbreaks — a conflict made sadly
memorable by the massacre of Custer and his troopers
on the Little Big Horn. It was the year which marked
jthe one hundredth anniversary of our independence —
an occasion fitly celebrated by the great Centennial
Exposition at Philadelphia. It was also the year of an
election which resulted in a strange controversy that
put our institutions to one of the severest tests they
have ever been called upon to endure.
The political outlook prior to that election was in
some respects an unusual one. For the first time since
2 The Hayes-Tilden
it had come into power there was real likelihood that
the Republican party would be unable to elect its
candidate for the Presidency. Successful in 1860 by
grace of the lack of unity among its opponents,
it had in 1864 merged itself in that Union party
which gave Lincoln his second term, and four
years later, having resumed its independent status,
it had been led to another overwhelming vic
tory by the military hero who had ended the
war. In the new President's first administration had
occurred a division in the party fold. The Liberal
Republicans, dissatisfied with the conduct of affairs
and despairing of getting their views adopted by the
party leaders, had in 1872 held a separate convention at
Cincinnati and had nominated Horace Greeley of New
York and B. Gratz Brown of Missouri. Thereupon
the Democrats, seeing no hope of success with candi
dates chosen from among themselves, had, despite the
fact that Greeley had been one of the highest of the
high priests of Abolitionism-, indorsed the Liberal
Republican candidates and platform. But this unnat
ural alliance had wholly failed to avert a complete
triumph of Radicalism ; out of the 349 electoral votes
counted by Congress for President, General Grant had
received 286, while the 63 remaining had been divided
(Greeley having died before the electoral colleges met)
among B. Gratz Brown, Thomas A. Hendricks, Charles
J. Jenkins of Georgia, and David Davis of Illinois. x
i Cong. Globe, 42d Cong. 3d Sess., p. 1305. Three Georgia
rotes which had been cast for Greeley were not counted, and all
the votes of Louisiana and Arkansas were excluded.
Disputed Election of 1 876 3
Rendered reckless by the seeming finality of their
victory, the Radical leaders had fallen into the pleasant
belief that the question of dispensing the loaves and
fishes of political patronage was settled forever and
that it was wholly unnecessary to carry through meas
ures of reform which the Liberal Republicans had
demanded and which many far-sighted men who had
remained within the party desired. But there had soon
been a rude awakening. The panic of 1873, tne dis
satisfaction due to the unsettled state of the monetary
system, the bad condition of affairs in the South, the
Credit Mobilier exposures, the so-called Salary Grab,
the Sanborn Contract, and other scandals — all these
things had worked mightily to the disadvantage of the
party in power. * The result had been the great "Tidal
Wave" of 1874. Out of thirty-five states in which
elections were held twenty-three had gone Democratic ;
even such Republican states as Wisconsin, Ohio, Penn
sylvania, and Massachusetts had arrayed themselves
in the Democratic column; and only a comparative
handful of Republicans had been returned to the
House. 2
In the new Congress, it is true, the Democratic
members had not greatly distinguished themselves for
wisdom or for political sagacity;3 but the party had
1 These conclusions are based upon the flies of The Nation,
Harper's Weekly, and of the New York World, Times, and Tri
bune. See also Stanwood, History of Presidential Elections, 4tii
ed., p. 302 ; Poulke, Life of Morton, II, pp. 344-352 ; Hoar, Auto
biography of Seventy Years. I, pp. 305-369.
2 McPherson, Handbook of Politics for 1876, p. 255.
3. See Harper's Weekly, XX, p. 112.
4 The Hayes-TilJen
been favored by the almost clock-like regularity with
which scandals continued to reveal themselves, so that,
although financial conditions were becoming better and
the "Tidal Wave" was now running much less strong,
the Democratic leaders were at>le to look forward to
the approaching election with at least as much confi
dence as the Republicans.
The chief count that could be brought against the
party in power was maladministration. That the
government was in a deplorable condition no dispas
sionate student of history will venture to deny. Nor
are the chief causes difficult to find. The nation had
but recently emerged from the trying ordeal of the
greatest civil war known to history. That war had
left many troublesome problems, some of which time
alone could fully solve. It had also necessitated a
tremendous increase in the revenues and expenditures
of the national government. From March 4, 1789, to
June 30, 1861, the entire net "ordinary expenditures"
had amounted in round numbers to but $1,580,000,000,
as against the enormous sum of $5,200,000,000 in the
fourteen years from June 30, 1861, to June 30, 1875.
Furthermore, the number of civil employees of the
government had increased from about 44,000 under
Buchanan to more than 100,000 under Grant. 1 In the
morally unhealthy atmosphere which inevitably follows
1 These comparisons were made in the Democratic Campaign
Text Book, pp. 747-748. The figures are from the Report of the
Secretary of the Treasury for 1875 and from reports of the
various departments. The "gross expenditures" were, of course,
far larger.
Disputed Election of 1 876 5
a resort to arms, and amidst such favorable conditions
as those just described, it was but natural that the
Spoils System should produce its most noxious
growth, and that political morality should reach per
haps the lowest ebb in our entire history. x
The administrative demoralization of the country
was, it must be conceded, due in part also to the
personality of President Grant. Like many a suc
cessful soldier before him, Grant was by no means a
finished statesman. Prior to his inauguration he had
never held a civil office, and he did not clearly under
stand the workings of our political system. Starting
out with the assumption that the Presidency was a sort
of personal possession given him by the people to
manage as he thought proper, he had, with the best
intentions in the world, entirely ignored the party
leaders in choosing his first cabinet. This independent
policy had soon proved a failure, and he had been
brought to the necessity of securing some support.
In the contest to gain control of him which followed,
the Radicals — Butler in Massachusetts, Conkling in
New York, Cameron in Pennsylvania, Patterson in
South Carolina, Morton in Indiana, and so on — had
triumphed over the Liberals and had become the Pres*-
1 For a different view see Hoar, I, pp. 309-311, and Foulke, II.
p. 410. The Republicans were able to show that the rate of
defalcation per $1,000 under Grant was considerably lower than
under any previous President. This arg-ument failed to take into
account the fact that most of the corruption at this time was not
In the form of direct stealing from the government. Furthermore,
there were under Grant many officials each of whom handled
in the course of a year more money than was spent in that
length of time by the entire government under Washington.
2
6 The Hayes-Tilden
idential advisers and the dispensers of patronage. Thus
the man who had begun by ignoring the politicians
had in the end allowed himself to fall entirely into
their hands. The outcome was rendered all the more
disastrous because the President, although a keen
judge of military capacity, had no skill in choosing
political subordinates and advisers. A thoroughly
honest man himself, he was unable to detect dishonesty
in others. His confidence was frequently abused by
pretended friends, who brought him into disrepute, but
whom, with misguided fidelity, he was unwilling "to
desert under fire." In many ways, to be sure, his two
administrations were by no means failures. Under
him our disputes with England were peaceably and
honorably settled, the national debt was greatly
reduced, the Resumption Act was passed, and the
South was kept as tranquil perhaps as a section which
had so recently undergone such a complete social and
political upheaval could be kept. Probably no other
man then living could have filled the Presidential
chair as well as he; yet the fact remained that the
administration was pervaded with a lamentable demor
alization which increased rather than diminished.
Disclosures of wrong-doing followed each other with
such astounding rapidity that inefficiency and fraud
were suspected even where they did not exist. x
1 For estimates of Grant which agree in the main with this
see Garland, Life of Grant, pp. 385-449 ; Cox, Three Decades
of Federal Legislation, pp. 672-673 ; McCulloch, Men and Meas
ures of Half a Century, pp. 355-357 ; Andrews, The United States
in Our Own Times, pp. 23 et seq. ; and John Sherman's Recol
lections, I, pp. 446-449, 474-475. Some excellent estimates of him
Disputed Election of l8?6 7
As the time for the campaign of 1876 drew near it
was generally recognized that in Republican misgov-
ernment the Democrats would find their best oppor
tunity for attack. The wisest policy for them would
be to drop the Southern issue and fight the battle on
that of "Grant's maladministration," Said the New
York Herald on April i, 1876:
"Let the party trace every stream of corruption
which now pollutes the country to its source, and call
upon the country to rise and cleanse the source. Let the
leaders begin the campaign on the violation of the
Constitution involved in the appointment of staff
officers and not statesmen to the Cabinet. Let them
show how the moral sense of the nation was degraded
by the selection of worthless relations and whiskey-
drinking cronies to high offices here and abroad. Let
them show how the Senate degraded itself by becoming
a sharer in the plunder and patronage of the Executive.
Let them show how the country was parcelled out like
the provinces of the Roman Empire, every state with
a Senatorial proconsul — Conkling in New York,
Cameron in Pennsylvania, Patterson in South Carolina,
and so on until the country, so far as the patronage
is concerned, is under the dominion of an oligarchy
which only opposes the President when he names men
for office like Hoar and Dana, supporting him in his
selection of a Billings or a Delano. Let them show
how investigations in the House were made impossible
so long as the brothers of members were allowed to
hold trade posts and rob Indians and soldiers. Let
were given in the newspapers published at the time of his death.
For his apology for his administrations see his last message to
Congress.
8 The Hayes-Tilden
them show how scandal after scandal supervened until
we had a Secretary of War at the bar of the Senate as
a confessed robber and a Secretary of the Navy rapidly
on his way thither for having used a million of dollars
to sustain a sinking banking house in London." 1
The indictment that could be drawn was certainly a
strong one. The Republican party, rendered reckless
by the possession of too much power, had been weighed
in the balance and had been found wanting. In the
minds of many a sincere patriot, proud of the record
of a hundred years but humiliated by the fact that the
centennial of the nation's birth must witness so much
corruption in high places, there inevitably arose a
desire for a political change.
Yet there was one consideration among other less
influential ones which might perhaps save the party in
power from merited rebuke. Bad as that party had
shown itself of late, there nevertheless existed a grave
doubt whether its opponent, in the light of the record
of the past, was any more worthy of confidence. 2
Rightly or wrongly, men had not yet forgotten that
not more than eleven years before a large section of
the Democratic party had stood beneath the Stars and
Bars in battle array against the Union ; that another
section of that party had been worse than lukewarm in
support of the government which they now sought to
control. With more truth than poetry it was still said
that "not every Democrat was a Rebel, but every Rebel
1 This, of course, Is overdrawn.
3 See, for example, Harper's Weekly, XIX, pp. 90, 170, 210.
Disputed Election of 1876 9
was a Democrat." Would it be safe to trust the
nation's affairs with men many of whom had once
raised their hands against her life ? Would it not, after
all, be better to keep in power a party which, whatever
its faults, had always stood unflinchingly for the
preservation of the Union? Upon the answers given
to these questions seemed to depend the result of the
forthcoming election.
CHAPTER II
THE REPUBLICANS CAST ABOUT FOR A LEADER
With such a political outlook it was almost inevitable
that there should be a readjustment in the Republican
party. The Radicals, discredited and somewhat chas
tened by defeat, began to show themselves much more
amenable to advice ; it was apparent that the moderate
element, whose watchword was "reform within the
party," 1 would play a much more important part than
hitherto. This state of affairs made it easier for
many Liberals who were alarmed at the inflationist
tendencies displayed by the Democrats and who ap
proved the Republican stand on the Resumption Act
to drift back into their former party.
For the first time since 1860 there was real uncer
tainty as to who would be chosen to lead the Republican
hosts. There was, of course, much talk about a third
term. The newspapers, and especially the New York
Herald, took up the subject; and during 1875 a great
deal was said about "dynasties," "dictatorships,"
"Caesarism," and so on. In the spring of 1875 the
Pennsylvania Republican state convention, moved by
1 For an article on this subject see Harper's Weekly, XIX,
p. 274.
The Disputed Election of l8j6 1 1
this outcry, passed a resolution against a third term.
Thereupon President Grant wrote to General Harry
White, chairman of the convention, as follows : "Now
for the third term. I do not want it any more than I
did the first ... I am not, nor have I ever been a
candidate for a renomination. I would not accept a
nomination if it were tendered, unless it should come
under such circumstances as to make it an imperative
duty — circumstances not likely to arise." The letter
was regarded by many as a "declination with a string
to it ;" people remarked that in the past, at Ft. Donelson
and elsewhere, Grant had never shown any inability
to make his meaning unmistakable. 1 In consequence,
the discussion of his availability was kept up until the
following December, when an effectual quietus was
put to it by the passage in the -House of Representa
tives, by a vote of 233 to 18, of a resolution declaring
that any attempt to depart from the precedent estab
lished by Washington and other Presidents "would be
unwise, unpatriotic, and fraught with peril to our free
institutions." 2
With General Grant out of the way, the field was
open for other candidates. Of these the most talked
about were James G. Elaine of Maine, Roscoe Conkling
of New York, Benjamin H. Bristow of Kentucky, and
Oliver P. Morton of Indiana. In addition there were
some "favorite sons," among whom were John F.
1 For an account of this matter and a copy of the letter see
Garland's Grant, pp. 436-432 ; also Harper's Weekly, XIX, pp.
474, 494, 496, and 499.
2 Record, p. 228.
12 The Hayes-Tilden
Hartranft of Pennsylvania, Marshall Jewell of Con
necticut, and Rutherford B. Hayes of Ohio.
To outward appearances, Mr. Elaine seemed to have
the best chance of securing the coveted nomination.
He possessed a magnetic personality, and had attracted
much attention as Representative and Speaker. In the
Congress then in session he had kept himself in the
public eye by systematically baiting the Southern
members and drawing from them disloyal utterances
which could be used by their opponents as party
capital. l Mr. Elaine's friends were, in general, those
men who were dissatisfied with the Administration yet
were not reformers. 2 He was, of course, bitterly
opposed by Senator Conkling, whom on a memorable
occasion he had forever alienated by comparing him
to a turkey gobbler. 3 Mr. Elaine was also regarded
with but little favor by the reformers; and his avail
ability in their eyes was vastly lessened by the disclo
sure not long before the convention met of the cele
brated "Mulligan letters" which purported to make
some uncomfortable revelations regarding his alleged
improper relations with the affairs of the Little Rock
and Ft. Smith Railroad. 4 Nevertheless he was sure
of the support of Maine and of enough votes in other
states to give him a decided lead over any of the other
candidates.
1 The Nation, XXIII, p. 173 ; also Johnson, An American
Statesman, ch. 6.
2 Hoar's Autobiography, I, p. 378.
3 See reference to this in The Nation, XXV, p. 373 ; also
Stanwood's Elaine, pp 66-72.
4 Hoar, I, 379.
Disputed Election of 1 876 13
Senator Conkling would naturally have the sup
port of practically all the delegates from his own state
of New York, l and was generally believed to be the
candidate favored by the Administration. This latter
fact was, however, a source of weakness rather than of
strength; for the influence of the Administration was
at a very low ebb indeed, and one of the leading
Republican weeklies declared that "the only man whom
the Republicans can elect is some man whom the
Administration coterie would strongly oppose, because
his career and character would be the guarantee of a
total change in the tone of the Administration." 2
Senator Morton was still another candidate who was
not favorably looked upon by the reformers. While
a man of great ability as a leader, he was a Radical of
the most intense type, and was credited with having
defended the civil service as "the best upon the
planet." 3 His nomination was opposed in the East
because he was suspected of being a "soft money
man ;" this suspicion was borne out by the fact that his
organ, the Indianapolis Journal, was demanding the
repeal of the Resumption Act. In addition, his chances
were greatly lessened by the fact that he was
so infirm physically that he was obliged to use
crutches. Ke was, however, loyally supported by
Indiana, and was so popular with the negroes of the
South that a national convention of that race at Nash
ville on April ^th showed itself almost unanimous in
1 See his Life by A. R. Conkling, p. 504.
2 Harper's Weekly, XIX, p. 1028. 3 Ibid, XX, p. 443.
14 The Hayes-Tilden
his favor. An ungrounded attack begun about the
same time by the New York World upon his personal
honesty reacted strongly in his favor, for it gave him
an opportunity in a speech in the Senate to bring once
more before the country his splendid services as "War
Governor" of Indiana. 1
Of all the candidates, Mr. Bristow was apparently
the man best fitted to lead a campaign whose watch
word should be "Reform within the Party." As secre
tary of the treasury he had conducted a ruthless
warfare against the Whiskey Ring; had not hesitated
to secure the conviction of personal friends of the
President; and had even ventured to bring about the
indictment and trial of Orville E. Babcock, the Pres
ident's private secretary. 2 By his activity he had,
however, gained the ill-will of the President and of
the Radical official coterie and had been blackballed
by the New York Union League Club. 3 His chances
were also weakened by the fact that he had not long
been known to the country at large. On the other
hand, he was regarded with favor by the reformers
and was supported by a large part of the more reputa
ble Republican press. 4
Of the two other candidates most frequently men-
1 For a good account of Morton's candidacy see Foulke, II,
pp. 387-396. The attack was made in the World of April 29th;
Morton replied in the Senate on May 5th.
2 For an account of Bristow's fight against the Whiskey Ring
f?ee an article by H. V. Boynton in the North American Review
for October, 1876, p. 280.
3 Harper's Weekly, XX, p. 418; New York Times, May 12th.
4 For his candidacy see Harper's Weekly, XX, pp. 182 202
382, 418. The Nation, XXII, p. 344, and Stanwood, Elaine, p. 178.'
Disputed Election of l8j6 15
tioned, Hartranft had the support of the great state of
Pennsylvania; but his name appears to have been put
forward less in hope of his securing the nomination
than of keeping the Pennsylvania delegation in hand
until it could be profitably thrown to some other man. a
Hayes, the other candidate, had been indorsed by Ohio.
He was then serving a third term as governor of that
state, and in his various contests for that office had
defeated three prominent Democrats — William Allen,
George H. Pendleton, and Allen G. Thurman. He
was sound on the money question, had a good war
record, was without any important enemies, but was
not much known outside his own state. Few persons
considered it likely that he would be nominated. 2
A month before the time for the convention at which
the hopes of all but one of these candidates must be
blasted there occurred in New York City an event of
considerable political significance. In response to a
call issued by Carl Schurz, Theodore Woolsey, Horace
White, William Cullen Bryant, and Alexander H. Bul
lock, about two hundred gentlemen met in the Fifth
Avenue Hotel to confer upon the political situation.
Among those present, in addition to the persons who
had issued the call, were David A. Wells, Charles
Francis Adams, Mark Hopkins, Dorman B. Eaton,
1 Elaine, Twenty Years of Congress, II, p. 568. The attend
ant circumstances bear out the theory.
2 McClure, in his Recollections of Half a Century, p. 99, says
that if there had been a belief that the nomination would go to
Ohio, Sherman would have been put forward. For Hayes's can
didacy see Harper's Weekly, XX, pp. 122 and 162 ; Times of
April 9th;. and Herald of April 21st. For an account of his
career see the campaign Life by William Dean Howells.
1 6 The Hayes-Til den
Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Ir'arke Godwin. K. C.
Lodge, and Professor Seelye.
This Fifth Avenue Conference, as it was called,
continued in session during the I5th and i6th of May,
and, in addition to adopting a resolution in favor of
civil service reform, issued an elaborate Address to the
American People. This paper, which was from the
able pen of Mr. Schurz, was in the nature of a warning
to both parties. After deploring the unprecedented
"prevalence of corrupt practices in our national life,"
the address continued: "We therefore declare . . .
that at the coming Presidential election we shall sup
port no candidate who in public position ever 'counten
anced corrupt practices or combinations, or impeded
their exposure and punishment"; no candidate "who
has failed to use his opportunities in exposing abuses
coming within the reach of his observation, but for
personal reasons and party ends has permitted them
to fester on ; . . .no candidate, however conspicuous
his position or brilliant his ability, in whom the im
pulses of the party manager have shown themselves
predominant over those of the reformer ;" no candidate
about whom there could be room for question as to
his being "really the man to carry through a thorough
going reform in the government."
Although the Radical Republicans and also many
Democrats endeavored to belittle the importance of the
conference by calling those in attendance "soreheads"
and "sentimentalists," its action was generally felt to
Disputed Election of l8j6 17
be very significant. 1 The Address showed, for one
thing, that the independents would not accept a
candidate like Elaine, Conkling, or Morton, and would
support only a genuine reformer. The general senti
ment of the conference had, in fact, been favorable
to Mr. Bristow ; and one of the most distinguished
members, Mr. Charles Francis Adams, had openly
stated that in case Mr. Bristow was not named, he
would use his influence in behalf of the expected
Democratic nominee, Mr. Tilden. 2
On June I4th, a month after the conference was
held, the Republican convention met at Cincinnati.
The meeting place was regarded as especially favor
able to Bristow, for the people were more enthusiastic
for him than they were for Hayes, and the city was
also easy of access to Kentuckians. Numerous as were
Bristow's supporters, however, they were, in the esti
mation of The Nation's correspondent, decidedly un
practical. "Looking at them, and seeing the thor
oughly Visionary' way in which they tried to push
the fortunes of their candidate by appeals to the desire
of the convention for honest government, and to the
detestation of the delegates for all trickery and under
hand proceedings, it was impossible for the most
genuine reformer not to regret that they were too
1 Harper's Weekly for June 3d.
2 In preparing this account of the conference I have con
sulted the files of the New York Times, Herald, World and Sun;
of The Nation and Harper's Weekly; and of the Indianapolis
News, Journal and Sentinel. Information has also been sup
plied me by Mr. Schurz.
l8 The Hayes-Tilden
moral to use other arguments." x Mr. Bristow's
friends were not the only ones in evidence : Hoosier
supporters of Morton came "in trains and steamboats
chartered for the purpose 'as thick as mosquitoes in
blackberry time,' " 2 and "shouters" for most of the
other candidates were present in goodly numbers. Al
most every candidate had some colored supporters, but
Morton was especially favored in this respect. Black
orators descanting upon the merits of their candidate
were numerous and voluble; their "speeches on the
whole were very nearly as good as the white speeches,
and infinitely more amusing, partly from internal
causes and partly because they were so universally
recognized as a piece of buncombe." 3
One of the most talked of subjects at the convention
was the physical condition of one of the candidates.
On Sunday, the nth, three days before the convention
was called to order, Mr. Elaine, while on his way to
one of the Washington churches, had been so badly
overcome by the heat that he had fallen at the church
door, and even after being removed to his home had
been in such a state that for many hours it was doubt
ful whether he would survive. His opponents natur
ally made the most possible out of his illness, and "had
no hesitation in predicting that he would be dead within
a week, or, if not dead, utterly incapable of using his
mind or bearing any strain." *
1 The Nation, XXII, p. 393.
2 Foulke, p. 397.
3 The Nation, XXII, p. 393.
4 The Nation, XXII, p. 392.
Disputed Election of l8j6 19
Although the effect of this reasoning was consider
ably diminished by the reception of a reassuring tele
gram from Mr. Elaine, an episode growing out of his
illness did have an important effect upon the ultimate
action of the convention. With a friend, Mr. Bristow
called upon his sick rival to extend his sympathy;
but as Mr. Blaine had come to believe that some of
the attacks made upon him were instigated by Bris
tow, the visit had unfortunate results. While Bristow
and his friend were at the house "an occurrence took
place which satisfied them both that the feeling against
Bristow on the part of Mr. Blaine and his near friends
was exceedingly strong and implacable. The story
was at once telegraphed in cipher to Mr. Bristow's
chief manager at Cincinnati," and later had, in the
opinion of the late Senator Hoar, a decisive influence
upon the course of events. 1
On Wednesday, the I4th, the convention was called
to order, and was organized with Edward McPherson
of Pennsylvania as permanent chairman. 2 After cer
tain other preliminary business 3 on this and the fol
lowing day, the report of the Committee on Platform
1 Hoar's Autobiography, I, pp. 380-381.
2 The Blaine forces controlled the organization of the con
vention. From Alabama the Spencer delegation, favorable to
Morton, were excluded, and the Haralson delegation, some of
whom supported Blaine, were admitted. — Foulke, p. 400 ; McPher
son, p. 210 ; The Nation, XXII, p. 390 ; Times and Herald for
June 15th and 16th.
3 A feature of the first session was the reading by Mr. G. W.
Curtis of an address issued some time before by the New York
Reform Club in favor of resumption and civil service reform
and criticising the Administration severely. The address was
regarded as a hard blow at Mr. Conkling.— The Nation, XXII, p.
392 ; Times of 15th.
2O The Hayes-Tilden
and Resolutions was heard. When the report had
been read, Edward L,. Pierce of Massachusetts moved
to strike out the eleventh resolution which called for
a congressional investigation into the effect of the im
migration and importation of Mongolians; but after
debate the proposal was rejected, 215 to 532. 1
Edmund J. Davis of Texas then moved to strike
out the fourth resolution, which was to the effect that
the promise made in the first act signed by President
Grant pledging the nation "to make provision at the
earliest practicable period for the redemption of the
United States notes in coin" ought to be "fulfilled by
a continuous and steady progress to specie payment."
Mr. Davis proposed in its stead a declaration "that it
is the duty of Congress to provide for carrying out
the act known as the Resumption Act of Congress,
to the end that the resumption of specie payments
may not be longer delayed." But the Resumption Act
was not popular in the West, and the party leaders
ideemed it better politics not to go on record as either
favoring or opposing it. Consequently the amend
ment, after a brief debate, was rejected. 2
In other respects, also, the platform was a temporiz
ing and rather weak document. It 'contained, of
course, the usual not undeserved eulogy upon the Re
publican party for its work in purging the land of
slavery. It asserted that the United States is a "na
tion, not a league ;" contained a mild and half-hearted
1 Times, June 16th.
2 McPherson, p. 211 ; Times, Herald, and World for June 16th.
Disputed Election of 1876 21
resolution against the spoils system ; declared in favor
of protection, and against polygamy and public aid to
parochial schools ; denounced the Democratic party as
"being the same in character and spirit as when it
sympathized with treason ;" and asserted that "the
National Administration merits commendation for its
honorable work in the management of domestic and
foreign affairs, and President Grant deserves the con
tinued hearty gratitude of the American people for
his patriotism and his eminent services, in war and
in peace." It also promised that all public officers
should be held "to a rigid responsibility" and "that
the prosecution and punishment of all who betray
official trusts shall- be swift, thorough, and unsparing;"
but it nowhere contained a frank recognition of the
shameful condition of the public service or any pro
mise of its thorough reform. l
The work of platform-building having been com
pleted, the convention was ready for the more excit
ing work of selecting the nominee. Marshall Jewell
of Connecticut was named by Stephen W. Kellogg;
Morton, by Richard W. Thompson. Bristow was
nominated by General John M. Harlan of Kentucky,
and the nomination was seconded by George William
Curtis of New York, and by Richard H. Dana of Mas
sachusetts. Conkling's name was presented by Stew
art L. Woodford ; that of Hayes, by E. F. Noyes ; and
that of Hartranft, bv Linn Bartholomew. The most
1 The platform is given in McPherson, p. 210, and in Stan-
wood, History of Presidential Elections, p. 315.
3
22 The Hayes-Tilden
striking speech was that made by Col. Robert G. Inger-
soll in nominating Blaine ; in the course of it he made
the famous comparison of his candidate to a "plumed
knight" — an appellation which continued to be used
by Mr. Elaine's many devoted followers down to the
time of his death. 1 At the conclusion of the speech-
making the tide in favor of Mr. Blaine was running
so high that his opponents deemed it wise to move
an adjournment. In all probability the motion would
have been voted down had not the discovery been
made that the lighting equipment of the building was
out of order. It has since been charged that the
gas supply had been clandestinely cut off for the ex
press purpose of forcing an adjournment. The man
who planned and carried into execution this manoeuver
was Robert W. Mackay. Mr. Mackay's roommate
was Matthew Stanley Quay.2
When the convention reassembled at ten next morn
ing, the voting was at last begun. On the first four
ballots the total number of votes cast varied from
754 to 755 ; 378 thus were necessary for a choice. Mr.
Blaine received votes varying from 285 on the first
to 292 on the fourth. On the first two ballots Morton
stood second, with 125 and 120 votes, but was then
passed by Bristow, who, on the fourth ballot, received
1 The effect of this speech was partly destroyed by one of
the seconders, a Georgia negro, who caused much laughter by
referring to Curtis as "the poet from New York," and to R. H.
Dana as "our minister to England," and by making himself
otherwise ridiculous.
2 McClure, Our Presidents and How We Make Them, p. 243;
personal statement by the same author.
Disputed Election of 1 876 23
126. Conkling started with 99 and dropped to 84;
Hartranft rose from 58 to 71 ; and Hayes from 61
to 68. The strenuous support given to Mr. Elaine
had now thoroughly convinced the supporters of the
other candidates that he was the real enemy ; and many
of the party leaders, knowing that a bolt would take
place should he be the nominee, began to cast about
for some candidate in whose favor a combination
could be made. "The reformers had convinced
Conkling's followers that he could not be nominated,
and Morton was out of the question as well as Hart
ranft. This left Bristow and Hayes as the only pos
sible anti-Blaine nominees." 1
On the fifth ballot began a decided movement to
ward Hayes. When Michigan was called, a veteran
Republican, William A. Howard, who had been pres
ent at the birth of the party "Under the Oaks" thirty-
two years before, hobbled out into the aisle, and
in a voice tremulous with emotion said that there
was one candidate before the convention who had
already defeated three Democratic aspirants for
the Presidency, — Allen G. Thurman, George H. Pen-
dleton, and William Allen, — and that as he seemed
to have a habit of defeating distinguished Democrats,
it would be the part of wisdom to give him an oppor
tunity to defeat yet another one. The speaker then
announced that Michigan cast all of her 22 votes for
Rutherford B. Hayes. This announcement was re
ceived with tremendous applause ; and when the re-
1 The Nation, XXIII, p. 392.
24 The Hayes-Til den
suit of the ballot was announced, it was found that the
vote for Hayes had increased from 68 to 104. l
On the sixth ballot, however, a Elaine stampede be
gan. North Carolina, which on the previous ballot
had voted for Hayes, now came over to Elaine; the
Pennsylvania delegation, in which hitherto the unit
rule had been enforced, gave him several votes ; South
Carolina swung into line for him ; and in all he received
308 votes, or within 70 of the nomination. On the
same ballot Hayes had gained only 9; Morton had
received 85 ; Bristow in ; Conkling 81 ; and Hartranft
50.
It was now clear that the seventh ballot would be
the decisive one. Mr. Elaine's followers were confi
dent and even jubilant. The vote was taken amid
great excitement and confusion. From the first few
states Mr. Elaine gained many votes ; and it was ap
parent that if he continued to gain at the same rate
he would be nominated. When Indiana was called,
Mr. Will Cumback, the chairman of the delegation,
withdrew the name of Morton and cast 25 votes for
Hayes and 5 for Bristow. The crucial moment came
when Kentucky was reached. It was now evident
that Bristow could not be nominated, and his name
was withdrawn. Then, moved by the knowledge of
Elaine's hostility to Bristow, the Kentucky delegates
voted unanimously for Hayes. 2 They were followed
by most of the remaining delegates who had opposed
1 New York Times, June 17th; Johnson, An American States
man, p. 275.
2 Hoar, I, p. 382.
Disputed Election of 1876 2$
Elaine, with the result that Hayes received 384 votes
and the nomination. 1
The convention then proceeded to the less exciting
work of choosing a Vice-Presidential nominee. As
usual in such cases, this work was quickly accom
plished. Messrs. William A. Wheeler of New York,
Stewart L. Woodford of New York, Marshall Jewell
of Connecticut, Frederick T. Frelinghuysen of New
Jersey, and Joseph R. Hawley of Connecticut, were put
in nomination ; but before the first ballot had been
completed it was apparent that Mr. Wheeler had re
ceived a majority; the other candidates were with
drawn, and he was declared the unanimous choice of
the convention. 2
After transacting some further business the con
vention, having done all that lay within its power to
insure Republican success in the coming election, ad
journed sine die. 3
1 The following table (see McPherson, p. 212) gives the vote
in detail:
1st 2d 3d 4th 5th 6th 7th
Hayes 61 64 67 68 104 113 384
Elaine 285 296 293 292 286 308 351
Morton 125 120 113 108 95 85 0
Bristow 113 114 121 126 114 111 21
Conkling 99 93 90 84 , 82 81 0
Hartranft 5S 63 68 71 69 50 0
Jewell 11 (withdrawn)
Wm. A. Wheeler 3 32 2 2 2 0
Elihu B. Washburne. Oil 50
Whole No. of votes .. 755 754 755 754 755 755 756
Necessary to choice .. 378 378 378 378 378 378 379
2 McPherson, p. 212.
3 Except where otherwise stated my account of the conven
tion is based upon files of the New York Times, World, Herald,
Tribune, and of the Indianapolis Journal and Sentinel.
CHAPTER III
A DEMOCRATIC MOSES
The Democrats approached the campaign of 1876
in a more sanguine mood than did their opponents.
Flushed by their triumph in the congressional elec
tions of '74, encouraged by the fact that all but three
of the Southern states had at last been "redeemed"
from carpet-bag rule, and reassured by the continuous
damaging exposures which threw discredit upon the
Administration, the opposition, for the first time in
twenty years, felt fairly confident that the next Pres
ident would be a Democrat.
The question as to who should be the Democratic
standard bearer in the expected triumph was not such
an open one as in the camp of their opponents. The
signs of the times pointed to Samuel J. Tilden, govern
or of New York, as the probable leader. Neverthe
less, there were several other aspirants for the honor.
The most talked of were Senator Thomas F. Bayard
of Delaware, Senator Allen G. Thurman of Ohio, Gen
eral Winfield Scott Hancock of Pennsylvania, and Gov
ernor Thomas A. Hendricks of Indiana. Senator Bay
ard had distinguished himself as one of the ablest Dem
ocrats in the Senate, and was acceptable to the South
The Disputed Election of 1876 27
because he had opposed the coercion of that section,
but his chances as an "available" candidate were
greatly impaired by the smallness of the state from
which he came.1 Senator Thurman had proved
himself one of the ablest constitutional lawyers of the
day, and had led the Democratic lawyers in many a
hard fought parliamentary battle. Being a "hard
money" man, he was regarded with favor in the East,
but the "soft money" tide was running high among the
Ohio Democrats just then, and ultimately the candidate
put forward by the party in that state was a "soft
money" man, ex-Governor Allen. 2 General Hancock,
four years later to be the party's candidate against
Garfield, had been a strong competitor for the nom
ination in the convention of 1868. He was popular
with the war veterans, and was looked upon as a pos
sible "dark horse," though he would go into the con
vention with but little support outside his own state
of Pennsylvania. 3 A candidate whose fortunes were
pushed with greater vigor than those of any other yet
discussed was Governor Hendricks. As congressman,
senator, and governor, that gentleman had been prom
inent in state and national politics for many years, had
been one of the leading candidates in the convention
which nominated Seymour, and had received most of
the votes of the Democratic electors in 1872 after the
1 World, April 29th, June 18th and 25th. See also Times of
April 1st, June 23d and 26th.
2 Harper's Weekly for June 3 ; Times and World for May
18th; The Nation, XXII, p. 327.
3 See Life by Goodrich, pp. 303-306 ; Times of June 23d.
2 8 The Hayes-Tilden
death of Greeley. He had an enthusiastic following in
Indiana and some other states of the Middle West, but
was regarded in the East as a "trimmer" and as unsafe
on the money question. 1
Of all the men mentioned for the nomination, how
ever, Governor Samuel J. Tilden of New York ap
peared to be the logical candidate to lead in a "reform"
campaign. Mr. Tilden's rise to national prominence
had been rapid, but his experience in local politics
had been long and varied. At an early age he
had shown great precocity in political matters, and had
become intimately associated with that prince of poli
ticians, Martin Van Buren. He had followed his
leader in the Barnburners' revolt of 1848, in 1855
had been the candidate of the "soft shell' Democrats
for attorney-general, but in time had once more found
himself within the regular party fold. Mr. Tilden
had won great distinction as a lawyer, and through
,his success as a railroad "reorganizer" had managed
to amass a fortune of several millions. Although his
stand during the Rebellion had not been exactly what
lovers of the Union could have wished, this had not
prevented him from receiving in 1866 the chairmanship
of the Democratic State Committee in New York.
In this capacity he had been more or less associated
with unscrupulous leaders of the party in New York
T~My information Tipon Hendricks's candidacy has been
largely obtained from files of the Indianapolis Sentinel. See also
New York Times of Feb. 20th, 21st and May 15th. For a sketch
of his career up to this time see Cook, Lives of Tilden and
Hendricks, pp. 363-375. Bigelow says Hendricks was "more or
less infected with all the political heresies of the period and of
the section in which he resided." — Life of Tilden, I, p. 305.
Disputed Election of 1876 29
City; but after the exposure of the Tweed Ring by
The Times in 1871, he had at the eleventh hour thrown
himself into a desperate struggle against the Ring, and
it had been partly through his efforts that the organiza
tion had been broken up. Despite the opposition of
Tammany, he had in 1874 become the party's candi
date for governor, and had been triumphantly elected
over John A. Dix by a plurality of about 50,000. As
governor he had waged a relentless and successful
war upon the so-called "Canal Ring," and had also
succeeded in reducing the rate of taxation. Cold,
calculating, and secretive, he did not possess the qual
ities which arouse great public enthusiasm ; but by the
activities just described he had gained a great repu
tation as a reformer, and, though he had incurred some
bitter enmities in his own party, had succeeded in mak
ing himself in a certain sense the man of the hour. x
The Tilden "boom" was formally "launched" upon
the country by the New York Democratic convention
at Utica on April 27th, 1876. Despite the bitter op
position of Tammany under the leadership of John
Kelly, the convention commended the work of Gover
nor Tilden and adopted a resolution to the effect that
' 1 The best Life of Tilden, although uncritical, is that by
Bigelow. Elaine says of Tilden : "His hour had come ; he
promptly grasped the leadership thus left open. Starting out for
the Presidential nomination, his plan embraced three features :
his stepping stone was the governorship, his shibboleth was ad
ministrative reform, his method was organization to a degree
which has never been surpassed." — Twenty Years in Congress, II,
p. 574. "Not a statesman in the highest sense of the word, nor
a demagogue in the lowest sense of that word — a genuine Amer
ican politician of the first order." — Burgess, Reconstruction and
the Constitution, p. 282.
30 The Hayes-Til Jen
the Democratic party of New York "suggest, with re
spectful deference to their brethren in other States,
and with a cordial appreciation of other renowned
Democratic statesmen, faithful, like him, to their polit
ical principles and public trusts, that the nomination
of Samuel J. Tilden to the office of President would
insure the vote of New York and would be approved
throughout the Union." 1
When the Democratic hosts gathered at St. Louis in
the latter part of June, it was already apparent that
Tilden, whose campaign had been managed with con
summate skill, was in the lead and would probably be
nominated. Nevertheless, his opponents did not give
up hope. They urged with some force that the Dem
ocratic standard bearer in each of the last three cam
paigns had been a New Yorker, and each time had
gone down to disastrous defeat. The Westerners
pointed out that Tilden was a "hard money" man and
would not be acceptable in their section. Most of all,
his opponents emphasized the fact that he had numer
ous party enemies in his own state. Of this last there
was present concrete proof in the shape of a large con
tingent of Tammany "braves," led by John Kelly, who
did all in their power to persuade wavering delega
tions that Tilden would, if nominated, be overwhelm
ingly defeated in New York. The Tilden forces were,
however, admirably organized, and, under the leader
ship of such men as William L. Scott, A very Smith,
Senator Kernan, John Morrisey, ex-Senator Gwin,
1 New York Herald, World and Times for April 28th.
Disputed Election of l8j6 31
Lieutenant-Governor Dorsheimer, Montgomery Blair,
and Henry Watterson, were able to convince many
delegates that the proper candidate to lead a "reform"
campaign was the "reform" governor of New York.
The convention assembled on June 27th in the Mer
chants' Exchange, and was called to order by Augustus
Schell, chairman of the national committee. Henry
Watterson of Kentucky was chosen temporary chair
man ; he, in turn, gave way in the afternoon to
the permanent chairman, General John A. McCler-
nand of Illinois. On the following day after listening
to a number of speeches, among them the usual one
by a representative of the woman suffragists, the con
vention received, through Mr. Dorsheimer of New
York, the report of the Committee on Resolutions.
The platform thus submitted can be roughly sum
marized in the one word reform. "Reform," it
proclaimed, "is necessary" to secure the country "from
a corrupt centralism which, after inflicting upon ten
states the rapacity of carpet-bag tyrannies, has honey
combed the offices of the Federal Government itself
with incapacity, waste, and fraud, infected states and
municipalities with the contagion of misrule, and
locked fast the prosperity of an industrious people in
the paralysis of 'hard times.' Reform is necessary,"
it contineed, "to establish a sound currency;" and it
denounced the resumption clause of the act of 1875 as
being a hindrance to a speedy return to specie pay
ments, and demanded that the act should be repealed.
32 The Hayes-Tilden
"Reform is necessary," it asserted, "in the sum and
modes of federal taxation ;" and it denounced the
"tariff, levied upon nearly 4,000 articles, as a master
piece of injustice, inequality, and false pretense." "Re
form," it further declared, "is necessary in the scale
of public expense, — Federal, state, and municipal ;"
in the system of land granting, in order "to put a stop
to the profligate waste of the public lands;" in the
civil service; and even more in "the higher grades of
the public service."
"When the annals of this Republic," it specified,
"show the disgrace and censure of a Vice-President;
a late Speaker of the House of Representatives mar
keting his rulings as a presiding officer ; three Senators
profiting secretly by their votes as law-makers ; five
chairmen of the leading committees of the late House
of Representatives exposed in jobbery ; a late Secretary
of the Treasury forcing balances in the public ac
counts ; a late Attorney-General misappropriating pub
lic funds ; a Secretary of the Navy enriched or enrich
ing friends by percentages levied off the profits of
contracts with his departments ; an Ambassador to
England censured in a dishonorable speculation; the
President's private secretary barely escaping convic
tion upon trial for guilty complicity in frauds upon
the revenue; a Secretary of War impeached for high
crimes and misdemeanors — the demonstration is com
plete, that the first step in reform must be the people's
choice of honest men from another party, lest the dis
ease of one political organization infect the body
politic, and lest by making no change of men or parties
we get no change of measures and no real reform." l
1 The platform is given in McPherson, p. 215, and in Stan-
wood, p. 322.
Disputed Election of 1876 33
With the greater part of the platform the entire con
vention \vas in hearty accord; but the financial plank,
while ambiguous, was not satisfactory to the "soft
money" element, and a hard fight was waged to sub
stitute a minority report. This report, signed by Ew-
ing of Ohio, Voorhees of Indiana, and others, provided
for striking out the clause, "As such hindrance we
denounce the resumption clause of the Act of 1875,
and we here demand its repeal," and putting in its
place the following, "The law for the resumption of
specie payments on the 1st of January, 1879, having
been enacted by the Republican party without deliber
ation in Congress or discussion before the people, and
being both ineffective to secure its objects and highly
injurious to the business of the country, ought forth
with to be repealed." Voorhees and other speakers,
voicing the "West, the great and boundless West,"
spoke ardently in favor of the change; but the min
ority report was voted down by 550 to 219. The plat
form, as reported, was then adopted by 651 to 83. x
Nominations for the Presidency were then declared
in order, whereupon Whitely of Delaware presented
the name of Bayard; "Blue Jeans" Williams of Indi
ana that of Hendricks; Abbott of New Jersey that
of Governor Joel Parker; Senator Kernan of New
York that of Tilden; Ewing of Ohio that of ex-Gov
ernor Allen ; and Clymer of Pennsylvania that of Han
cock. Much excitement was caused by a speech made
1 McPherson, p. 217; New York Herald, World and Times of
June 29th.
34 The Hayes-Tilden
by John Kelly in opposition to Tilden. He was inter
rupted and hissed, and was able to get a hearing only
after some of Tilden's own supporters had called upon
the audience for fair play. He then solemnly asserted
that the nomination of Tilden would result in disaster
to the party, and declared himself in favor of Hen-
dricks.
When the balloting began, it soon became appar
ent, however, that the majority of the delegates were
of the same opinion as one of the speakers — that a
"reform campaign without Tilden would be like the
play of Hamlet with Hamlet left out." Of the votes
cast Tilden received 417 out of a total of 739. The
balloting in detail was as follows :
Tilden 417
Hendricks 140
Hancock 75
Allen 56
Bayard 33
Parker , 18
Total 739
But though Tilden had a majority of the votes, he
had not yet received the requisite two-thirds, so a sec
ond ballot was ordered. Before the result of the bal
lot was announced the anxiety of many delegates to
be on the winning side resulted in Missouri and other
states announcing changes in their votes, with the
result that Tilden received 535 votes and the nomi-
Disputed Election of 1876 35
nation. 1 The nomination was thereupon made unani
mous, and the convention adjourned till the following
day.
In the interval the delegates devoted much time to
canvassing the possibilities for the Vice-Presidency.
Among those mentioned for the honor were Hendricks
of Indiana, Payne of Ohio, and M. R. Morrison, ex-
Governor J. M. Palmer, and Cyrus McCormick of Illi
nois. When the convention reassembled, however,
sentiment had so crystallized in favor of Hendricks
that, despite the fact that it was not known whether
he would accept, he was nominated by acclamation.
After the transaction of some further business the
convention, having done all that lay within its power to
insure Democratic success in the forthcoming election,
adjourned sine die. 2
1 The second ballot in detail was as follows :
Tilden 535
Hendricks 60
Hancock 59
Allen 54
Bayard 11
Parker 18
Thurman 7
Total 744
2 My account of the Democratic convention is based in large
measure upon files of the newspapers mentioned at the end of
the preceding chapter.
CHAPTER IV
THE CENTENNIAL CAMPAIGN
The work of the two parties in their respective con
ventions was fairly well received by the rank and
file of each. To be sure, the Republican nominees,
while thoroughly respectable, did not arouse a great
deal of enthusiasm ; but it was felt to be something of
a victory to have put in the field a ticket upon which
all factions of the party could unite; and when the
first shock of surprise caused by the nomination of
Hayes had passed and a knowledge of his stubborn
stand for sound money and of his war record — four
honorable wounds and a brevet major-generalcy —
had been more widely disseminated, not a few mem
bers of the party came to believe with reason that
the choice for the head of the ticket at least had been
the wisest possible. l As for the reception accorded
the Democratic nominees, Tilden was for a little while
looked upon with disfavor by some elements of the
party in the "soft money" West; while a somewhat
1 Harper's Weekly, XX, pp. 526 and 546 ; Burgess, Recon
struction and the Constitution, p. 281 ; Elaine, II, p. 572. Elaine
naturally does not speak quite so strongly. The Conkling forces
remained apathetic during the campaign ; for a partial explana
tion see the Life of Conkling by A. R. Conkling, pp. 511-512 and
621. Conkling promised to make four speeches, but on account
ef illness made only one.
The Disputed Election of l8j6 37
similar feeling towards his running mate was enter
tained by some Democrats in the "hard money" East ;
but in both sections the dissentients soon fell into line
and supported the ticket. a
As -regards the platforms, that put forth by the
Democrats, though vague on certain important issues,
particularly those of resumption and civil service re
form, was looked upon by somt independents as the
stronger.2 The Nation, the most ably edited of the in
dependent periodicals of the day, was of the opinion
that the utterance of the Republican platform on the
question of civil service reform was a "barren propo
sition," that the platform evaded the currency issue,
and that, as a whole, it afforded "an excellent specimen
of the sort of mild imposture which the politician of
our day tries to practice on the people after his party
ceases to have substantial and unmistakable work to
do." 3
The letters of acceptance received more attention
from the public than did the platforms. 4 That of Mr.
Hayes put him in higher favor with the reformers,
for in it he denounced the spoils system as tending to
"extravagance and official incapacity," and declared
1 The Cincinnati Enquirer called Tilden's nomination a blow
at the West ; the Evansville Courier temporarily bolted the
ticket ; and other western Democratic newspapers, notably the
Indianapolis Sentinel, were for a day or two not at all enthus
iastic for Tilden. Bigelow thinks that the nomination of Hen-
dricks prevented many independents from supporting the ticket.
—Life of Tilden, I, p. 306.
2 The Nation, XXIII, p. 4.
3 Ibid, XXII. p. 390.
4 Ibid, XXIII, p. 144. The letters are given in McPherson,
pp. 212 and 2-17; also in the Annual Cyclopaedia, 1876, pp. 783
and 787.
4
38 The Hayes-Tilden
himself unreservedly for civil service reform.1 Mr.
Tilden devoted the greater portion of his long letter to
financial questions. His arguments, in general, were
able ones ; but his plan for resumption, in view of the
past attitude of his party on that subject, was "cloudy
in the extreme." 2
In the weeks immediately following the conventions
much curiosity existed as to what would be the action
of the Independents. In the main the members of the
Fifth Avenue Conference, though they had leaned to
wards Bristow, and were not entirely satisfied with the
Cincinnati platform, came out for Hayes; notable ex
ceptions were Mr. Parke Godwin and Mr. Charles
Francis Adams, both of whom supported Tilden. 3
The leaders of what remained of the Liberal Repub
lican organization declared for Hayes and declined to
hold a convention. 4
But though the Liberal Republican party thus dis
appeared from history, three other minor parties re
mained. One of these, the Prohibition Reform Party,
had in May nominated at Cleveland a ticket composed
of Green Clay Smith of Kentucky, and G. T. Stew
art of Ohio. The Independent Nationals, or "Green-
1 The Nation, XXIII, pp. 17 and 84. Mr. Hayes also stated an
"inflexible purpose, if elected, not to be a candidate for a sec
ond term."
2 Ibid, p. 84.
3 See an article on "Independents in the Canvass" in the
North American Review for October, 1876; also The Nation,
XXIII, p. 222. A letter written by Godwin appeared in the
Tribune for July 22d; one by Adams in the Sun for August 5th.
Adams was nominated for governor by the Massachusetts Dem
ocrats. Much was said by Republicans about "Adams's fall."
4 The Nation, XXIII, p. 49.
Disputed Election of l8j6 39
backers," in a convention held at Indianapolis in the
same month had nominated the philanthropist, Peter
Cooper, of New York, and Newton Booth of Califor
nia; but Booth had subsequently declined the honor,
and Samuel F. Cary of Ohio had been substituted. A
third organization, the American Nationals, had in
June met in mass convention at Pittsburg and had
nominated James B. Walker of Illinois, and Donald
Kirkpatrick of New York. 1 The race made by these
three parties served to give a humorous side to
the canvass, but all serious interest was concentrated
upon the doings of the Republicans and the Demo
crats.
The Democrats, under the direct but secret manage
ment of Mr. Tilden himself, fought the campaign on
lines laid down in the platform. Their speakers de
nounced the extravagance of the Republican rule, and
contrasted the cost of Democratic government under
such Presidents as Buchanan with the enormous cost
under Grant. They pointed to the "Salary Grab;" to
the whiskey frauds, by which, they asserted, the treas
ury had lost not less than $15,000,000 annually; to
the Clews Banking Company scandal ; to the Emma
Mine scandal, with which the minister to England had
been connected ; to the Credit Mobilier scandal ; to the
Venezuela scandal; to the Post Trader frauds; and
to all the other malodorous transactions in which in
cautious congressmen, cabinet officers, and other per-
1 Accounts of all these conventions, with the platforms, are
given by McClure, pp. 257-260 ; of the first two by McPherson,
pp. 224-225, and by Stanwood, pp. 310-313.
40 The Hayes-Tilden
sons high up in the Republican party had been in
volved. 1 And having brought their indictment, they
tried to convince the people that the only way to se
cure an efficient, honest, and economical administra
tion would be to turn the Republicans out and put
the Democrats in.
The Republican leaders were quite aware that their
party's recent record was not one with which it would
be safe to go before the people. Practically their only
hope of securing a new lease of power lay in creating
a still greater distrust of Democrats than was enter
tained for Republicans. They set about doing this
by reviving the sectional issue, by denouncing the
Democracy and all its works, and by attacking with
great virulence the personal record of Mr. Tilden.
As already related, the way for the revival of the sec
tional issue had already been prepared by Mr. Blaine.
The party orators "waved the bloody shirt" with great
vehemence, dwelt upon the horrors of Andersonville,
harped upon the intimidation of negroes, and sought
to identify the Democratic party with the party which
brought on the warJQVnother argument was that if
the Democrats should come into power, they would
pay about two billion dollars' worth of Southern war
claims, and would also ruin our credit abroad. ^ Much
1 A good summary of the Democratic case is given by Bige-
low, II, pp. 1-4. See also the Democratic Campaign Text Book
for 1876. Some unimportant attacks were made upon the in
tegrity of the Republican candidates. Much also was said about
Republican misgovernment in the South.
2 The Nation, XXIII, pp. 247, 263, 277. Tilden issued a state
ment denying that he would allow the payment of the claims.
Disputed Election of l8j6 41
was made of the conflicting opinions of the Demo
cratic candidates on the currency question. One of
the cartoons of the day represented the party as a
double-headed tiger, one head being that of Tilden,
the other that of Hendricks; the collars round their
necks were labelled respectively "Contraction" and
"Inflation ;" below was an inscription, part of which
read, "This double-headed, double-faced Tiger can
be turned any way to gull the American people." 1
As an offset to Republican frauds, the orators said a
great deal about Tweed and Tammany Hall. And,
when all other resources were exhausted, they fell back
upon "the general cussedness of all Democrats, their
moral degradation, liking for liquor, antipathy to 'good
men,' and fondness for brawling, fighting, and gen
eral deviltry."2
The attack upon Mr. Tilden was led by the New
York Times. The chief charges brought against him
were that he had been a railroad "wrecker," that he
had extorted excessive fees for legal services, that he
had been a Rebel sympathizer, that he had failed to
make full and fair returns of his income to the tax
assessor, and that he was a mere sham eleventh-hour
reformer, who had gone into the fight against the
Tweed Ring and the Canal Ring merely to pave his
1 Nast in Harper's Weekly, July 22d; see also number for
August 26th.
j2 The Nation, XXIII, pp. 115-116. For a humorous view of
the campaign see Ibid, p. 308. Many independents had hoped
that the campaign would be one of reason not of feeling. Not
much was said about civil service reform except at the very
last. A good deal was said in some quarters about state aid to
parochial schools? j
42 The Hayes-Til den
way to the Presidency. Most of these charges were
wholly without foundation; some of them were even
absurd ; but there was a modicum of truth in some of
them ; they were seized upon with great avidity by the
Republican press and orators ; and Mr. Tilden was kept
busy "explaining." l
Despite all their efforts, however, the Republicans,
even under the able management of the astute Zachariah
Chandler of Michigan, were not immediately able to
turn back the tide which had been running against them
so strongly during the past three years. The results
of the elections in the "October States" were slightly
unfavorable to them. West Virginia went Democratic
by more than 12,000, and Indiana by more than 5,000,
while in Ohio the Republican majority was less than
9,000. 2
Throughout the campaign the Republican news
papers were full of stories of Democratic outrages
upon the negroes in the South. With the idea of
weakening the Republican charges a Northern Dem-
1 . Upon the subject of his work as a railroad "reorganizer"
see Harper's Weekly, XX, p. 751, and The Nation, XXIII, pp.
Ill, 115, 219. "Sly Sam, the Railroad thief," was one of the
pleasant appellations bestowed upon him in one of the cam
paign songs. For his attitude during the war see Harper's
Weekly, XX, pp. 590, 730, 750, 826; The Nation, XXIII, p. Ill;
and speeches of J. A. Kasson and A. S. Hewitt in House of Rep
resentatives on August 14th. The income tax charge was pressed
with great vigor. See Bigelow, II, pp. 5-7, 225-260; The Nation,
XXIII, pp. 125, 141, 157, 174, 187, 190. 206, 263. On all these
matters I have made use of files of the Times, Herald and World.
2 Annual Cyclopaedia, 1876, pp. 411, 648, 805. In Indiana the
Republicans were handicapped by the discovery that their can
didate for governor, G. S. Orth, had been implicated in the
Venezuela scandal. He was forced to withdraw, and Benjamin
Harrison was substituted, but the scandal did the party great
harm. — Foulke, II, p. 415.
Disputed Election of l8jd 43
ocrat, Scott Lord of New York, in August introduced
into the House of Representatives a resolution to the
effect that "all attempts by force, fraud, terror, in
timidation, or otherwise to prevent the free exercise of
the rights of suffrage in any state, should meet cer
tain, condign, and effectual punishment." The resolu
tion was put forward rather unexpectedly without a
party conference on the subject, and for various rea
sons it proved rather embarrassing for some Demo
crats. However, after attempts had unsuccessfully
been made to dodge it, it was passed by a large ma
jority, although many Democrats refrained from vot
ing either for or against it. l
Much more effective steps to prevent disorder in the
South were taken by other branches of the Federal
government. On the I5th of August the secretary
of war, in an order which quoted the above mentioned
resolution, directed General Sherman, the commander-
in-chief, to hold all available troops in readiness for
use, upon call or requisition of the proper legal author
ities, in assisting to secure the political rights of all
citizens, irrespective of color or condition. On Sep
tember 4th the attorney general issued a circular of
instructions for the guidance of the United States mar
shals, whose duty it was, under the Federal election
laws, to exercise an oversight over the conduct of
elections for congressmen and electors. Three days
\Congressional Record, 44th Congress, 1st session, p. 5414;
The Nation, XXIII, p. 97.
44 The Disputed Election of 1876
later a general order was issued for the guidance of
the army. 1
But despite all these resolutions and instructions,
there came up from time to time from the Southland
rumors of intimidation, of "massacres," and of other
manifestations of a bitter determination on the part
of the Southern Democrats, particularly in the "unre
deemed" states of Florida, Louisiana, and South Car
olina, to win their way to political power at any cost.
In South Carolina the activity of "rifle-clubs," riding
"up and down by day and night in arms, murdering
some peaceable citizens and intimidating others," be
came so great that in October the governor appealed
to the President for military aid, and more than thirty
companies of troops were sent thither. But the exact
truth concerning the situation in these states is so
intimately connected with conclusions which must later
be drawn that the subject will be taken up in detail in
future chapters.
1 All these papers are given in House Ex. Doc. No. 30, 44th
Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 5-10. The order issued by the secretary of
war aroused much "Democratic fury" and denunciation. — Har
per's Weekly, XX, p. 806.
CHAPTER V
THE ELECTION — REPUBLICAN HOPE AFTER DESPAIR
The returns which came in on the night of Tuesday,
November 7th, were such as to indicate the election
of Tilden and Hendricks. The Democratic morning
papers were almost unanimous in claiming victory ; 1
jubilant headlines on the pages of journals which had
taken no satisfaction in chronicling the results of a
Presidential election for twenty long years announced
the news. 2 The Republican newspapers were scarcely
less unanimous in either directly or indirectly admit
ting defeat. A fair sample of what appeared in many
such papers that morning is the following, taken from
the Indianapolis Journal, one of the most intensely par
tisan in the country :
1 It has erroneously been claimed that all the newspapers in
the country, with the exception of the New York Times, an
nounced a Democratic victory. The New York Herald, for ex
ample, did not ; in its 2:30 edition on the morning of the 8th
it stated that the "Result is undecided." On the 9th its sum
mary was: 181 for Hayes, 184 for Tilden, with Florida in
doubt. "Is Tilden's election," it queried, "a Snark or a Boo-
jum?"
2 "The new era begins," said the New York World. "Peace
on Earth and to men of good will is the glorious message of this
glorious day."
46 The Hayes-Til den
"THE RESULT
"Tilden and Hendricks Undoubtedly Elected.
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and
Indiana Join the South. Which Gives Them
123 Votes and Swells the Aggregate to 188."
An editorial in the same paper read as follows :
"With the result before us at this writing we see no
escape from the conclusion that Tilden and Hendricks
are elected. The Democrats have doubtless carried
every Southern state, together with the states of New
York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Indiana, with pos
sibly Wisconsin. No returns have been received from
the Pacific coast, but none that may be received can
materially alter the present aspect of the case. Tilden
is elected. The announcement will carry pain to every
loyal heart in the nation, but the inevitable truth may
as well be stated."
But there was one Republican newspaper office,
namely that of the New York Times, in which a dif
ferent view of the result prevailed. Many erroneous
statements have been made regarding what took place
in The Times office that night. 1 One story which has
gained wide currency is to the effect that as Mr. John
C. Reid, the news editor, sat in his sanctum deploring
the defeat of Hayes, he received from the chairman of
the Democratic national committe, a note inquiring
a'bout the result in Louisiana, South Carolina, Florida,
1 See, for example, Bigelow, II, p. 9.
Disputed Election of 1876 47
and Oregon;1 that Mr. Reid thereupon, without any
information on which to base his belief other than this
hint of Democratic uncertainty, proceeded to claim
these states for the Republicans ; and that at that mom
ent was born a "conspiracy" which ultimately resulted
in the seating of Hayes. As a matter of history,
"neither 'conspiracy' within the office nor 'inspiration'
from without had anything to do with the verdict."
In the editorial council, composed of Mr. John Foord,
Mr. George Shepard, Mr. Edward Gary, and Mr. Reid,
there was, to be sure, a difference of opinion as to
vvhat attitude to assume, for the dispatches received,
especially in the earlier part of the evening, had been
unfavorable; but "the clear and composed intellect of
Mr. Edward Gary [not of Mr. Reid] exercised a pre
ponderating weight" against conceding Democratic
victory. 2 Accordingly the following non-committal
editorial, prepared by Mr. Gary, appeared in the first
edition of The Times:
"A DOUBTFUL ELECTION
"At the time of going to press with our first edition
1 At 3 :45 A. M. the following dispatch was sent to The Times:
"Please give your estimate of electoral votes secured for Til-
den. Answer at once." But the dispatch was signed by D. A.
Magone, not by Senator Barnum, as some writers have stated. —
H. K. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong., 3d Sess., I, p. 527.
2 My authority for this account is in part the Jubilee Supple
ment of The Times, September 18, 1901, pp. 17-18. "The dili
gence of the gentleman last named [Mr. Reid]," says this ac
count, "in awakening the Republican managers to a perception of
the duty which awaited them in the South may account for the
prevalent impression that the stand of The Times in regard to
the election of Hayes and Wheeler was especially his work."
As a matter of fact, Mr. Reid favored admitting defeat. For
some of the facts not contained in the Jubilee Supplement I am
indebted to one of the gentlemen who was present at the "edi
torial council."
48 The Hayes-Til den
the result of the presidential election is still in doubt.
Enough has been learned to show that the vote has
been unprecedentedly heavy ; that both parties have ex
hausted their full legitimate strength ; that the peculiar
Democratic policy for which such extensive prepara
tions were made in the large registry in this city, and
in Brooklyn, has had its effect, and that in some of the
states where the shotgun and rifle club were relied upon
to secure a Democratic victory, there is only too much
reason to fear that it has been successful."
Then came a paragraph conceding New York and
after that figures showing that Tilden had received
175 votes for certain and Hayes 178 votes for certain.
The editorial closed thus:
"This leaves New Jersey, Oregon and Florida still
in doubt. If the Republicans have carried New Jer
sey, they have 187 votes, or a majority of five. If they
have carried Florida and Oregon, they have 185 votes,
or a majority of one. The Democrats, in order to
gain the election (New York being conceded), must
have carried New Jersey, and in addition either Ore
gon or Florida. The returns from New Jersey leave
the state in doubt. Oregon is not heard from. Flor
ida is claimed by the Democrats."
Later returns proved more favorable, and in a sub
sequent edition published at 6:30 A. M. a slightly more
confident editorial displaced the one just quoted. The
pessimistic sentence about the shotgun and rifle clubs
was struck out of the first paragraph, but the para
graph to the effect that New York had probably gone
Democratic was retained. Then came the following :
Disputed Election of l8j6
49
"Conceding New York to Mr. Tilden, he will receive
the electoral votes of the following- states :
Alabama, 10 Mississippi,
Missouri, 15
New Jersey, 9
New York, 35
North Carolina, 10
Tennessee, 12
Texas,
Virginia, II
5
Arkansas,
Connecticut,
Delaware,
Georgia,
Indiana,
Kentucky,
Maryland,
6
6
3
ii
15
12
8
West Virginia,
Total,
184
"General Hayes
ing states :
California,
Colorado,
Illinois,
Iowa,
Kansas,
Maine,
Massachusetts,
Michigan,
Minnesota,
Nebraska,
will receive the votes of the follow-
6 Nevada, 3
3 New Hampshire, 5
21 Ohio, 22
1 1 Oregon, ^ 3
5 Pennsylvania, 29
8 Rhode Island, 4
7 South Carolina, \J^ 7
13 Vermont, 5
ii Wisconsin, 10
£
Total, 181
"This leaves Fjprida alone still in doubt. If the Re
publicans have carried that state, as they claim, they
will have 185 votes — a majority of one."
Believing that the situation was not correctly under
stood by the party leaders, Mr. Reid, the news editor,
hurried to the Republican headquarters in the
Fifth Avenue Hotel. Arrived there, he found the
50 The Hayes-Tilden
committee rooms deserted save by some employees of
the hotel ; for, a couple of hours before, the committee-
men and their friends had given up all as lost, and
had either gone home or gone to bed in the hotel. Mr.
Reid at once decided to hunt up Zachariah Chandler,
the national chairman, and started for the hotel office
in order to ascertain the number of Mr. Chandler's
room.
On his way thither he met a small man wearing a
greatcoat with a heavy military cloak, with his hat
drawn down over his eyes, and carrying a gripsack
and a copy of the New York Tribune. The newcomer
was Mr. W. E. Chandler, a member of the Republican
committee, who had just returned to New York after
a short trip to New Hampshire. Mr. Chandler be
lieved that the Republicans were defeated, but Mr.
Reid told him that this was a mistake, that the Demo
crats themselves were still uncertain as to the out
come. In support of this statement he showed Mr.
Chandler a dispatch from Democratic headquarters
asking for what information The Times had upon the
situation.1 Mr. Reid urged that the Republicans ought
to keep up their heads and claim the election of
Hayes. The two then repaired to Mr. W. E. Chan
dler's room, "where they went over the ground care
fully, state by state, from Maine to Oregon, counting
the electoral vote in each state, and showing the vote
as it was finally counted for Hayes and Tilden."
As the situation seemed to contain possibilities, the
1 See note 1, p. 47.
Disputed Election of l8?6 51
two then went in search of Mr. Zachariah Chandler, the
chairman of the committee. After one or two rather
ludicrous mistakes they found his room, and after
considerable knocking the door "was opened, and Mr.
Zachariah Chandler was discovered standing in his
night dress." He was, however, so utterly worn out
that he was with difficulty made to understand the sit
uation, and merely authorized Mr. W. E. Chandler
to do what he thought necessary.
Mr. W. E. Chandler and Mr. Reid then hurried to
the hotel telegraph office in order to dispatch some
messages to the states which were in doubt. Finding
the office locked, they decided to take the messages to
the main office of the Western Union, and therefore
ordered a carriage. In the interval before it arrived,
messages were prepared to Governor Chamberlain of
South Carolina, to S. B. Conover, Tallahassee, Florida,
to S. B. Packard, Republican candidate for governor
of Louisiana, and to persons in Oregon and California.
The import of all these telegrams can be inferred from
that sent to South Carolina, for it was typical. It
was as follows :
"Hayes is elected if we have carried South Carolina,
Florida, and Louisiana. Can you hold your state?
Answer immediately."
Mr. Reid then took the telegrams to the Western
Union office and dispatched them. l
1 This account is based upon an article by Mr. Reid in The
Times for June 15, 1887; on Mr. W. E. Chandler's testimony be
fore the Potter Committee, in H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th
Cong., 3d Sess., I, pp. 525, et seq.; and upon information supplied
52 The Hayes-Tilden
Later in the day Mr. Zach. Chandler, who had now
become fully alive to the possibilities of the situation,
sent out the following famous telegram :
"Hayes has 185 electoral votes and is elected."
To this claim the Republican leaders consistently
and stubbornly adhered until the end. And thus began
what was in some respects the most remarkable con
test which any country has ever witnessed.
The changed face of affairs quickly became known
throughout the country, and the Republican news
papers definitely claimed the election of Hayes. The
Indianapolis Journal, for example, had this headline on
the morning of the Qth :
"A CHANGE
"The Republicans Take Their Turn at Rejoic
ing. The Conclusion of Yesterday Reversed.
Latest Returns Give Hayes 185 Votes. A
Majority of One. All the Pacific States,
Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida, Are
Claimed by the National Committee as Cer
tainly Republican."
An editorial in the same issue ran as follows:
"During the last twenty-four hours the political situ-
by Mr. Chandler, who has read this and other chapters. Mr.
Chandler denies using language attributed to him by Reid, and
also denies that Reid dictated the telegrams. For a humorous
commentary on Reid's article see New York Sun for June 19,
1887.
Disputed Election of 1876 53
ation has undergone a remarkable change, and one en
tirely favorable to the Republicans. At the time of
going to press yesterday morning the returns indicated
very clearly the election of Tilden and Hendricks, and
the Journal, in common with all the leading papers of
the country, conceded the fact. At this writing, ap
parently trustworthy advices indicate almost unmis
takably that Hayes and Wheeler are elected
"You could have told a Republican five hundred
yards by the length of his visage yesterday morning,
and when groups of them gathered on the street cor
ners pedestrians instinctively looked around for the
corpse. There was every outward indication of a fun
eral, and it only needed the presence of a well filled cof
fin to make the delusion complete. They had given up
the ship the night before, and the news in the morning
confirmed their fears
"Democrats could be recognized, too, at long range,
and their rubicund faces told plainly that they 'liked
it pretty well, thank you.' The experience of a na
tional victory was a novel one, and the taste was sweet
indeed. It was intoxicating in its effects, and operated
on the Democratic system like a dose of hashish on a
cultivated Hindoo stomach. They were wild with joy,
and wanted to bet their substance on Tilden and Hen
dricks. They swapped stories with each other until
Tilden was elected unanimously. Then they got to
gether and yelled, and gaining confidence with each
yawp, yawped again This sort of thing
was kept up until n o'clock, when a reaction set in.
.... Our boys began to brace up at this cheer
ful intelligence. During the afternoon public opinion
underwent an almost complete revolution, and the Re
publicans emerged from the valley and shadow of dark
despair into the sunshine of hope, and the world looked
less wicked to them. Telegrams continued quite fa-
54 The Hayes-Tilden
vorable all the afternoon, and it looked very much as
though the name of the babe would be Rutherford."
Many of "Rutherford's" friends continued for a day
or two to believe that he had been defeated, 1 but
meanwhile the Republican managers were doing yeo
man work for him. They were fully aware of the
desperate necessity of securing every doubtful vote,
and left no stone unturned to obtain that result.
Agents, among them W. E. Chandler, were immedi
ately dispatched southward to the three states of Flor
ida, Louisiana, and South Carolina. Ample funds
were provided for their use.
As it was not improbable that disorders might occur
in the disputed states, the Republican leaders deemed
it wise to secure troops for the protection of the can
vassing officers. The task of getting them was not a
difficult one ; 2 for the President was a Republican, his
secretary of the interior was the head of the Repub
lican organization, and, furthermore, in the nick of
time Governor Stearns of Florida telegraphed that a
special train sent out to get returns had been "ku-
1 Several writers have represented Hayes as admitting defeat.
An alleged interview in which he was reported to have said that
he regretted his defeat most because of the effect it would have
on "the poor colored men" was published in many newspapers
at the time (e. g., in the New York Sun of November 9th).
This interview was later denied. — H. R. Mis. Doc. No. II. 45th
Cong., 3d Sess., I, p. 880. Col. Webb C. Hayes, who was his
father's secretary, says that Governor Hayes never admitted
defeat.
2 It appears that the "conspirators," as the Republican lead
ers have been called by the Democrats, talked with Grant, who
was then in Philadelphia, over Jay Gould's private wire,
of itself would seem to be no great crime. See Gibson, A Politi
cal Crime, p. 55. Gibson's book, it may be remarked here, was
prepared under the eye of Mr. Tilden.
Disputed Election of 1 876 55
kluxed" and thrown from the track, and he urgently
asked for aid. 1 On the night of the 9th, therefore,
several companies were ordered to Tallahassee ; and
further dispositions of troops in the disputed states
were subsequently made. 2 The President's action in
the matter aroused a storm of protest at the time and
has been much condemned by Democratic writers
since; but, whatever the motives which actuated him,
there can be little doubt that the presence of the troops
went far towards preserving the peace not only in the
states in which they were stationed but also in the
entire country.
On the loth the President issued an order which
was copied into probably every newspaper in the Uni
ted States. It was as follows :
"To Gen. W. T. Sherman, Washington, D. C. :
"Instruct General Augur, in Louisiana, and General
Ruger, in Florida, to be vigilant with the force at
their command to preserve peace and good order, and
to see that the proper and legal^ Boards of Canvassers
are unmolested in the performance of their duties.
Should there be any grounds of suspicion of fraudulent
counting on either side, it should be reported and de
nounced at once. No man worthy of the office of
President would be willing to hold the office if counted
in, placed there by fraud; either party can afford to
be disappointed in the result, but the country cannot
afford to have the result tainted by the suspicion of
illegal or false returns. U. S. GRANT/'
The President was anxious to secure an honest set-
1 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 42, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 435-436.
2 H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 30, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 22 et seq.
56 The Disputed Election of 1876
tlement of the contest in the disputed states, and with
this purpose in mind requested a number of prominent
Northern men to go down and witness the canvass.
Unfortunately, he seems to have had no confidence in
the fairness of Democrats, for he confined his requests
to Republicans. The Democrats, on their side, had a
corresponding distrust of Republican fairness ; leading
members of the party therefore packed their grips and
journeyed southward. Within a few days after the
election each disputed state had within its borders
delegations of "visiting statesmen," each of whom was
eager to safeguard the interests of the nation by secur
ing the vote of the state for his particular candidate.
Now followed a period of the most intense suspense
and excitement, marked also by ever-increasing bitter
ness of feeling. During the first part of this period
the attention of the country was fixed upon the states
in which the result was being contested. To give an
account of the situation in these states will be the
province of the next four chapters.
CHAPTER VI
THE CONTEST IN FLORIDA
^ Just how much the election of 1876 lacked of being
"fair and free" in the state of Florida1 no historian
will ever be able to determine. That it did fall short
of this ideal, is as certain as the fact that Hayes was
inaugurated, or that the supporters of Tilden believed
he was cheated out of a four years' residence in the
White House. ^3oth parties were about equally guilty,
though their methods in the main were different; in
timidation was the chief weapon used by the Demo
crats, and frauds in the conduct of the election and
in the count were those used by the Republicans, \
The task of determining the extent of the intimida
tion is a difficult, in fact, a hopeless one. It is all the
more difficult because some of the evidence was
1 The Republican state convention renominated Marcellus L.
Stearns for governor and adopted a platform indorsing1 the
state government as wise, just, and economical. The Democra
tic convention nominated George F. Drew for governor, and
adopted a platform arraigning both state and national govern-
me^ts for corruption, extravagance, and oppression. Senator S.
B. Conover, who had been accused of peculation by the Stearns
Republicans, ran for a time as an independent Republican candi
date, but in September withdrew. As the state debt was but
$1,329,757.68, the state tax levy but seven mills on the dollar,
and the expenditures but $190,000 while the receipts were about
$220,000, the Democratic cry of extravagance was not particularly
effective. — Annual Cyclopaedia, 1876, pp. 294-295; flies of the
Jacksonville Daily Florida Union.
58 The Hayes-Tilden
probably manufactured out of whole cloth; for,
both before and after the election, it was to the ad
vantage of the Republicans to make it appear that
intimidation was resorted to by their opponents. Nev
ertheless, when all due allowance has been made for
the work of the "political outrage mills," the fact
remains that there were many genuine outrages. The
acceptance by Southern Democrats of the Fifteenth
Amendment had never been anything save mere lip
service ; among them there was a pretty definitely con
ceived determination to eliminate as much of the negro
vote as possible. To one who understands the full
significance of this fact, even though he may be ignor
ant of the details of the particular case, the conclusion
that intimidation was resorted to in Florida is the most
natural in the world. But the conclusion is not a
mere theory ; it rests upon an overwhelming mass of
evidence.
The methods employed were various. The "Mis
sissippi plan," in a somewhat milder form than the
original, was tried in some districts. a Armed men
presented themselves at Republican meetings, de
manded half of the time for their own speakers, and
frequently subjected the Republican speakers to inter
ruption and abuse. 2 In some instances negroes were
1 S. R. No. 611 Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 45.
2 Some cases had an amusing side. At one public debate a
negro speaker was continually interrupted by a white man, the
burden of whose remarks was, "How many chickens have you
stole?" When the negro attempted to turn the matter aside by
saying he would like to have some chicken and would be glad,
if given any, to return the favor, the white man took the badin
age as an assertion* of social equality and assaulted the negro,
who did not dare to defend himself for fear of the other whites. —
Ibid, p. 347. For other instances see pp. 173, 201.
Disputed Election of 1876 59
threatened with death if they affiliated with Republi
cans, and were forced to join Democratic clubs. *
There is evidence to show that in at least one instance
an attempt was made to assassinate a prominent Repub
lican candidate, State Senator Meacham of Jefferson
county. 2 In a few districts the negroes were reduced
to such a state of fear that hardly a Republican vote
was cast. V In two of the wilder counties conditions
were such that, at least after the election, Republicans
did not dare travel there except under the protection
of a pass from the Democratic state committee. 4 /
In general, however, intimidation took a rather
milder form. From the point of view of politics it
was not to the interest of the Democratic party that
much real violence should occur, for that might
arouse the North. The work was to be done quietly;
instances like those given above were therefore excep
tional. Conditions were such that the work could be
done quietly. The negroes, Republicans practically to
a man, were almost as numerous as the white Demo
crats ; 5 but they were still timid as a result of slavery
and were quite incapable of holding their own in a
physical contest with their opponents. Most of the
white Republicans, the leaders of the blacks, lived in
the towns and villages, and hence were frequently
unable to afford much assistance to their sable allies,
1 S. R. No. 611, Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 241-253.
2 Ibid, pp. 335 et seq. ; Daily Florida Union, Oct. 28.
3 L. c., S. R. No. 611, Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 352.
4 Ibid, pp. 16, 364-368, 420.
5 The number of negroes according to the census of 1870 was
91,689, of whites 96,057.
60 The Hayes-Til den
the majority of whom resided in the sparsely settled-
country. x The number of political outrages in Flor
ida had not been so large as in some other states, but
it had been large enough to instill a deep-seated dread
into the minds of the freedmen. 2 In many cases,
therefore, it was natural that a threat alone should
prove sufficient to cool a negro's political ardor.
Furthermore, the vast majority of the blacks were
wholly dependent economically upon the white Demo
crats ; and this fact afforded an opportunity of
which full advantage was taken. Negro renters
were given to understand that if they made themselves
obnoxious politically, they would be ousted. / Field
hands were told that if they affiliated with the Repub
licans they would not be employed. 3 The following
from the Monticello Weekly Constitution of November
9th is significant :
"The election is now over, and the contest is decided,
but there remains a very importanj; duty for the citizens
of Jefferson [county] to perform. That they will dis
charge it impartially, even though it may conflict with
their individual interests, we have not a doubt. It is
embraced in the following resolutions adopted and fre
quently reiterated by the reformers during the cam
paign; and wre call upon every man to enforce them to
the very letter, to wit:
"i. That we pledge ourselves, each to the other,
1 See H. R. R. No. 140, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., pp. 77-78, for a
somewhat partisan discussion of these points.
2 For accounts of some of these outrages see the Ku Klux
Conspiracy reports, Vol. XIII, pp. 82-310.
3 See, for instance, S. R. No. 611 Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess.,
pp. 336, 343.
Disputed Election of 1876 61
by our sacred honor, to give the first preference in all
things to those who vote for reform ; and that we give
the second preference in all things to those who do not
vote at all.
"2. That we affirm the principle that they who
vote for high taxes should pay them, and that in em
ploying or hiring or renting land to any such persons
as vote for high taxes, in all such cases a distinction of
25 per cent, or one-fourth, be made against such per
sons. That merchants, lawyers, and doctors, in ex
tending credit to such persons, make the same distinc
tion.
"3. That in all such cases we extend as little credit
or use of our means as possible, leaving them to their
chosen friends.
" "4. That in the ensuing year we positively refuse to
re-employ one but of every three who may then be upon
our places and who voted against reform and low
taxes : and that a list of all such persons be published
in the Constitution, in order that we may know our
friends from our enemies.
"5. That we consider it dishonorable and unneigh-
borly for any farmer, planter, merchant, lawyer, doc
tor, or any other person to violate any of the foregoing
resolutions." 1
In many cases no doubt the intimidators were con
tent with keeping the blacks away from the polls, but
in others the negroes were required to vote the Demo
cratic ticket. The device of numbered ballots was used
1 S. R. No. 611 Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 46. The
use of the device indicated by these resolutions seems
to have been tolerably common, though, for obvious rea
sons, not many such resolutions were published. This was
published when caution was deemed unnecessary. Probably it
would not have appeared a day or two later. There were in
stances during the campaign of such notices being posted in
public places.
62 The Hayes-Til den
to a considerable extent to insure that an intimidated
or purchased freedman voted as instructed ; individuals
given such ballots were told that if the ballots were
not found in the boxes a reckoning would be exacted
later. Thirty such ballots were voted at one poll, sev
enteen at another, and smaller numbers at others. All
were counted, although their use was contrary to the
law providing for a secret ballot. *
There was, of course, another side to the matter of
intimidation. Occasionally pressure appears to have
been brought to bear by Republican negroes upon
negroes who showed Democratic leanings. At a place
in Jefferson county, for example, a white Democrat
named Bellamy and a contingent of negroes under his
influence were attacked on their way to a polling-
place by a mob of negro women and boys, who pelted
them with sticks, bricks, and other missiles. 2 Probably
there were more serious cases than this, but the num
ber cannot have been large, for the number of Demo
cratic negroes was small ; campaign assertions of
Southern Democratic politicians notwithstanding, there
has never been, either in Florida or elsewhere, any
considerable tendency of negroes, when left to them-
CJ
selves, to vote the Democratic ticket.
On the whole, the election proper passed off without
any considerable disorder. A threatened invasion by
1 S. R. No. 611 Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 283-303 ; Doc.
Evidence, pp. 141-144, 429-442. It was admitted by Democratic
counsel before the canvassing board that marked ballots were
used, and the right of employers to do so was defended ! — Ibid,
p. 143.
2 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 35, Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 172
et seq. See also pp. 355, 373, 377.
Disputed Election of l8?6 63
Georgia Democrats, against which the Republican
state committee had warned the people and against
which Governor Stearns had fulminated in a proclama
tion, a did not take place. In some places arms were
displayed with too much freedom, and Republican chal
lengers appear to have been intimidated at a few polls, 2
but there was little or no bloodshed.
The election was conducted in accordance with a
law passed in 1868 and amended in 1872. The law
provided for a registration prior to the election by the
clerk of the circuit court in each county and for a sub
sequent revision of the list by the county commis
sioners. Each polling-place was in charge of thjw
inspectors appointed by the county commissioners and
of a clerk chosen by the inspectors. The law required
these inspectors to canvass the vote before adjourn
ment. Certificates of the vote must be sent to the
clerk of the circuit court and to the county judge. On
or before the sixth day after the election, the clerk,
the county judge, and a justice of the peace must
meet in the office of the clerk and canvass the returns
of the county. Should the clerk or the judge be
absent or unable to attend, the sj>eriff_was^ empow-
ered to act in his place. The result of the canvass
was then to be recorded by the clerk in a book kept
by him for that purppse, and duplicate certificates
were to be made out and forwarded to the secretary
of ^state and to the governor. The final canvass of
1 Annual Cyclopaedia, 1876, pp. 296-297.
2 See, for example, S. R. No. 611, Part 2, 44th Cong.
2d Sess., p. 258 ; and Documentary Evidence, pp. 412, 413, 420.
64 The Hayes-Tilden
the returns was to be made on or before. the
day after election by the board of state canvassers,
composed of the secretary of st?1"^ the ajtoraey-gen-
eral, and the comptmllsr^Qf public accounts, or of "any
two of them, together with any other member of the
cabinet who may be designated by them." 1
The members of this board were Samuel B. McLin,
the secretary of state; Dr. Clayton A. Cowgill, the
comptroller ; and William Archer Cocke, the attorney-
V" general. McLin, a native of Tennessee, was the editor
of the Tallahassee Sentinel, had formerly been a Whig,
had served in the Confederate army, but had deserted
from it, and was now a Republican and hence what
was termed a "scalawag." Dr. Cowgill, a native of
Delaware, had been a surgeon in the Union army, and
was likewise a Republican. Cocke, a native of Vir
ginia, was a Democrat. 2
The board did its work under the eyes, encourage
ment, and advice of a number of distinguished poli
ticians from outside the state. On November I2th
Mr. W. E. Chandler had arrived in Tallahassee, and
had soon been joined by ex-Governor Noyes of Ohio,
John A. Kasson of Iowa, General Lew Wallace, later
famous as the author of Ben Hur, Francis C. Barlow
of New York, and other Republicans, some of them
salaried government employees. A number of prom
inent Democrats, including ex-Governor Brown of
1 The law is given In S. R. No. 611, Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d
Sess., pp. 21-28.
2 Annual Cyclopaedia, 1876, p. 298 ; Jacksonville Florida
Union, Nov. 28th.
Disputed Election of 1876 65
Georgia, C. W. Woolley of Ohio, and John F. Coyle
and Mr. Manton Marble of New York, had likewise
gathered in the Florida capital to look after Demo
cratic interests. Both contingents were well equipped
with the "sinews of war," and both were active in
advancing the interests of their respective candidates
by collecting affidavits and testimony and by acting as
counsel before the canvassing board.
Some of "the visiting statesmen" did not confine
themselves to such legitimate work as that just de
scribed. On the part of the Democrats, negotiations ,
were conducted looking to the purchase of one or
more members of the canvassing board and perhaps
of the governor ; two propositions were transmitted to
New York; a reply was received directing one of
them to be accepted; but in the end the attempt at
bribery failed. On the other side, the Republicans are
accused of having stiffened the faltering by assurances
that in case Hayes were counted in, he would "take
care of" his Southern friends. 1
The canvassing board met and began its work on
the 27th of November. Six visiting statesmen from
each party were admitted to the proceedings, and this
number was subsequently increased to ten. The same
courtesy was also extended to Governor Stearns, who
was .a candidate for re-election, to his opponent,
George F. Drew, and to General Brannan, commander
of the Federal troops in Florida. z
1 See chapter XIII.
2 Proceedings of the board, S. R. No. 611, Part 2, 44th Cong.
2d Sess., pp. 414-416.
66 The Hayes-Tilden
Despite the assertions of partisan writers, there
was at first little question as to the nature of the
board's powers. In 1871 in the case of Bloxham vs.
Board of State Canvassers it had been held that the
board's powers were "mainly ministerial ;" 1 but this
decision had been rendered before the amendment of
1872, which provided that "If any such returns shall
be shown or shall appear to be so irregular, false, or
fraudulent that the board shall be unable to determine
the true vote for any such officer or member, they
shall so certify, and shall not include such return in
their determination and declaration ; and the secretary
of state shall preserve and file in his office all such re
turns, together with such other documents and papers
as may have been received by him or said board of
canvassers." In 1874, in fact, the Democratic member
of the board, Attorney-General Cocke, had written a
formal opinion to the effect that this amendment con
ferred discretionary powers, and the board in can
vassing the vote that year had acted in accordance with
his view of the matter. z The board adopted the same
view now; received written protests, arguments, affi
davits, and documentary proofs ; heard witnesses ; and
1 13 Florida, p. 73. The court held, however, that the board
possessed the "quasi-judicial" power of determining whether pa
pers purporting to be returns were genuine and properly au
thenticated.
2 Testimony of Attorney-General Cocke, S. R. No. 611, Part
2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 27-29. The opinion is given on page
27. Gibson in A Political Crime, pp. 27-28, and Bigelow in his
Life of Tilden, II, pp. 23-24, charge that the exercise of discre
tionary powers was a bare-faced usurpation, that it was gen
erally recognized that the board's powers were purely ministerial.
Gibson quotes the decision of 1871, but fails to state that it was
rendered before the amendment.
Disputed Election of 1876 67
ultimately exercised their discretionary powers by re
jecting returns. 1
/ Seven public sessions were held, and then on Tues
day, December 5th, at a private session, the returns
were finally canvassed. t The board did its work in an ~\
unpardonably partisan manner, though in so doing, as
was remarked at the time, it merely followed examples
recently set by the Democratic majority in the national
House of Representatives. In the case of Platt vs.
Goode, the Democratic representatives, against the
earnest protest of the Democratic chairman of the
committee which investigated the case, had thrown out
an entire Virginia county, which had given the Repub
lican contestant an overwhelming majority, for the
sole reason that a few words of attestation upon the
return were omitted, although a copy correctly certi
fied and attested was offered in evidence. 2 In the
opinion of General Barlow, who was perhaps the fairest
witness of the Florida count, this precedent, "far more
flagrantly wrong" than any decision "made in the
Florida case," greatly affected the judgment of the
Republican members of the canvassing board. 3
1 See the written arguments submitted to the board, Ibid,
Documentary Evidence, pp. 1-18. The Democratic counsel took
a middle view on the question. — See pp. 16-17.
2 See Congressional Record, 44th Cong. 1st Sess., pp. 4882 et
seq. ; and Digest of Election Cases, 1871 to 1876, H. R. Mis. Doc.
No. 52 45th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 650 et seq. For another almost
equally flagrant case see Abbott vs. Frost, Ibid, pp. 594 et seq.
Abbott was seated, and was later one of the Democratic mem
bers of the electoral commission. As such he drew up the
scathing protest of the "Seven." This House, it should be said,
was not the only one in which contests have been decided in a
partisan way; the practice is a common one.
3 Letter of Barlow to President Grant, S. R. No. 611, Part 4,
44th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 12.
68 The Hayes-Til den
On the face of the returns, as the Republican mem
bers of the board conceived the returns, the vote for the
Hayes electors was 24,337; f°r the Tilden electors
24,292. 1 /However, only 26 counties were canvassed
according to the face of the returns; in all the others
the board exercised discretionary powers, rejected cer
tain precincts and one whole county, and thereby
raised the majority for the lowest Hayes elector over
the highest Tilden elector to 924. 2 t
To set forth in detail how this result was reached
would require several hundred pages of print. A
few instances will. serve to show the spirit in which
the work was done.
Baker county was one of the chief bones of conten
tion. From that county there were three returns,
only one of which was made out in seeming legal
form. As already explained, the law provided that
"on the sixth day after an election, or sooner if the
returns shall have been received, it shall be the duty of
the county judge and the clerk of the circuit court to
meet at the office of the said clerk, and take to their
assistance a justice of the peace of the said county
(and in case of the absence, sickness, or other disa
bility of the county judge or clerk, the sheriff shall act
in his place) and shall publicly proceed to canvass
the votes given for the several offices and persons as
shown by the returns." It appears that the county
judge, Elisha W. Driggers, notified the clerk, M. J.
1 S. R. No. 611, Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 17.
2 Ibid, pp. 12 and 18-19.
Disputed Election of l8jb 69
Cox, to meet with him on Monday, November I3th, the
sixth day after the election ; but Cox, who was a Demo
crat, associated with himself a justice named Dorman,
and on the loth, while the judge was out of the
county, the two, the sheriff refusing to act with them,
made up a return. This return was not regular, for
it had not been made by all the officers required by
law. On the I3th the clerk, having meanwhile grown
uneasy because of the irregularity of his proceeding,
requested the judge to join with him in making another
canvass. This the judge refused to do on the ground
that the clerk's action in making the previous canvass
constituted a refusal to act with the judge. The
clerk and the justice thereupon proceeded to make a
second canvass, which, however, was no more reg
ular than the first. Now came the turn of the judge
and the sheriff. These two worthies, in accordance
with a plan already formed, met that evening, together
with a justice especially commissioned for the purpose
by the governor, in the clerk's office, to which the
deputy clerk had given the judge the key, and pro
ceeded to make a new canvass of the votes. In so
doing they threw out, on the plea of fraud, two pre
cincts which had given Democratic majorities ; this
they had no legal right to do, although it appears
that such a practice had occasionally been followed in
the past. The three then made out certificates, reg
ular on their face, and forwarded them as required
by law. It was by counting this return that the Re-
70 The H ayes-Til den
publicans made it appear that on the face of the re
turns the state had gone for Hayes. *
/ The state canvassing board did not, however, accept
the Driggers return. Instead they exercised discre
tionary power, canvassed the county by precincts, and
counted the vote of the whole county as it had actually
been cast, 143 votes for the Hayes electors and 238
votes for the Tilden electors. In this proceeding the
Democratic member, Judge Cocke, concurred. 2 /
Had the board stopped here, the state would have
been given to Tilden, but they did not do so. They
proceeded to go behind the returns in other counties.
In Hamilton county 83 Democratic and 58 Republi
can votes were thrown out, because they had been
illegally added to the return after it had been com
pleted and signed. In the same county Jasper Pre
cinct No. 2, which gave 323 votes for the Democratic
electors and 185 votes for the Republican electors,
was rejected on the ground that the inspectors had not
completed the canvass until after an adjournment, had
allowed unauthorized persons to handle the ballots and
assist in the count, and had next day signed a return
which they had neither made nor verified. 3 The at
torney-general concurred in this- action, but later, after
1 The evidence bearing on Baker County is very voluminous.
See index to Baker County on p. 470 of S. R. No. 611, Part 2,
44th Cong. 2d Sess. ; Documentary Evidence, pp. 76-82 ; H. R.
Mis. Doc. No. 35, Part 1, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 284-300; and
index to testimony regarding Baker County on p. 12 of H. R.
Mis. Doc. No. 31, Part 5, 45th Cong. 3d Sess.
2 See minutes of board in Senate report above cited, p. 9.
3 Ibid,.
Disputed Election of l8jd 71
consultation with his party associates, protested
against it in a written protest. 1
In the town of Key West, Precinct No. 3, which
gave 401 Democratic votes and 59 Republican votes,
was thrown out on the plea that the inspectors had
adjourned before the completion of the canvass, and
had completed it the next day at a different place,
without public notice. In addition, there was proof
that there had been threats of violence and that the
Republican challengers had been intimidated. The
board did not, however, take this proof into account,
holding that this was a matter over which the law
defining their powers did not give them jurisdiction. 2
Judge Cocke at first concurred in throwing out the
poll, but later wished to change his vote, and did de
nounce the board's action in his written protest. 3
In Jackson county, Campbellton Precinct and
Friendship Church Precinct, both of which gave con
siderable Democratic majorities, were thrown out.
The first was rejected "on account of the violation of
the election laws by the inspectors in removing the
ballot-box from the election room at the adjournment
for dinner into an adjoining store, and leaving it
unsealed and concealed from the public during said
adjournment; in not counting the ballots at the close
of the polls and comparing them with the number of
names on the poll-lists, and because only seventy-six
Republican votes were counted out of the ballot-box,
1 S. R. No 611, Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 33 and 41.
2 Ibid, pp. 9-10.
3 Ibid, pp. 6, 14, 3«, 31, 33.
j2 The Hayes-Tilden
whereas 133 persons swear that they voted the full Re
publican ticket." The other precinct was thrown out
because the inspectors placed the ballot-box in such a
position as to be out of sight of the voter and of the
public; because they did not complete the canvass at
the polling place but in a bed-room two miles away;
and because they did not count the ballots and com
pare them with the names on the polling-list. The
attorney-general opposed the rejection of either of
these precincts. 1
The vote of Manatee county was thrown out on
the plea that there had been an "entire absence of any
and all legal steps in preparation for the election and
in holding the same." In the main this was true. In
the preceding September the clerk of the circuit court
had resigned, and the person appointed by the governor
to succeed him was either unable to give bond or pur
posely refrained from doing so. In consequence no
registration was made, and the election was an in
formal one at which 262 votes had been cast for the
Tilden electors and only 26 for the Hayes electors. By
the Democrats it was claimed that the situation was a
result of a Republican conspiracy, but whether or not
such was the case the evidence does not conclusively
show ; it is possible that it was in part due to the fact
that the county was a remote one on the edge of the
Everglades and communication with it was slow and
difficult. The exclusion of the county was objected
to by the attorney-general. 2
1 S. R. No. 611, Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 7, 10, 42.
2 Ibid, pp. 32-33.
Disputed Election of 1876 73
Numerous changes of less importance were made,
in most of which all three members concurred. Some
of these changes were favorable to the Democrats,
but did not affect the general result. That result, as
finally promulgated, showed a substantial majority
for Hayes, the election of the Republican state ticket,
which had run some three hundred votes behind the
national ticket, and also that of both of the Republican
candidates for Congress. 1
As has already been stated, the canvass was con
ducted in a highly partisan manner. In every im
portant instance in which votes were thrown out the
advantage inured to the Republicans. Furthermore,
the majority of the board refused to eliminate other
returns, the validity of which was questioned, when by
so doing they would have seriously diminished the
Republican vote. There were many such cases, but a
few of the most conspicuous will suffice. Proof was
brought to show that at Archer Precinct No. 2, Ala-
chua county, 219 names had been fraudulently put
upon the polling-list and the same number of votes
added to the Republican majority. 2 Proof was also
adduced to show that at Richardson's School House
Precinct, Leon county, 73 "little joker" Republican bal-
1 S. R. No. 611, Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 9-10, 18-19,
32-33.
2 Ibid, see index pp. 469-470 ; Documentary Evidence, pp. 24
9t seq. ; H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 35, Part 1, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., see
index pp. 304-305 ; contested election case of Finley vs. Bisbee
H. R. R. No. 95, 45th Cong. 3d Sess. ; and H. R. Mis. Doc. No 31
!!? Fo°ong' 3d Sess" especially testimony of L. G. Dennis, I. pp.
477, 483, 554, 853. Dennis was one of the Republican election
officers, and two years later, out of revenge for having been
removed from office by the Administration, made a "confession"
to the Potter Committee.
74 The Hayes-Tilden
lots had been smuggled into the ballot-box, while to
cover up the trick the poll-list had been correspond
ingly increased.1 /There were irregularities of form
in the return from Duval county, which gave a large
Republican majority;2 there was proof that there had
been irregularities in the conduct of the election in
certain Republican precincts in Jefferson county and
elsewhere. 3 Yet in all these cases, as well as in sev
eral others, the majority of the board voted to can
vass the returns without change. 4 /
What the result would have been if the returns had
been canvassed by an unpartisan board it is impos
sible to say with certainty. At the same time it is
clear that if none of the returns had been rejected and
if in Baker county the return containing all the pre
cincts had been substituted for the Driggers return,
the result would have been a majority for the lowest
Tilden elector over the highest Hayes elector of 93
votes. 5 f How nearly these returns corresponded to
the votes in the ballot-boxes can never be ascertained.
Frauds in the count and return of votes were unques
tionably committed by both sides. In this kind of
work the Republicans had the advantage of having a
small majority of the election officers, but this was
probably counterbalanced by the ease with which
shrewd Democrats could hoodwink the illiterate ne-
1 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 35, Part 1, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 1-80;
H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong. 3d Sees., II., pp. 94-96.
2 Documentary Evidence, pp. 113 et seq.
3 Ibid, p. 261 et seq.
4 Senate report above cited, pp. 1-43.
5 Ibid, pp. 402-409.
Disputed Election of 1876 75
groes who acted as election officers in many places. *
On the whole, it is not improbable that an unpartisan
board, acting on the same theory of its powers as did
the actual board, would have held that the returns
did not in all cases correspond to the votes in the bal
lot-boxes, would have thrown out some returns con
trary to the interests of each party, but would in the
end have found a small majority for Tilden. The
least partisan man who witnessed the count, namely
/General Barlow, took that view of the case.- He had
gone to Florida at the request of Grant, he was a
Republican, but he came to the conclusion that on the
evidence the board should give Tilden a majority of
from 30 to 55. He even urged one of the Republican
members of the board to adopt such a course, but
without effect. 2 Whether General Barlow's opinion
in fhe case was in any measure due to a tendency
sometimes noticeable in high-minded persons to con
cede all doubtful points to an opponent, it is impos
sible to say ; certain it is that his opinion, though admit
tedly based on only part of the evidence, is entitled to
very great weight.
But there is another aspect of the case which must
not be lost sight of by the investigator who would
arrive at the true merits of the tangled election of
1876 — an aspect which the canvassing board deemed
1 For an expression on this point see H. R. R. No. 140, 45th
Cong. 3d Sess., p. 84.
2 See two letters written by Barlow after his return from
Florida, S. R. No. 611, Part 4. 44th Cong. 2d Sess.. pp. 12-13;
also his testimony before the Potter Committee, H. R. Mis. Doc.
No. 31, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., I, pp. 1361, 1388, 1408.
76 The Hayes-Tilden
lay without its powers and one not taken into account
by General Barlow. / While a fair count of the votes
cast in the state of Florida might have resulted in a
small majority for Tilden, a free election would with
far greater certainty have resulted in a substantial
majority for Hayes. /The board did not throw out
votes, not even "marked ballots," on the score of
intimidation ; yet no one familiar with the evidence
and with the attitude of the Southern Democrats to
ward negro suffrage will for a moment doubt that there
was sufficient intimidation to change the whole result.
To be sure, there was no such sweeping suppression
of the negro vote as there was in Louisiana, South
Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, and some other states ;
but when the result was so close, that was not neces
sary. When all due allowances are made, therefore,
it is a not unfair conclusion that in equity the electoral
votes of the state of Florida belonged to Hayes.
The labors of the canvassing board were completed
on the night of December 5th. On the following day,
the date set by Federal law, the Republican electors
met and cast their votes for Hayes and Wheeler. 1
The result, properly certified, was then dispatched to
the president of the Senate.
The Democratic electors, although declared elected
by no properly constituted authority, likewise met on
1 The subject of the alleged ineligibility of Humphreys, one of
the Republican electors, will be discussed in the chapter on the
work of the Electoral Commission. It was also claimed that
Charles H. Pearce, another elector, was ineligible, but the con
tention was ultimately given up. See S. R. No. 611, Part 4,
44th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 14.
Disputed Election of 1876 77
the same day and cast their votes for Tilden and
Hendricks. The result, irregularly certified by Judge
Cocke, the attorney-general, was also forwarded to
Washington. 1
Seemingly the situation was now sufficiently com
plicated, but it was to become much more so. George
F. Drew, the Democratic candidate for governor, peti
tioned the state supreme court for a mandamus to com
pel the canvassing board to canvass the returns of the
votes for governor in a strictly ministerial way. The
court, a majority of whom were Democratic in sym
pathy, 2 granted the petition. In so doing the court
dissented from the view "that the board of state can
vassers is a tribunal having power strictly judicial,
such as is involved in the determination of the legality
of a particular vote or election." "All the acts which
this board can do under the statute," the court held,
"must be based upon the returns; and while in some
cases the officers composing the board may, like all
ministerial officers of a similar character, exclude what
purports to be a return for irregularity, still everything
they are authorized to do is limited to what is sanc
tioned by authentic and true returns before thern.^
.... They have no general power to issue sub
poenas, to summon parties, to compel the attendance
of witnesses, to grant a trial by jury, or to c$) any act
but determine and declare who has been elected as
1 Both these certificates of votes are given in Electoral Count,
pp. 11-13.
2 Testimony of Geo. P. Raney, Democratic attorney general
under Drew, H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, Part 2, 45th Cong. 3d Sess.,
p. 59.
78 The Hayes-Tilden
shown by the returns." The board must confine itself
to ascertaining and certifying the votes "actually cast,"
and must not assume the power to go behind the re
turns in an effort to ascertain the "legal vote," this
being a matter upon which the courts alone were
competent to decide. On December 23d the manda
mus was issued. 1
Under protest of the Republican members the board
reconvened, and after a second canvass of the returns
announced that Drew had received 24,179 votes and
Stearns 23,984 votes. In so doing the majority mem
bers, against the wishes of the Democratic member,
counted the Driggers return from Baker county as
being the only one regular in form, and threw out the
vote of Clay county because the return was so irreg
ular that they could not, from it alone, ascertain the
true vote. Then, although the writ had merely di
rected them to recanvass the vote for governor, the
board, or rather the two Republican members, re-ex
amined the vote for electors, and reported "that a re-
canvass of them, according to the said decision," would
show that the Republican electors had received major
ities averaging about 211 votes.2 This result was
made possible by the fact that Stearns had run some
hundreds of votes behind the Republican national
ticket.
/ The matter by no means rested here. The Demo
cratic electors had already petitioned the court of the
1 The proceedings in this suit are given in S. R. No. 611, Part
2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 388-401.
2 Ibid, pp. 400-401.
Disputed Election of 1876 79
second judicial circuit for a writ of information in
the nature of a quo warranto against the Republican
electors, and a summons had been served upon the
respondents just before they voted. The suit was later
prosecuted to a conclusion, and on January 25th the
judge of the court, P. W. White, a Democratic parti
san, issued an order to the effect that the Democratic
electors had been rightfully chosen. 1 / The case was
then appealed, but was never again brought to trial. 2
Meanwhile the Democrats had displayed zeal in yet
another field of activity. On the 2d of January their
candidate for governor was inaugurated at Tallahas
see without opposition;3 the-newly elected legislature
was convened ; and "an act to procure a legal can
vass of the electoral vote of the state of Florida as
cast at the election held on the 7th day of November,
A. D., 1876," was passed and approved. The act cre
ated a canvassing board composed in much the same
manner as the previous one had been, and it ordered
the members of this new board to convene and recan-
vass the vote. The board, all the members of which
were Democrats, did as ordered, and on January iQth
certified the election of the Democratic electors by
majorities over the highest Hayes elector of from 87
to 90 votes. 4
A few days later the legislature formally declared
that the Democratic electors had been dulv elected.
1 H. R. R. No. 143, Part 1, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 8 ; Part 2, p.
11; H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 35, Part 3, pp. 81-82.
2 Proceedings of the Electoral Commission, p. 56.
3 The Nation, XXIV, p. 19 ; Florida Union, Jan. 3d and 4th.
4 H. R. R. No. 35, Part 3, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 70-79.
8o The Disputed Election of l8jd
It also directed the governor to make and certify
"three lists of the names of the said electors," together
"with an authenticated copy of this act," and transmit
the same to the president of the Senate. The electors
themselves were directed to meet and make and sign
three additional certificates of all the votes given by
them on the 6th of December/and transmit one of the
same to the United States district judge and the other
two, one by messenger and the other by mail, to the
president of the Senate. l These things were done, 2
and the Florida farce was complete.
1 H. R. R. No. 35, Part 3, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 80-81
2 Ibid, pp. 70-71.
CHAPTER VII
BULLDOZERS AND RETURNING OFFICERS IN LOUISIANA
In perhaps no other state in the Union has there
ever been such a disorderly condition of affairs as
existed in Louisiana during the years from 1866 to
1877. Wholesale corruption, intimidation of negro
voters by thousands and tens of thousands, political
assassinations, riots, revolutions — all these were the
order of the day in Louisiana politics.
That this reign of lawlessness exceeded that in any
other of the reconstructed states was in part due to
the nature of the population. The white inhabitants
were in large measure French and Spanish Creoles,
who had both the virtues and the weaknesses of their
ancestors. The ante-bellum society of Louisiana, and
particularly of New Orleans, had been polite and even
brilliant ; yet the state had been one of the least law-
abiding of any of the long-settled communities. The
custom of the duello was firmly fixed, and in the
metropolis frequent bloody encounters took place
beneath the moss-hung "duelling oaks" in what is now
the city park. l Occasionally this lack of respect for
1 Thompson, The Story of Louisiana, p. 248 ; King, New Or
leans, pp. 292-299.
82 The Hayes-Tilden
law revealed itself in political matters, as (in the
notorious Plaquemine frauds of 1844 x and the New
Orleans riot of 1855, when for a time the city was in
the hands of two rival factions, who seized public
buildings and erected barricades. 2 The freedmen,
despite the presence of a considerable number of
educated blacks in New Orleans, were on the average
less intelligent than in most of the former slave states.
This was in part due to conditions which had existed
during slavery days. The number of slaves had been
exceedingly large, and most of them had lived on great
plantations where civilizing contact with the superior
race had been unusually slight. Furthermore, many
of the slaves had been persons of desperate or criminal
character who in punishment had been sold "down the
river."
As elsewhere in the South, the whites of Louisiana
did not take kindly to emancipation. They took still
less kindly to enfranchisement. The idea that the
negro was "divinely created to be servant to the white"
had so long been instilled into the Southern mind that
it was an article of faith. The possibility of the black
man's occupying any other position was a thing un
thinkable. So long as the negro remained in his "place"
the Southern white man was in a sense his friend, but
any attempt on the part of the freedman to assert equal
privileges became as a red rag to a bull. As the negro
was now "the nation's ward," he was a convenient
1 Sargent's Life of Clay, p. 254.
2 Gayarrg, History of Louisiana, IV, p. 679 ; Thompson, p. 255.
Disputed Election of 1876 83
object on which the unthinking could vent their im
potent hatred for the North. This tendency was vastly
increased by the outrageous manner in which the
negro — too often at the instigation of Northern bureau
agents — abused his new-found liberty. As a result
of these and other causes, there followed throughout
the South a period replete with instances of brutal
outrage and murder. In Louisiana, owing partly to
reasons already described, the number of these crimes
was particularly great. 1
An argument frequently employed in justifying the
outrages on the freedmen is that the whites were
goaded into it by the evils of negro domination. The
argument holds good in part, but only in part, for
unhappily outrages were committed before the suffrage
was conferred upon the blacks, before such a step was
even favored by any considerable number of Northern
people. Had such outrages never occurred, it mav
well be doubted whether sweeping negro suffrage
would have been bestowed ; for the argument that the
negro needed a weapon with which to defend himself
was unquestionably a deciding factor with thousands
of persons to whom the partisan political motive did
not appeal.
Louisiana was one of the states in which the whites
1 H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 30, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 458-540, con
tains a partial list (not wholly reliable) of the murders and
outrages. See also S. Ex. Doc. No. 43, 39th Cong-. 1st Sess ; H
R. R. No. 16, 39th Cong. 2d Sess. ; H. R. R. No. 101, 43d Cong. 2d
Sess., various other congressional documents, and the newspapers
of the time. My own conclusions are in large measure based up
on files of the New Orleans newspapers.
84 The Hayes-Tilden
did not wait to see the fruits of negro rule before
falling upon the hapless freedmen. The first important
conflict took place in New Orleans in July, 1866, as a
result of an attempt of the radicals, with the consont
of the governor and a judge of the state supreme court,
to reconvene the constitutional convention of 1864 in
order to enfranchise the blacks. Mayor Monroe made
preparations to suppress the convention ; a riot occur
red ; and a most inhuman massacre resulted, in which
about forty negroes and white radicals were killed and
about 136 were wounded.1
The next important race conflicts occurred in the
late summer and fall of 1868. In the spring of that
year an election was held at which the new constitu
tion was ratified and at which H. C. Warmoth, Repub
lican candidate for governor, was elected by a majority
of over 26,000. Later in the year the Knights of the
White Camelia, an organization similar to the Ku
Klux, entered upon a campaign of violence and intim
idation, with the result that the Republican majority of
the spring was transformed into a Democratic plurality
of about 46,000 for Seymour. This astonishing re
versal was later explained by Republican members of a
congressional investigating committee in the following
language :
1 The convention .appears to have had no legal right to re
assemble, but, on the other hand, the mayor's action was
unwarranted. For an account of the affair and an un
qualified condemnation of the mayor see Cox, Three Decades
of Federal Legislation, pp. 430-432. H. R. R. No. 16, 39th
Cong. 2d Sess. contains a vast amount of testimony bearing upon
the subject. The massncre was used with great effect by the
Radical Republicans in the North. See also Rhodes, History of
the United States from the Compromise of 1850, V, pp. 611-613.
Disputed Election of l8j6 85
"The testimony shows that over 2,000 persons were
killed, wounded, and otherwise injured in Louisiana
within a few weeks prior to the Presidential election in
November, 1868; that half the state was overrun by
violence ; and that midnight raids, secret murders, and
open riot kept the people in constant terror until the
Republicans surrendered all claim But the most
remarkable case is that of St. Landry, a planting parish
on the river Teche. Here the Republicans had a
registered majority of 1,071 votes. In the spring of
1868 they carried the parish by 678. In the fall they
gave Grant no vote, not one — while the Democrats
cast 4,787, the full vote of the parish, for Seymour and
Blair. Here occurred one of the bloodiest riots on
record, in which the Ku Klux killed and wounded over
200 Republicans, hunting and chasing them for two
days and nights through fields and swamps. Thirteen
captives were taken from the jail and shot. A pile of
twenty-five dead bodies was found half-buried in the
woods. Having conquered the Republicans and killed
and driven off the white leaders, the Ku Klux captured
the masses, marked them with badges of red flannel,
enrolled them in clubs, made them vote the Democratic
ticket, and then gave them a certificate of the fact." 1
A detailed account of the political history of Louis
iana from 1868 to 1876 is in this connection unneces
sary. In general the period was one in which the
party in opposition, consisting of most of the white
inhabitants, pursued a policy of intimidation, even to
1 H. R. R. No. 261, 43d Cong. pp. 11-12. Quoted by Cox, pp.
551-552. Cox thinks the statement "a good deal exaggerated,
especially as to the number killed," but "the failure of the
negroes to vote can be explained only on the theory that a reign
of terror existed." 28 parishes which in 1868 gave Grant but
5,360, gave 35,010 to the Republican candidate for auditor in
1870, when the election was a comparatively peaceful one.
86 The Hayes-Tilden
the extent of assassination ; while the party in power,
consisting chiefly of negroes and white carpet-baggers,
resorted to election frauds and to unblushing misap
propriation of public funds. The value of property
greatly decreased ;T the payment of taxes fell more than
$2,000,000 in arrears ; and the state debt was increased
to enormous proportions. 2 In 1870 the Republicans
quarreled among themselves ; and Governor Warmoth
went over to the Conservatives, as the Democrats were
called. A period of great confusion followed. The
election of 1872 was claimed by both parties ; but the
Republicans were able through the complaisance of
United States District Judge Durell, who issued the
famous "midnight restraining order," to obtain the all-
important aid of the Federal troops, and to install
William Pitt Kellogg as governor. McEnery, the
Democratic claimant, was also inaugurated, but after
a few weeks found himself obliged to abandon tem
porarily all efforts to assert his authority. On the
1 4th of September, 1874, however, the White League,
Trhis was due in part to the war, to the emancipation of
hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of slaves, to the disorder
Incident to the change from one labor system to another, to the
panic of the early '70s, but in large measure to misgovernment.
2 The increase in the debt was not wholly the result of actual
stealing from the state, although the amount stolen was large
enough. Expenditures were increased as a result of the bad
condition of the levees, of subsidies to companies (fraudulent in
many cases but not always so) engaged in undertakings which
it was hoped would help the development of the state, etc.
thermore, tax receipts fell off as a result of the decrease in tl
value of property, while the state bonds were floated much below
par Financiers had little faith in Southern bonds, partly be
cause of the unsettled conditions in that section, and partly
because in the period before the war so many of the states in
that section had repudiated their debts. What faith they had
was mostly misplaced, for after the states were "redeemed a
large proportion of the bonds were repudiated.
Disputed Election of l8j6 87
an armed quasi-secret organization consisting of Con
servatives, rose against the Kellogg government; a
battle ensued in the streets of New Orleans ; and
Kellogg and his supporters were forced to take refuge
in the custom-house. Once more the President inter
fered, and Kellogg was reinstated by Federal bay
onets. During the ensuing two years little better than
a state of anarchy existed in parts of Louisiana ; in a
few parishes the officials were either driven out or
murdered, sometimes because they were of bad char-
acter or incompetent, but in some instances solely
because they were negroes or white Republicans. l
Such was the condition of affairs when the cam
paign of 1876 opened. The Republicans were the first
to put a ticket in the field. Their convention met at
New Orleans on the 27th of June and after some
stormy sessions nominated S. B. Packard for governor
and renominated C. C. Antoine for lieutenant-gov
ernor. Packard, a native of Maine, had for some
years been United States marshal of Louisiana, 'and
had been closely associated with the custom-house
coterie of Republicans who managed the state's affairs.
Antoine was a negro, and is said to have been a native
of San Domingo. The Democrats held their conven
tion at Baton Rouge on the 24th of July, and selected
as their candidates General F. T. Nicholls of Assump
tion Parish and Louis A. Wiltz of Orleans. Nicholls
1 This sketch is based chiefly upon the hundreds of pages of
testimony contained in S. R. No. 457, 42d Cong. 3d Sess., and
H. R. R. Nos. 261 and 101, 43d Cong. 2d Sess., and upon files
of the New Orleans Picayune and New Orleans Times.
88 TheHayes-Tilden
was a graduate of West Point, and had lost both an
arm and a leg while fighting in the Confederate army
in Virginia, but at this time was engaged in the
practice of law. In their platform the Democrats
denounced Republican rule, both state and national,
affirmed their acceptance of the last three amendments
to the Federal Constitution, pledged a free and fair
election, and promised equal educational advantages
to both races. 1
The manner in which the campaign that followed
was conducted by the two parties was affected to a
considerable degree by the nature of the election laws.
These laws had been framed with the end in view of
enabling the party in power to neutralize the effect of
violence and intimidation on the part of their Demo
cratic opponents ; for, as an observer has remarked,
"What the Republicans lacked of the lion's skin they
eked out with the fox's tail."2 At the head of the
electoral system created by these laws stood a state
returning board, consisting of five members, chosen
originally by the senate from all parties, but with the
provision that the members themselves should fill va
cancies. This tribunal had the discretionary power of
inquiring under certain restrictions into the conduct
of elections, and of rejecting the vote of any precinct
or parish wherein force, or fraud, or fear so prevailed
as materially to affect the result. The power just
1 Annual Cyclopaedia, 1876, pp. 481-483, and 493 ; files of New
Orleans Times and Republican.
2 Benjamin F. Butler's report as a member of the Potter Com
mittee, H. R. R. No. 140, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., p. 96.
Disputed Election of 1876 89
described was an unusual one; yet, considered as a
remedy, it was to a certain extent inadequate, for
while it enabled the board to throw out votes, it did
not enable them to add votes which would have been
polled had there been no violence and intimidation. 1
This fact furnished the Democrats an opportunity
of which they appear to have cunningly taken advan
tage in this campaign. Their plan involved two fea
tures. 2 They purposed to carry on in most sections
of the state a canvass that was entirely devoid of
violence. They even took pains to propitiate the
negroes ; employed colored preachers and other leaders
to speak for them; gave barbecues with music and
other attractions ; and in some districts in promises of
equality "outstripped the Republicans." 3 This policy
was especially pursued in those parishes which usually
gave Democratic majorities ; in such parishes the party
managers strove hard to prevent the occurrence of any
act of violence which would give the Republican re
turning board a pretext for rejecting the vote; and in
the main they were successful in this effort, although
outrages were occasionally committed by Democrats
whose hot blood got the better of their discretion. On
the other hand, in a few selected parishes, such as
1 Act 98 of 1872, given in Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 2, 44th Cong. 2d
bess., pp. 160-168. The author would not, of course, have the
reader believe that he would for a moment advocate such a law
2 This theory was set forth by the Republican "visiting states
men' in their report to the President, Ibid, pp. 4-9. The Demo
crats vigorously attacked the theory, but it seems to me that it
is a true one. Facts which appear to me to be conclusive are
presented in succeeding pages.
3 Report of Democratic members of Potter Committee, H R
R. No. 140, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., p. 29.
90 The Hayes-Tilden
Ouachita, East and West Feliciana, East Baton Rouge,
and Morehouse, the Democrats pursued entirely differ
ent tactics. These were parishes in which, since the
great majority of voters were negroes, the Democrats
had everything to gain and nothing to lose. If, by a
process of "bulldozing" in any one of these parishes,
they should succeed in destroying the Republican ma
jority, they would, if the vote were allowed to stand,
be gainers to the amount of the majority destroyed
plus whatever majority they managed to secure. If,
on the contrary, they succeeded, but the vote were
rejected, then the Republicans were at least deprived
of their normal majority. So it was with the other
alternatives ; in any case it was "heads I win, tails you
lose" for the Democrats. l
Conditions in other respects were favorable for
carrying out the Democratic plans. From numerous
bitter experiences in the past the negroes had learned
that when the whites entered upon a campaign of
intimidation, it was safest to yield peacefully and grace
fully to the inevitable. When, therefore, the white
rifle-clubs began to ride about the country at night
singing such ditties as,
"A charge to keep I have, a God to glorify ;
If a nigger don't vote with us, he shall forever die." 2
1 This was not a new scheme. In 1872, when the Warmoth
election officers were in control, cases occurred where Democratic
commissioners appear to have stuffed ballot-boxes at Republican
polls in order to furnish a pretext on which the returning board
might reject such polls. — S. R. No. 457, 42d Cong. 3d Sess., p. 77.
2 S. R. No. 701, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 19.
Disputed Election of 1876 91
many freedmen needed no further warning, but joined
Democratic clubs, attended Democratic barbecues, and
ate Democratic roast ox with the best of them. Others
who were slightly more stubborn were induced to
change their politics or at least to refrain from voting
by being threatened with loss of employment. Yet
others were whipped or otherwise maltreated, while a
few, more unfortunate still, were roused from their
beds at night and brutally murdered. Thanks to the
work of past years, however, the amount of actual
violence needed was comparatively small. In those
parishes where there had been recent conflicts the task
of intimidation was particularly easy. *
The success of the Democratic policy in the selected
parishes was so great that the Republicans, seeing that
a free election was impossible, decided in some cases to
make merely nominal contests and to devote them
selves to collecting evidence of the bulldozing in order
that the returning board might have grounds for re
jecting the parishes either in whole or in part. Thus,
says a congressional investigator, there was "presented
this singular spectacle : That in portions of the state
an active and vigorous campaign was going on be
tween the parties and in other portions of the state
there was substantially no campaign at all." 2 The
Democrats later claimed that the Republicans gave up
the fight in these parishes because the negroes volun-
1 These .conclusions rest upon practically the whole mass of
testimony collected by the Congressional committees.
2 H. R. R. No. 140, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., p. 96.
92 The Hayes-Til den
tarily joined Democratic clubs, but the argument seems
hardly a reasonable one. All the bulldozed parishes
had two years before given large Republican major
ities, and there is no real evidence to show that they
would not have done so again had it not been for
disorders and outrages during the campaign itself or
during the year preceding it by which the negroes had
been thoroughly cowed.
The Republicans did not, however, rest all their
hopes of victory upon their success in collecting evi
dence of bulldozing. Another matter to which they
devoted much attention in the course of the campaign
was that of registration. The appointment of the
supervisors of registration and their clerks was in the
hands of Governor Kellogg, and he appointed Repub
licans almost exclusively. x Many of those chosen for
the work already held state or Federal offices; some
of them were men of low character, one, for
example, having formerly been, it was said, the "roper-
in" for a snake show. 2 The registration officers were
regarded by the Republican campaign committee as
under their direction; and detailed instructions were
issued to the supervisors by D. J. M. A. Jewett, secre
tary of the committee on canvassing and registration.
These instructions informed the, supervisors that they
were expected "to register and vote the full strength
of the Republican party," and that results "once ob-
1 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 34,, Part 1, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 713,
et seq.
2 Ibid, pp. 443, 1049, etc.; H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong.
3d Sess., I, pp. 1105, 1109, 1129, 1464, 1467, etc
Disputed Election of 1876 93
tained," their "recognition" would "be ample and gen
erous." *
Thus encouraged, the supervisors worked with great
effectiveness. In fact, shortly before the election their
lists showed a total of 115,268 colored voters or al
most 8,000 more than the number of colored men of
voting age according to the census taken in 1880. '2
Most of this excess appears to have been in the city of
New Orleans, where, owing to the laxity of the reg
istration officers in failing to prevent double registra
tion and especially in failing to strike off the names
of negroes who had died or who had removed from
the ward, a negro population of 57,647 yielded the
astonishing registration of 23,495. That these figures
were subsequently decreased by 3,368, and that at the
election the Republicans cast but 14,801 votes for their
highest elector, or about their real strength, was due
almost wholly to the vigilance of the Democrats, not
to that of the registration or election officers.
On the other hand, the registration officers were
active in helping to keep down the white registration
to the lowest possible limit. In New Orleans, for
example, they worked with the Republican managers
in executing a very successful scheme for detecting
illegal Democratic registration. About 29,000 '"sew
ing machine circulars" were sent by the Republican
campaign committee to the addresses of registered per-
nrrl ^ R' M1S' DOC' N°' 31« 45th COn8"- 3d SeSS- *• PP- 1074-
1076, 1441.
2 The registration figures are given in H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 34
Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 494.
94 The Hayes-Tilden
sons not known to the Republican leaders ; many
thousands of these circulars were returned by the let
ter carriers as "not found ;" canvassers were then sent
out to make a second search ; and when they reported
that a given person did not live at the address given
on the registration books, his name was stricken off.
Many mistakes were made, and some of the names
were later restored, but the white registration was de
creased by about 4,500. The claim was later set up
that many thousands of Democrats were thereby de
prived of their right to vote, but the evidence does not
bear out the claim. 1
Some days passed after the election before the fig
ures of the vote actually cast could be ascertained.
At first the Republicans were inclined to believe that
they had obtained a majority, 2 but after word had been
received from the outlying parishes it was found that
the Democratic plan had worked so beautifully that
on the face of the returns the highest Tilden elector
would receive about 84,000 votes and the lowest about
83,000 votes, while the highest Hayes elector would
receive only about 76,000 votes and the lowest about
74,000 votes. 3 Upon the strength of this showing the
Democratic press of the country with great positive-
ness claimed the state for Tilden. But the Republican
1 For some of the testimony regarding registration see H R
Mis Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., I, pp. 1001, 1051-1056!
1064; H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 34. Part 2. 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp.
311, 319, 329, 396, 471, 484, 500, 537, 539, 555, 599, 603, 635, 713,
2 Testimony of Jewett before Potter Committee, H. R. Mis
Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong. 3d SPSS., I, p. 1441.
3 H. R. R. No. 140, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., p. 97.
Disputed Election of l8j6 95
managers transmitted words of cheer to their brethren
in other states. The returning board, said they, has
not yet performed its work. Wait till it gets through
with the parishes in which there has been wholesale
intimidation, and then see if Tilden has a majority. 1
As in the case of Florida, Louisiana at once became
the goal for many prominent politicians of both
parties. John Sherman, James A. Garfield, Eugene
Hale, E. W. Stoughton, and other Republicans hurried
to New Orleans by special request of the President,
and were joined there by some who had not been so
honored. Not to be outdone, a goodly number of
Democrats, among whom were John M. Palmer, Ly-
man Trumbull, Samuel J. Randall, J. R. Doolittle,
Henry Watterson, and Oswald Ottendorfer, obeyed
telegrams received from Abram S. Hewitt, chairman
of the Democratic national committee, and repaired to
the Crescent City on a like mission.
On the day after the Democratic statesmen reached
their destination they addressed to the Republican vis
itors a letter suggesting that, " in view of the un
happy controversies which have heretofore arisen from
the action of the returning board of the state," the
two contingents unite in exerting their influence "in
behalf of such a canvass of the votes actually cast as
by its fairness and impartiality shall command the
respect and acquiescence of the American people."
1 E. g., telegram of A. Dumont, chairman Rep. State Com.,
in H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 42, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 16. Also of
Kellogg in Annual Cyclopaedia, 1876, p. 486.
96 The Hayes-Tilden
In their reply the Republican visitors declined to hold
such a conference and pointed out that they were pres
ent merely as witnesses, "without power or legal influ
ence over the result, or over the means by which,
under the laws of Louisiana, the result is to be de
termined." They further called attention to the fact
that the canvassing board possessed power to exer
cise judicial as well as ministerial duties, and that to
reduce the whole question to the merely clerical duty of
counting "the votes actually cast," as distinguished
from the votes "legally cast," would involve "a nul
lification of the provisions of the laws of Louisiana."
They assured the Democratic statesmen, however, that
"we join heartily with you in counsels of peace and
in the expression of an earnest desire for a perfectly
honest and just declaration of the results of the recent
election in Louisiana by its lawfully constituted author
ities, and we may add that we know of no reason to
doubt that such declaration will be made." Next day
the Democrats returned to the charge with a
letter in which they explained that by the expression
"votes actually cast" they had not meant to include
"votes illegally cast." They disclaimed any intention
to interfere with the legally constituted authorities,
but supposed it was not improper "to remind the
authorities of this state, by our mere presence at least,
that there are certain rules of fairness and justice
which underlie all constitutions and laws, and upon
whose observance must depend the acquiescence of the
people of all parties in the declared result of the
Disputed Election of 1876 97
Louisiana election." They frankly confessed they had
no such faith in the returning board as was evinced
by the Republican visitors. "We deem it not im
proper," they said in this connection, "to remind you
that the very presence in this city of so many citizens
from all parts of the Union at this moment seems to
be evidence of a widely-prevalent distrust of the ac
tion of this board, and that such distrust has this
foundation, at least, that the constitution of the board
has not been changed since its returns were set aside
by a Congressional committee of which the Republican
candidate for the Vice-Presidency was a member."
The Republicans still declined, however, to enter into
any combination for concerted action. 1
Unquestionably the Democrats had good reason for
distrusting the board, while the Republicans took en
tirely too hopeful a view when they announced that
they knew no reason for doubting that a perfectly
honest and just declaration of the result would be
made. To begin with, the board as then constituted
consisted entirely of Republicans ; for though the law
provided that all parties should be represented on it,
the sole Democratic member had resigned, and the
remaining^four members had ignored the provision
requiring them to fill the vacancy.2 Then, too, the
character of the four was by no means such as to in
spire any great degree of confidence. J. Madison
1 This correspondence is all given in S. Ex. Doc. No 2 44th
Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 31-35.
2 See post p. 100.
98 The Hayes-Tilden
Wells, the president, was a native of Louisiana, had
to his honor remained a Union man when the state
seceded, had been chosen lieutenant-governor under
the Banks reconstruction plan, and had later become
governor, but in 1867 had been removed by General
Sheridan, who had characterized him as "a political
trickster and a dishonest man." 1 Thomas C. Ander
son, also a native Louisianian, was known to have used
his influence as a state senator in obtaining a subsidy
for a navigation company in which he had a large
pecuniary interest. 2 The other members were both
mulattoes. One of them, Louis M. Kenner, was a sa
loon-keeper, and at one time had been indicted for
larceny, but upon confession had been allowed to es
cape punishment. 3 The other, Gadane Casanave, was
an undertaker and the most respectable member of
the board; but even he was not a man of the highest
intelligence or the finest moral grain. 4 The board as
a whole had been severely criticised for its conduct on
a previous occasion by a committee sent out by the na
tional House of Representatives to investigate the elec
tion of 1874. Two of the Republican members of the
committee united with the Democratic members in de
claring the action of the board in that election "unjust,
illegal, and arbitrary."5 The remaining Republican
1 Cited by The Nation, XXIII, p. 309. For other opinions of
Wells see Harper's Weekly, XX, p. 988; S. Ex. Doc. No. 2, 44th
Cong. 2d Sess., p. 6 ; H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 34, Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d
Sess., pp. 506, 508, 509; Ibid, No. 42, pp. 143-163, 178-183.
2 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 34, Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 589-
3 Ibid, p. 598 ; also Part 1, pp. 59 et seq.
4 Ibid, pp. 52 et seq.
5 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 261, 43d Cong. 2d Sess., p. 3.
Disputed Election of 1876 99
members G. F. Hoar, W. A. Wheeler, and W. P. Frye,
reported that the board had reversed the result as indi
cated by the votes actually in the ballot-boxes ; but in
consideration of the board's good intentions, Messrs.
Hoar, Wheeler, and Frye simply expressed "emphatic
disapprobation of its proceedings" and "dissent from
the view it took of its own powers and duties/' and pro
nounced its conduct "illegal" in "attempting to cure
one wrong by another." 1
The law required that the board should meet within
ten days after the date of the election. On Friday,
the 1 7th of November, the members assembled and
held a secret conference. On the next day they met
again and adopted a resolution to the effect that an
invitation should be extended to each delegation of
"distinguished gentlemen from other states" to send
five members to witness the proceedings. The invi
tation was accepted, and the visiting statesmen took
turns in attending the meetings of the board. 2
At the first public session on the following day the
board announced the rules which were to govern
their proceedings. The rules provided that the board
should "first take up, canvass, and compile" the re
turns from those parishes to which no objections had
been made, and should then proceed to consider the
returns from the disputed parishes; that all protests
and arguments from candidates or their attorneys
should be made in writing; that, except by members
1 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 261, 43d Cong. 2d Sess., p. 28.
2 S. Ex. Doc. No. 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 35-36.
TOO The Hayes-Tilden
of the board, all interrogatories to witnesses must be
in writing and must previously have been submitted
to opposing counsel for cross-interrogatories ; that can
didates, or attorneys representing candidates, could be
present only when contested cases were being heard;
that whenever the members of the board should deem
it desirable, they might "go into secret session to
consider any motion, argument, or proposition which
may be presented to them ;" that, finally, after all the
evidence was in, the board should make the final de
termination in secret session. After the rules had
been read Judge Spofford, counsel for one of the Dem
ocratic candidates, made an urgent plea for entire
publicity, but this the board refused to grant. l
A like answer was given to five protests which had
been filed by the Democratic counsel at the last ses
sion. These protests dealt with such matters as the
judicial powers of the board, the vacancy in its mem
bership, and its right under the law to canvass the
returns for electors. All the answers were reasonable
with the exception of the one dealing with the sub
ject of filling the vacancy. The law provided that all
parties should be represented and that "in case of any
vacancy by death, resignation, or otherwise of either
of the board, then the vacancy shall be-fiHed by the
residue of the board." The members of the board
now held that the law provided for the original organ
ization only, "that all political parties at that time or
ganized were represented, that there was then no party
1 S. Ex. Doc. No. 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 40.
Disputed Election of l8jd 101
known as the Democratic-Conservative party, that
"there was no provision in the law for a reorganization
of the board, so it could not have been contemplated
that the board should be changed to suit shifting polit
ical organizations that might subsequently be made." -1
This absurd view was stubbornly held to the end. At
a subsequent discussion of the matter Wells declared
that through the resignation of their representative
the Democrats had lost their right to representation
on the board. He also alleged that the members of
the board were unable to agree upon any one to fill
the vacancy. 2
Seven sessions were devoted to canvassing and com
piling the vote of those parishes against which there
were no protests. 3 Had the board complied with the
strict letter of the law, there would not have been much
other work to do, for, save in a very few cases, the
protests had not been regularly made. The law regu
lating the making of protests provided that whenever,
during the time of registration or revision of registra
tion or on the day of election, there should be any riot,
acts of violence, intimidation, bribery, or corrupt in
fluence which tended to prevent a fair and free elec
tion, the supervisor of registration, if such acts oc
curred during the period of registration or revision of
registration, or the commissioners of election, if such
acts occurred on election day, should make affidavit of
the fact and of the effect produced thereby, and these
1 S. Ex. Doc. No. 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 40-43.
2 Ibid, pp. 75-76.
3 Ibid, pp. 45-105.
IO2 The Hayes-Tilden
affidavits must be corroborated under oath by three
qualified voters of the parish. The affidavits were to
be made in duplicate, and if made by the commissioners
of election were to be forwarded to the supervisor of
registration for the parish. 1 One copy of each pro
test the supervisor must annex to his "returns of elec
tion by paste, wax, or some adhesive substance" so
that the same could be kept together ; the other copy he
must deliver to the clerk of the parish court. 2 As an
other section of the law provided that commissioners
of election must make their returns within twenty-
four hours of the close of the polls and that the super
visors of registration must within twenty-four hours
after the receipt of all returns consolidate such returns
and forward them by mail to the returning board, it is
clear that definite time limits were set to the making of
protests by these various officers. 3 If the law in this
respect was mandatory and not merely directory, then
almost all the protests upon which the board based
their jurisdiction to go behind the returns were il
legal ; 4 for, according to one witness, there was but one
protest which had been made and forwarded in strict
accordance with the law. 5
The reasons why no more protests were made in
time were various. Some officials appear to have re-
1 But in New Orleans to the secretary of state.
2 Section 26 of Act 98, 1872, given Ibid, p. 164.
3 Ibid, p. 166.
4 It was provided, however, that candidates should be allowed
a hearing before the board upon making application within the
time allowed for the forwarding of the returns. — Ibid, p. 161.
5 Statement of Jewett in brief given to Benj. F. Butler, cited
by Gibson, p. 364.
Disputed Election of 1876 103
f rained through fear, some through inattention or stu
pidity, some because nothing had occurred in their
parishes on which a protest could be based, some be
cause they meant to force the Republican managers to
pay them for protesting, and some because they be
lieved there would be a Republican majority which
would obviate the necessity of throwing out any votes. l
This belief that there would be a majority on the
face of the returns had for a time been held by the
leaders at New Orleans. When the reverse had been
found to be the case, the lack of protests had been ser
iously felt. But this lack, while very inconvenient,
had not been allowed to prevent the consummation de
sired by the Republican managers. Luckily most of
the supervisors had brought their returns to New Or
leans in person, instead of forwarding them by mail
as the law required, and, arrived there, had in the ma
jority of instances deposited the returns at the cus
tom-house instead of delivering them at once to the
board ; even of those returns sent through the mails
some at least had been held in the post-office. An
opportunity was thus afforded of which the Republican
managers had taken full advantage.
"It is in testimony and uncontradicted, so far as I
know," says one of the later congressional investi
gators, "that on or about the 23d of November these
sealed up returns of supervisors were, in the presence
of the secretary of the Republican campaign commit
tee, opened and new and further protests inserted,
1 Gibson, pp. 365, 368-371.
104 The Hayes-Tilden
upon the strength of which parishes or polls might
be thrown out by the returning board. In one or
more of these protests interpolations were made, over
the jurat, seven or eight days after the same werQ
sworn to, of new matter, by which votes might be
thrown out by the returning board. New protests
were inserted into other of the packages of vague and
indecisive character, and then a most active, vigorous,
and successful search for witnesses was made to sus
tain these new protests by evidence." -1
Equally active efforts were made on the Democratic
side to meet these protests. The result was that soon
two affidavit "mills" were running overtime and were
turning out the desired product with machine-like rap
idity. 2 Owing to the fact that the Republicans con
trolled more of the officers before whom such affi
davits could be made, they seem to have been able
to produce a slightly larger quantity 'than their oppon
ents. Which party surpassed the other in making the
larger number of affidavits out of the smaller quantity
of truth, none but a Solomon could determine.
In pursuance of the jurisdiction acquired through
the irregular protests the board not only received these
affidavits but also heard oral evidence. The first
oral evidence taken bore upon conditions in Ouachita,
a parish in the northern part of the state, not far from
the Arkansas line.
The first of the witnesses introduced by the Republi-
1 H. R. R. No. 140, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., p. 99.
2 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., I, pp. 414, 1072,
1076; III, pp. 102, 127, 535-540, 560-565, 580-587. The Republi
can "mill" was in the custom-house.
Disputed Election of l8j6 105
cans was Henry Burrell, a colored man. He pictured
a very disorderly and lawless state of affairs as hav
ing existed in his parish prior to the election. Ac
cording to his account the negro Republicans had been
terrorized by five Democratic rifle-clubs which had
ridden about the country at night, forcing negroes to
join Democratic clubs, and whipping, maiming, and
even murdering the leaders or those who were partic
ularly stubborn. Burrell had himself been shot by a
white man, though the motive for the shooting is not
entirely clear. Just before the election he had also
been captured by bulldozers, arid had been forced by
threats of death to destroy about 1400 Republican bal
lots which were in his possession. 1
Eaton Logwood, another colored man, corroborated
Burrell's testimony regarding the condition of affairs
in Ouachita. He had suffered bodily harm on ac
count, he alleged, of his political principles. Two
white men, blackened to look like negroes, had rid
den up to his cabin, had shot him, and had killed his
brother-in-law, Primus Johnson, who at the time was
holding a child in his arms. Logwood's own wounds
had been frightful ones, and were not yet healed. 2
But this evidence was as nothing to that given by the
next witness, Eliza Pinkston. Attended by a woman
with restoratives, Mrs. Pinkston was borne into the
room on a chair by two stalwart negroes. In this
proceeding and in what followed there was an evident
1 S. Ex. Doc. No. 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 105-110.
2 Ibid, pp. 110-113.
106 The Hayes-Tilden
striving after effect — a striving which was altogether
unnecessary, for the story needed no embellishment.
What she had to tell caused a great sensation among
the Northern visitors, 1 and was telegraphed to the
remotest parts of the Union.
She testified that up to the Saturday night before the
election she had lived with Henry Pinkston in a cabin
on what was known as "The Island" of Ouachita
parish. On that night a party of white men, some
of whom she claimed to have recognized, and two
negroes had ridden up to the cabin, and had called for
Pinkston. Failing to entice him out, they had broken
in (the door, had seized him, and had sworn that if
he voted the Republican ticket he would have "to vote
it in hell." When the woman had attempted to inter
fere, she had been knocked down. The ruffians had
then gagged the man; had gashed him with knives,
making a sound "just like cutting in new leather ;"
had then dragged him outside; and had there shot
him seven times. Some of them had then re-entered
the cabin ; had killed a baby which the woman held in
her arms ; had assaulted the woman several times ;
and had then shot her, cut her, gashed her with an
axe, and left her for dead. In proof of her story she
exhibited her wounds, which were still unhealed.
They were a shocking sight, for she had unquestionably
1 S. Ex. Doc. No. 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 115-116. Ex-
Governor Palmer, a Democrat from Illinois, was especially
horrified by the recital. "If this woman's story is true," said
he, "the people who could practice any such violence would
have no right to complain of any sort of government that would
be put over them." — S. Mis. Doc. No. 14, 44th Cong. 2d Sess.,
p. 102.
Disputed Election of l8j6 107
been brutally dealt with; on her thigh there was a
frightful gash, there were wounds in her head and
neck, and there was a deep wound in one of her
breasts.
Every possible effort was made by the Democrats,
both before the returning board and before later con
gressional investigating committees, to break down the
story of this outrage. It was claimed that the murder
had no political significance, that, as a matter of fact,
Pinkston was a Democrat.1 Charles Tidwell, the
owner of the plantation on which the murder occurred,
reluctantly admitted before a Senate committee, how
ever, that while Pinkston had two years before voted
with the Democrats, he was at the time of his death
a Radical ; 2 there was also evidence to the effect that
by remaining away from a Democratic rally Pinkston
had endangered his life. 3 Another theory propounded
by the Democrats was that Pinkston was killed by a
negro named Brooks, with whom he had had a fight
some months before. 4 But there was no real evidence
to support the theory ; while there was evidence, both
direct and circumstantial, that the killing was the work
of several men. 5 Much evidence was brought in by
the Democrats to show that because Eliza was of
bad character no weight should be attached to her
1 This claim was put forward by the Democratic members of
the House Committee. — H. R. R. No. 156, Part I, 44th Cong. 2d
Sess., p. 46. It appears that he had so voted in 1874.
2 S. R. No. 701, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 735. See also pp. 90
and 596.
3 Ibid, pp Ixxxi, 502, 515.
4 H. R. R. No. 156, Part 1, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 46.
5 S. R. No. 701, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 90, 91, 97, 623.
io8 The Hayes-Tilden
story of the outrage. l As regards her character there
was no room for doubt. Her own testimony 2 showed
her to be vulgar and indecent to a degree scarcely con
ceivable ; and she was much given to embellishing her
account with details that were evidently fictitious.
Yet the essential portions of her story were not success
fully impeached. The anxiety of some partisan
writers, such as Gibson and Bigelow, to prove the out
rage all a pretense has betrayed them into some rather
grim absurdities. Gibson triumphantly points to the
fact that the child's throat was not cut. as she alleged,
and that Pinkston's body was not mutilated in the man
ner she described. 3 He seems to lose sight of the fact
that the child was nevertheless killed, that its body
was thrown into a pond, where it was not found for
a week; of the fact that Pinkston was shot seven
times and that his dead body was so distorted that
it was not put into a coffin but was buried in a quilt.
So fiendish an outrage may appear incredible to some
people, yet it is a matter of history that outrages fully
as brutal were committed by the Ku Klux — are
still committed in some sections. The explanation lies
in the barbarous character of a portion of the white
population and in the low value attached to a "nig
ger's" life. x
1 S. R. No. 701, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 517-536. Pinkston
himself was represented as a "good negro."
2 Ibid, pp. 909 et seq.
3 A Political Crime, p. 163.
4 For some of the other evidence see index to S. R. No. 701,
44th Cong. 2d Sess., p. clxxiv ; H. R. R. No. 156, Part 1, 44th
Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 41-46, discusses the case from the Democratic
Disputed Election of 1876 109
But whatever may have been the facts and motives
attending the Pinkston murders, the evidence before
the returning board — even the evidence introduced
by the Democrats — revealed a most disorderly con
dition of affairs in the parish of Ouachita. Beginning
in August with the murder of J. H. Dinkgrave, a
prominent white Republican, by an unknown assassin,
there had been a series of murders and assaults upon
negro Republicans by persons who escaped the con
sequences of their crimes. White rifle-clubs were ac
tive ; and, largely as a result of the fear which their
activity inspired, about 700 negroes joined Democratic
clubs. It appears, however, that there was fear among
some of the Democratic leaders that all these recruits
might not "stick," l so, as an object lesson, a demon
stration was made on the Saturday night just prior to
the election. On that night parties of men severely
whipped Abram Williams and Willis Frazier, two col
ored Republicans ; attempted to catch the son of Abram
Williams, but not finding him at home, whipped his
wife and outraged her; killed Merrimon Rhodes and
threw his body into a bayou ; whipped Randall Driver ;
and murdered Henry Pinkston and child in the man
ner already described.
Seeing the situation of affairs in the parish, the
Republican managers had already decided not to at-
standpoint and gives references to important testimony. See also
newspapers of Nov. 29th, 30th and Dec. 1st. No importance
should be attached to the story circulated in 1878 that Eliza had
made a counter-confession. — See The Nation, XXVII, pp. 1 and
62.
1 Letter of the chairman of the Democratic executive commit
tee.— S. R. No. 701, 44th Cong:. 2d Sess., p. xix.
no The Hayes-Tilden
tempt to have their followers vote at the outlying
polls, but to have them come into Monroe, the chief
town, where there was a small detachment of United
States troops. There was nothing unlawful in this
procedure, for the law allowed a man properly reg
istered to cast his ballot at any poll in the parish ; but
to- prevent the movement, the rifle-clubs picketed the
approaches to the town ; while the Democratic mayor
issued a proclamation directing the negroes to return
to their homes. 1
The evidence before the returning board showed
that in a number of other parishes there had been a
condition of affairs somewhat similar to that just de
scribed in Ouachita. For example, in East Feliciana,
a parish in which the Republican vote for state officers
in 1874 had been 1,688, the negro Republicans had
been so demoralized as a result of a reign of violence
which had begun more than a year before that the.
Republican managers appear to have given up all hope
of carrying the parish and to have issued instructions
to their followers not to attempt to vote. In conse
quence, only a single Republican ballot, and that a
defective one, was cast ; and the Republican majority
1 For the Republican affidavits regarding the situation in
Ouachita see S. Ex. Doc. No. 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 330-420.
They are ex parte and little reliance can be placed upon most of
them. The most valuable are those of Captain Hale and Lieu
tenant McCawley of the United States Army, pp. 330 and 336
respectively. For the Democratic affidavits see S. Mis. Doc. No.
14, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 775-915. The mayor's proclamation
mentioned above is given on page 823. See also H. R. Mis. Doc.
No. 34, Part 6, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 1-195, and index of S.
R. No. 701, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. civ et seq.
Disputed Election of 1 876 in
of 841 in 1874 was transformed into a Democratic
majority of 1,741. 1
After twelve public sessions the board on Monday,
December 4th, met in private and began the really
important portion of their work. What would be the
outcome of their labors was a matter about which the
general public was uncertain, for there were rumors
and counter rumors of bribery. How much truth
there was in these various rumors will probably never
be exactly ascertained. There is evidence to show that
Wells at least "was in the market." On November
21 st he wrote to Senator West, who was then in Wash
ington : ''Millions have been sent here and will be
used in the interest of Tilden, and unless some counter
move [is made], it will be impossible for me or any
individual to wrest its productive results." 2 This let
ter he committed to the care of Joseph H. Maddox, a
special agent of the treasury, who journeyed to Wash
ington, and after failing to secure any encouragement
from Republican leaders, entered into an alliance with
Col. John T. Pickett, a soldier of fortune who had
some years before achieved notoriety and cash by sell
ing the Confederate archives to the national govern
ment. In accordance with an agreement between the
two, Col. Pickett proceeded to New York City, and
there informed Abram S. Hewitt, chairman of the
1 For some of the evidence regarding East Feliciana see S. R.
Ex. Doc. No. 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 223-258; for some of the
evidence taken by the Senate investigating committee see S. R.
No. 701, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., index under East Feliciana, pp.
clx-cxciii. For the "confession" of Anderson, the Republican
supervisor, see chapter xiii.
2 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 42, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 180.
112 The Playes-Tilden
Democratic national committee, that the Louisiana
board would in consideration of the sum of $1,000,000
render a decision favorable to Tilden, but the proposi
tion was not accepted. 1 It appears also that Wells
personally offered for $200,000 to secure the counting
in of the Democratic state ticket. Some steps were
taken to raise the money, but the deal ultimately
failed. 2 What negotiations if any he carried on with
Republicans, is a matter of greater uncertainty. It has
been said but not proved that he refused to promise a
Republican decision until the state authorities had
cashed at par some state warrants worth only about
thirty cents on the dollar. 3 It has also been alleged that
he arrived at an understanding with certain of the
Republican "visiting statesmen/' 4 but upon this there
exists no evidence whatever. It is only known that
after the inauguration of Hayes he became surveyor
of the port of New Orleans, that Anderson became the
deputy collector, and that Kenner became the deputy
naval officer.
But whether or not the members of the board were
spurred on by the hope of a reward, they certainly
worked zealously to evolve a Republican majority.
The task proved a more complex one than had orig
inally been anticipated. The first hypothesis, made
before the returns had been opened, appears to have
been that the board would be able to get rid of enough
1 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 42, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 131, 135,
143, 156, 178.
2 Testimony of Duncan F. Kenner, Ibid, pp. 376, 383.
3 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., I, pp. 1426-1431.
4 Gibson, p. 222.
Disputed Election of 1876 1 13
votes in the five parishes of East Baton Rouge, Oua-
chita, Morehouse, and the two Felicianas ; 1 but it
had soon been discovered that a number of other par
ishes would have to be purged of Democratic polls. 2
The necessity arose in part out of the fact that in cer
tain parishes the names of some Republican electors
had been omitted from the ballots, with the result that
a part of them had run more than 2,000 votes behind
the rest of the ticket. 3 The board were therefore
obliged to do some heroic work in accomplishing their
purpose. They rejected the entire vote of East Felici-
ana on the ground of intimidation, and that of Grant
parish on the plea that there had been no legal election
because the supervisor had fled from the parish more
than a month before the election. In addition, they
threw out 69 polls from 22 other parishes, and also
refused to receive the vote of certain polls which
the supervisors of Tangipahoa, East Baton Rouge,
Lafayette, La Fourche, and the assistant supervisors of
wards 2, 7, and n of New Orleans, had, without law
ful authority, excluded from their returns. In this
way the board got rid of 13,213 Democratic votes, but
in the process were obliged to throw out the votes of
2,415 Republicans. The result was a substantial ma
jority of 3,437 for the Republican elector lowest on
1 Sherman to Hayes, H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong. 2d
Sess., I, p. 771.
2 H. R. R. No. 140, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., p. 97.
3 Sen. Mis. Doc. No. 14, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 21, 45, 76,
165 The beard also threw out many votes in oraer to secure
a Republican legislature, the election of as many Republican
congressmen as possible, etc.
114 The Hayes-Tilden
the list, a majority for Packard of 3,426, and the
choice of a Republican legislature. 1
The announcement of this happy result was not of
ficially made knewn to the general public until Wed
nesday morning, December 6th, the legal date for the
meeting of the electoral college. But the Republican
€ electors* were present in New Orleans ready to do their
work. At four o'clock in the afternoon the college
convened, .with all but two of the electors present. 2
These two,O. H. Brewster and A. B. Levissee, had been
objected to as ineligible because they had held offices
of trust ami profit under the United States at the time
they were elected. Having now resigned their offices,
they remained away in order that the other electors*
*night take advantage of the state law providing for
the filling of vacancies caused by the death, sickness,
or absence of electors. The other members, in ac
cordance with a prearranged plan, chose Brewster and
Levissee to fill their own vacancies. The two then
appeared, 3 and th£ college thereupon proceeded to cast
the eight votes of the state of Louisiana foifcHayes and
Wheeler.4 ,
Now, how'eVer, began a peculiar complication. In
accordance with the Constitution triplicate certificates
1 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 34. Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp.
790-794; also S. R. No. 701, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 3110-3118.
2 For proceedings of the college see H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31,
45th Cong. 3d Sess., I, pp. 80, 95, 128.
3 Levissee announced to the other electors that he had been
offered $100,000 Jto cast his vote for Tilden. — Ibid, pp. 80 et seq.
4 It has been*eriarged that the electors failed to vote for Pres
ident and Vice-President by distinct ballots as the Constitution
requires. — H. R. R. No. 140, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., p. 50. The certi
ficates stated, however, that separate ballots were taken. — Pro
ceedings of the Electoral Commission, p. 206.
Disputed Election of 1 876 1 15
of the vote were made out, and one of these was mailed
to the president of the Senate, one was filed with the
judge of the United States district court, and one
was delivered to T. C. Anderson, who was chosen to
carry it to Washington. When Anderson reached
Washington and presented the package to Mr. Ferry,
the president of the Senate, that officer called his at
tention to the fact that the envelope was not properly
endorsed. Following the same course which he pur
sued with regard to irregular returns from North Car
olina, Tennessee, and other states, l Mr. Ferry allowed
Anderson to retain the certificate in order to have the
defect rectified. Before leaving Washington Ander
son began, somewhat unnecessarily, 2 to fear that the
certificates themselves were not in regular form be
cause the lists of votes for President and Vice-Presi-
dent were not on separate sheets of paper. When he
reached New Orleans, therefore, he communicated his
fears to some of the Republican leaders, and it was
decided that new certificates must be made. But the
time was short, and two of the electors were so far
away that they could not possibly get to New Orleans
before the work must be done. The Republican
leaders were not men to be discouraged by such an
1 The returns from almost half the states were in some re
spect irregular. — Testimony of Ferry, H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31,
45th Cong. 3d Sess., I, p. 139. Jhe statement is taken from his
memorandum.
2 In every essential the original certificates were in this re
spect as regular as the Democratic certificates from Louisiana,
Florida, Oregon, and South Carolina. Compare certificates given
on pp. 13, 206, 208, 662 of Proceedings of the Electoral Com
mission.
116 The Hayes-Tilden
obstacle as this. The signatures of the six who could
be reached were secured, and then those of the other
two were forged. Just who committed the forgery
does not appear ; but it is certain that Governor Kel
logg, H. Conquest Clarke, the governor's private sec
retary, and perhaps others, were privy to the forgery. 1
On the same day on which the Republican electors
originally met, the Democratic claimants, basing their
authority on an irregular canvass of certified copies of
the returns, likewise assembled and cast their ballots
for Tilden and Hendricks. Their certificates were
signed by John McEnery, who claimed to be de jure
governor of Louisiana. 2
It is needless to say that the result announced by the
returning board had been attained by a series of
grossly partisan and illegal acts. The board had failed
to obey the statute requiring them to fill the vacancy
in their membership. They had entertained protests
which had been irregularly made. They had allowed
to stand the action of supervisors and assistant-super
visors who had refused to compile certain polls. One
or more of them had, it appears, even altered and falsi
fied the returns from Vernon and perhaps from other
parishes. For this offense they were all in the follow
ing year indicted; and one of them, Anderson, was
tried, convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary for
two years, but was ultimately released by the supreme
1 See H. R. R. No. 140, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., pp. 50-63 and
89-91. References are there given to the important testimony.
2 New York Times and World of Dec. 7th.
^
Disputed Election of l8jd 117
court of the state on the ground that the offense was
not covered by the statute. 1
Nevertheless, the decision of the board was final ;
there was no redress against its actions however irreg
ular. In the case of Moncure vs. Dubuclet, decided
in May, 1876, the state supreme court had in effect
decided that the actions of the returning board were
beyond the reach of judicial inquiry because the leg
islature had omitted to enact a lav/ under which pro
ceedings in such cases could be conducted. 2
An interesting question which remains to be consid
ered is : Did the returning board in the exercise of
their extraordinary powers override the real will of a
majority of the legal voters in the state of Louisiana?
Or, to speak brutally, did they by an illegal process
which acquired the force of law, merely take back
stolen property? To put it in yet other words, was
the situation one of those rare situations in which
two wrongs go to make a right?
This much may be said at the outset, namely, that,
despite affidavits and frantic assertions to the con
trary, there was not a full, fair, and free election.
Some partisans perhaps persuaded themselves that
there were no rifle-clubs, no threats, no whippings, no
murders ; but there were partisans on both sides quite
equal to the task of persuading themselves, or at least
of attempting to persuade others, that all the blacks
1 See Report of Trial of Thomas C. Anderson. A copy of this
pamphlet is in the Lenox Library, New York City. See also
Gibson, pp. 232-237.
2 See also the case of Bonner vs. Lynch, 28 La. Ann., p. 208.
n8 The Hayes-Tilden
were whites, had the result of the election hinged upon
such a demonstration. Intimidation was, in truth, one
of the central facts of the campaign. It was occa
sionally resorted to by Republicans, but it would
roughly be correct to say that it was a weapon belong
ing to the Democrats. It was the chief means by
which Republican negroes were induced to change
their politics. Very few were convinced by talk about
misgovernment or by appeals of that sort. All asser
tions to the contrary notwithstanding, the negro, when
left to his own choice, was as naturally a Republican
as his former master was naturally a Democrat.
That the methods employed by the whites were effec
tive is shown with startling distinctness by the follow
ing table :
Election of 1 8 7 4 Regis, of 1 8 7 6 Elect, of 1 8 7 6
Dem. Rep. White Colored Dem. Rep.
East Baton Rouge 1,556 2,546 1,867 3,400 1,102 1,476
East Feliciana 847 1,688 1,004 2,127 1,736
West Feliciana 501 1,358 399 2,213 1,248 778
Morehouse 654 1,017 938 1,830 1,371 782
Ouachita 766 1,694 992 2,392 1,865 793
Total 4,324 8,303 5,200 11,962 7,322 3,829
These figures x taken alone are sufficient proof that ex
traordinary things must have occurred in these par
ishes. When we know, in addition, that Republican
officials in certain of these parishes had, during the
preceding year, been driven out or killed, that the white
Democrats were organized into secret military organ
izations which rode up and down the country at night
threatening, beating, and even murdering negroes, that
1 For figures see H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 34, Part 2, 44th Cong.
2d Sess., pp. 494 and 788.
Disputed Election of l8jd 119
Democratic employers, who owned practically all prop
erty, threatened to discharge every one who affiliated
with the Republicans, that the Republican negroes were
weak-spirited and poor, so poor that they were in
absolute dependence from day to day upon their Dem
ocratic employers for their daily rations of bread and
meat, we cannot avoid the conclusion that, whatever
may be said in justification, electioneering methods
were used in the "selected" or "bulldozed" parishes
which are not usually regarded as legitimate. Efforts
to explain the falling off of the Republican vote on
other grounds are futile, for there is no real proof that
the situation in these parishes differed from that in
others in any material respect save that different meth
ods were employed by the whites and the negroes were
more thoroughly terrorized.
That in a full, fair, and free election the Republicans
would have received a majority cannot, of course, be
absolutely proven; and yet by processes of compar
ison it is possible to arrive at a pretty definite conclu
sion regarding the matter. If, for example, it be
assumed that the number of voluntary negro Demo
crats was about equal to the number of white Repub
licans — and the assumption is a reasonable one —
then the Republicans were in a clear majority in the
state of several thousands. But the following com
parison is much more convincing: In 41 parishes in
which the amount of intimidation was relatively small,
I2O The Hayes-Tilden
the colored registration amounted to 87,999, 1 and the
white registration to 72,034, leaving a colored majority
of 15,965. 2 These parishes yielded in the election a
Republican majority of 6,353. I" tne remaining 17
parishes, in which terrorism was alleged, the colored
registration was 27,269 ; 3 the white registration, 20,-
320, giving a colored majority of 6,949. Yet these
parishes returned a Democratic majority of 10,153.
Had the proportion of negroes who voted Republican
in these parishes been the same as in the other 41,
there would have been a Republican majority in the
17 parishes of between 2,000 and 3,000. Thus the
majority in the state as a whole would have been
from 8,000 to 10,000. Or, to make a yet more con
vincing comparison : Had even the five bulldozed
parishes of East Baton Rouge, East Feliciana, West
Feliciana, Morehouse, and Ouachita, voted approx
imately as they did in 1874, the result would have been
changed sufficiently to give the lowest Republican
elector a small majority of about 800 of the vote as
1 According to the census of 1880 the negro population of the
state exceeded the white population by 26,364. The white males
of voting age exceeded the colored males of voting age by 833,
but many thousands of the whites were foreigners who were not
voters. The state census of 1875 showed 104,192 colored voters
and 84,167 white voters, but this census is wholly unreliable.
The same is true of the national census of 1870, at least for the
negro population. — See Frederick Hoffman, Race Traits and Ten
dencies of the American Negro, p. 4. For some Democratic sta
tistics compiled by Prof. Chaill£ of New Orleans, see H. R. Mis.
Doc. No. 34, Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 470-478. Some of
his conclusions are well taken, but others are fully as absurd
as the census of 1875.
2 These figures include the padded registration in New Orleans.
As previously pointed out the Republicans derived little advan
tage from the excess.
3 Practically all this registration was bo?ia fide and ought to
have yielded a heavy vote.
Disputed Election of 1 8j6 121
actually cast, or of about 3,000 as the vote was sent in
by the election officials to the returning board. x All
things considered, it would be pretty safe to say that
in an absolutely fair and free election the state would
have gone Republican by from five Jo_fif teen thous-
and. ^
But whatever might have been the result under other
conditions, there was in the actual Louisiana situation
one fact which was in the end to prove decisive. The
body to which, in accordance with the law of the state
and the decisions of the courts, belonged the final de
termination of the result of the election had declared
in favor of the Republican electors. These electors
had met and had cast their ballots for Rutherford B.
Hayes and William A. Wheeler; and the returns of
their vote had been certified by the man who, rightly
or wrongly, had been recognized by all branches of the
Federal government as the chief executive of the
commonwealth.
1 For the figures used in making these comparisons see H. R
Mis. Doc. No. 34, Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., 2 folders between
pp. 494-495; S. R. No. 701, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. xli-xlii
liii-lviii; S. Ex. Doc. No. 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 178-185.
2 But it should not for a moment be supposed that the re
turning board was moved by high ideals of its duty as a court
of equity. Doubtless they would have proceeded in the same
way had they known that the election had been absolutely free
and fair.
CHAPTER VIII
RIFLE-CLUBS IN THE PALMETTO STATE
Rarely have a proud people drunk deeper of the
cup of humiliation than did the white inhabitants of
South Carolina in the sixteen years following the sui
cidal ordinance of December, 1860. Forced during
four years of mingled triumph and defeat to endure
the vexation of a blockading fleet which win
ter or summer never relaxed its watch upon their
coasts, they at last recognized the inevitable end when
an invading army swept through the state consuming
and destroying everything in its path and leaving the
capital in ruins. At intervals for more than a decade
thereafter troops wearing the hated blue were sta
tioned here and there about the state, and from their
camps at sunset had floated not infrequently through
the quiet evening air the strains of a song relating to
a certain Brown late of Osawatomie.1 But no such
gentle reminder was necessary to make apparent the
fact that the old order had passed away. Other things
brought that fact home in a far more tangible form.
1 Pike, The Prostrate State, p. 79.
The Disputed Election of 1876 123
The pyramid of society had been turned upside down. 1
Those who had been the slaves were become the rulers.
In the government, in the places of the now impov
erished aristocracy, stood black and brown freedmen,
led by hated Yankees and equally hated "scalawags ;"
and from the panels over the doors of the stately cap-
itol at Columbia the marble visages of George McDuf-
fie and Robert Young Hayne looked down upon the
incomings and outgoings of a strange legislature,
three-fourths of whose members belonged to that
despised race once the victims of the institution which
had formed the "corner-stone" of the fallen Confed
eracy.
There may have been somewhat of poetic justice in
the situation just described, but the bouleversewient
was unquestionably bad for the economic interests of
the state of South Carolina. However good his in
tentions — and the intentions of some were of the
best — an untutored black man, fresh from slavery
in the Sea Island cotton fields, could not possibly be a
thoroughly satisfactory legislator or even citizen. A
.reign of misgovernment therefore followed enfran
chisement — a period which, while not quite so re
plete with pitched battles and revolutions, was in its
economic aspects fully as deplorable as that in Louis-
1 "De bottom rail Is on de top, an' we's gwine keep it dere,"
said the negroes. — Scribner's Magazine, VIII, p. 151. They ar-
grued that their labor had made the whites wealthy and that now
the wealth should be taken away by taxation. Governor Moses
in a message advocated taxing the land so heavily that the own
ers would be forced to sell to the negroes. — Ibid, p. 136.
124 The Hayes-Tilden
iana. l The amount of money actually stolen has
probably been exaggerated by some writers and by
partisan investigating committees, and yet the bare
truth was sufficient to make a chapter previously un
paralleled in American history. During the six years
from 1868 to 1874 the public debt was increased by
about $14,000,000, while in the period from 1860 to
1874 the total valuation of property decreased from
$490,000,000 to $141,624,952. Of this decline, amount
ing in round numbers to $348,000,000, from $170,000,-
ooo to $200,000,000 was due to the freeing of the
slaves, 2 and many more millions to losses occasioned
by the war, to the economic effects of that struggle and
of the transformation of the labor system, and to the
existence of a great business depression through
out the country; yet unquestionably a large part was
the direct result of misgovernment.
Despite the fact that they and their white leaders
held the offices during this period and were the bene
ficiaries of this reign of extravagance and corruption,
the 'state was not entirely an Elysium for the freedmen.
As elsewhere in the South, the Ku Klux early became
active, 3 and against them the negroes were powerless
1 For an extremely interesting account of South Carolina un
der negro government see Pike, The Prostrate State. Also Le-
land, A Voice from South Carolina ; Reynolds, Reconstruction in
South Carolina; Atlantic Monthly, XXXIX, pp 177-194, 467-475,
670-684. One of the most candid statements will be found in an
article by Governor Chamberlain on Reconstruction in South
Carolina, Ibid, LXXXVIII, pp. 473-484.
2 Pike, p. 252; message of Governor Chamberlain given in
Allen, Governor Chamberlain's Administration in South Caro
lina, p. 49.
3 See vols. Ill, IV and V of the Ku Klux Reports and Rey
nolds, pp. 179-217.
Disputed Election of l8j6 125
to protect themselves. In some cases no doubt the
operations of the klans were to a certain extent justi
fiable, but in others the outrages committed not only
were wholly without extenuation, but were brutal and
fiendish beyond description. Says a Democratic writer
on the period :
"In reference to South Carolina, the report of the
joint select committee of the two houses of Congress
of 1872 contains such a mass of revolting details that
one cannot decide where to begin their citation or
where to stop. Murders, or attempts to murder, are
numerous. Whippings are without number. Prob
ably the most cruel and cowardly of these last was the
whipping of Elias Hill. He was a colored man who
had, from infancy, been dwarfed in legs and arms.
He was unable to use either. But he possessed an
intelligent mind ; had learned to read ; and had acquired
an unusual amount of knowledge for one in his cir
cumstances. He was a Baptist preacher. He was
highly respected for his upright character. He was
eminently religious, and was greatly revered by the
people of his own race. It was on this ground that
he was visited by the Ku-Klux, brutally beaten, and
dragged from his house into the yard, where he was
left in the cold at night, unable to walk or crawl.
After the fiends had left, his sister brought him into
the house. Although this man was a Republican, his
testimony gave evidence of the mildness and Christian
forbearance of his character, as well as his freedom
from ill-will toward the white race. In answer to a
question as to his feelings towards the whites, he re-,
plied that he had good-will, love, and affection toward
them ; but that he feared them. He said that he had
never made the wrongs and cruelties inflicted by the
126 The Hayes-Tilden
white people on his race the subject of his sermons;
but that he preached the .gospel only — repentance
toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." x
As a result of outrages such as this and also of an
ever-present fear that a Democratic victory would
result in a reaction towards slavery, the negroes,
despite flagrant misgovernment, remained Republican
almost to a man. A negro would come to his former
owner for advice upon every other subject, but let the
subject of politics be broached and he became "as silent
as a tombstone;" for this was "a subject with which
'Old Massa' had nothing to do." 2 As the negroes
outnumbered the whites in the ratio of about five to
three, the Republican candidates for state office, no
matter how dishonest or disreputable, were invariably
chosen. In 1868 R. K. Scott was elected governor,
in 1870 was re-elected, and in 1872 was succeeded by
the notorious F. J. Moses, Jr. 3
In 1874, however, Daniel H. Chamberlain, a man of
entirely different character, was elected. Mr. Cham
berlain was a native of Massachusetts, was a grad
uate of Yale, had studied law at Harvard, and
had served as a lieutenant in the colored regiment
commanded by Charles Francis Adams, Jr. After
the war he had settled in South Carolina and had
engaged in cotton planting. In the constitutional
convention of 1868 he had borne a leading part,
1 Cox, p. 456.
2 Leland, p. 40.
3 Reynolds, pp. 106-218.
Disputed Election of 1 876 127
and had soon afterward been elected to fill the
attorney-generalship, an office he continued to fill
for four years. 1 Whether during that time he
managed to keep his hands entirely clean, is a matter
concerning which there is decided difference of opin
ion; but certain it is that the fact that most of his
colleagues were unscrupulous men created an impres
sion which caused many people, when he was nomin
ated for governor in 1874, to regard his protestations
of zeal for reform as so much buncombe. 2
But no sooner was Mr. Chamberlain inaugurated
than it appeared that he was in dead earnest about
reform — that whatever his course in the past he
would strive to preserve "the civilization of the Puri
tan and the Cavalier, of the Roundhead and the
Huguenot." 3 He set his face against the corrupt
schemes of his party; he opposed and, with the help
of reform Republican and Conservative members,
defeated an attempt of an unscrupulous element in the
legislature to secure the removal of F. L. Cardoza,
the colored state treasurer, who obstructed the execu
tion of nefarious designs ; he vetoed no less than nine
teen vicious bills passed during the first session of the
legislature; he secured much greater economy; and,
1 Allen, pp. 524-526.
2 Chamberlain's position during his four years as attorney-
general was not unlike that which Tilden long occupied when
on friendly terms with Tweed. See Allen, pp. 8-9, 140-151. A
Democratic newspaper, The Neics and Courier, said on May 14,
1875 : "It is our fixed belief that Mr. Chamberlain has never, in
great things or little, consented to, or aided in, any fraud upon
this people." For a different view see Reynolds, pp. 465-470,
492-494.
3 Allen, p. 201.
128 The Hayes-Tilden
boldest step of all, he refused to issue commissions to
two infamous characters, W. J. Whipper and ex-Gov
ernor Moses, whom the legislature had chosen circuit
judges. *
By these actions he gained the hearty commendation
of the better class of citizens in the state and attracted
much attention from the country at large. The
Charleston News and Courier, the most influential
Democratic newspaper in the state, declared that he
"richly deserves the confidence of the people of this
state," and on another occasion expressed the opinion
that "Governor Chamberlain has done for the people
of South Carolina what no other living man could
have done." 2 Other Democratic newspapers in South
t Carolina used similar language ; while many periodicals
outside the state, irrespective of party, commended
his course in high terms. 3
The element which he had opposed was very indig
nant at his courageous stand. A vigorous effort was
made to read him out of the party as a traitor. The
effort culminated in April, 1876, in the Republican
state convention which met at Columbia to choose
delegates to the Republican national convention.
Governor Chamberlain announced his desire to go
as a delegate, but there appeared to be little chance
that he would be able to do so, for in the con
test for the temporary chairmanship his friends
1 For a very full account of these matters see Allen, pp. 10-
Li 58.
2 Quoted by Allen, pp. 107, 199.
3 Ibid, pp. 106-114, 236-243; South Atlantic, I, pp. 332-340'
H. R. R. No. 175, Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 25-31.
Disputed Election of l8jd 129
were defeated by a vote of 80 to 45. The triumph
of his enemies seemed a foregone conclusion; but at
four o'clock on the morning of April I4th, after a tu
multuous- session which had lasted for many hours, the
governor secured the floor, and by one of the most
effective speeches on record so confounded his enemies
and so swayed the convention that when he concluded
he was chosen over United States Senator Patterson
by an overwhelming majority. 1
The activity of Governor Chamberlain in the cause
of good government was such that for a long time the
Democrats were undecided whether to nominate any
one to oppose him. Those who favored the policy of
abstaining from such a nomination were known as the
"Co-operationists," while those who wished to name
a full ticket received the name of "Straight-outers." 2
The Charleston News and Courier was especially active
in endeavoring to prevent a separate nomination. It
advocated concentrating all "our efforts on the other
state officers and the members of the legislature. With
Mr. Chamberlain as governor, and a Conservative
Democratic majority, or thereabouts, in the lower
house, the state, in every sense of the word, would
be safe. In attempting to gain more we might lose
1 Allen, 258-271 ; New York Times and New York Herald,
April 16th. The correspondent of the Times called Chamberlain's
speech "one of 'the grandest orations ever listened to in Amer
ica," while the correspondent of the Washington Chronicle des
cribed it in equally high terms. Patterson was working for the
nomination of Governor Morton for the Presidency. At Cincin
nati Chamberlain supported Bristow and then Hayes. The vote
of the delegation was divided.
2 Allen, pp. 258-272; H. R. R. No. 175, Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d
Sess., pp. 27-32.
130 The Playes-Tilden
everything." In arguing in support of this plan the
paper declared — and the statement is most significant
in the light of later events — that the Republican ma
jority could be overcome in "only one way : by armed
force." i
In the end the "Straight-outers" were victorious. A
number of causes contributed to this result. Cham
berlain, while a reformer, was, after all, a Republican
and a native of Massachusetts; these facts weighed
heavily against him in the minds of most of the white
inhabitants of South Carolina. In addition it was
felt by many that to adopt the "Co-operationist" policy
would lessen the chances of choosing Democratic Pres
idential electors, while it was recognized that an in
dorsement of Chamberlain would weaken the Demo
cratic position in the country at large, because such
an indorsement would be tantamount to an admission
that here at last was an honest "carpet-bagger." All
these motives, together with hunger for office and
pressure from Democratic politicians from outside the
state, weighed heavily with many Democratic leaders
and impelled them to adopt a "rule or ruin" policy. 2
Nevertheless the "Straight-out" movement might have
failed had it not been for an event which greatly inten
sified partisan feeling and forced Governor Chamber-
1 May 8th. Italics so printed in original. In July the paper
published a series of elaborate articles defending his admin
istration.
2 Allen, pp. 307-331, 336. See also pp. 181, 244-245, of Vol.
XII of Southern Historical Society Papers ; the reference is to a
scries of articles by F. A. Porcher on the Last Chapter of
Reconstruction in South Carolina.
Disputed Election of 1876 131
lain to take a stand which alienated many of the white
inhabitants. 1
This event was the so-called "Hamburg Massacre,"
which took place in Aiken county on the 8th of July.
The massacre grew out of an incident which occurred
on the 4th. On that day while the negro militia com
pany of the town was marching on one of the public
streets two young % white men drove up in a buggy.
According to one version of the affair the company
purposely blocked up the entire street and refused to
allow the whites to pass; according to the other the
whites, disdaining to turn to one side, drove against
the head of the column and ordered the company to
break ranks and let them through.2 At any rate a
wordy altercation followed, which finally resulted in
the negroes allowing the whites to pass. Complaint
was later made by the father of one of the young men
before Trial Justice Rivers, a colored man, against
Dock Adams, the captain of the company, for obstruct
ing the highway. After a stormy preliminary hearing
on the 6th the case was postponed until the 8th. On
that day about a hundred armed white men assembled
in the town; and Adams, on the plea that he feared
violence, failed to appear before the justice and took
refuge with other negroes in the armory. A demand
was then made by General M. C. Butler, who was act
ing as attorney for the prosecution, and who was later
Papers' VoL XI1' p- 245; 8outh
. .? The negro companies were viewed with great dislike by the
whites. The members were often insolent and lawless.
132 The Hayes-Til den
United States senator from South Carolina, that the
militia should give up their arms to the whites. 1 The
demand was refused, and firing began. One white
was killed early in the conflict; but his fellows bom
barded the armory with a cannon brought over from
Augusta, Georgia ; and after a time the negroes, hav
ing exhausted about all their ammunition, attempted
to escape. Some succeeded, but James Cook, the col
ored town marshall, who lived in the armory, was
killed; and about twenty-five others were captured.
Of these, five were afterwards murdered in cold blood,
and three were badly wounded. Not content with
this violence, some of the mob then robbed and mal
treated a number of other negroes, including Trial Jus
tice Rivers. 2
As soon as he received notice of the affair Governor
Chamberlain sent the attorney-general to make an
investigation, announced his intention to do all in his
power to bring the offenders to justice, and asked the
President whether the general government would assist
him in maintaining order in case violence in the
state should get beyond the control of the state au
thorities. 3 His attitude in the matter was indorsed
by some of the more liberal whites, but was severely
1 The status of the negro company was somewnat Irregular ;
the whites claimed that it had no right to the arms. For the offi
cial papers relating to the company's status see S. Mis. Doc. No.
48, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 582 et seq.
2 My account is based upon Allen, pp. 307-330; the South
Atlantic, I, pp. 412-413 ; Southern Historical Society Papers, XII,
pp. 245-252 ; Leland, pp. 156-157 ; and the great mass of testi
mony in S. Mis. Doc. No. 48, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., and H. R. Mis.
Doc. No. 31, 44th Cong. 2d Sess.
3 Allen, pp. 313 et seq.
Disputed Election of 1876 133
criticised by persons in whose estimation the killing of
a few negroes was not a matter of very great import
ance. 1
The passions and prejudices aroused at this time
proved decisive in determining the action of the Dem
ocrats. 2 While the excitement was at its height the
state executive committee issued a call for a conven
tion to meet at Columbia on the I5th of August.
When the convention assembled the "Co-operationists"
did their best to secure the adoption of a "watch and
wait" policy ; but the "Straight-outers" carried through
a resolution "to nominate candidates for governor and
other state officers." 3
Having decided upon the policy to pursue, the con
vention chose as its nominee General Wade Hampton.
The choice was a wise one, perhaps the wisest that
could have been made. General Hampton was a mem
ber of the old aristocracy^ and had been one of the
wealthiest men in the state. In the Rebellion he had
commanded Lee's cavalry after the death of J. E. B.
Stuart, had later unsuccessfully opposed Sherman's
march through the Carolinas, and while he had won
1 The News and Courier said : "Governor Chamberlain ap
pears to think that a company of United States soldiers will
have a more sedative effect than rifle clubs or civil posses. This
was the position taken a few weeks ago by the newspapers that
berate Governor Chamberlain for calling for troops. These very
journals, at the time of the Combahee troubles, were clamorous
for troops, and were furious in their denunciations of Governor
Chamberlain because he would not call for them."
2 South Atlantic, I, p. 414.
3 Allen, pp. 335-336; South Atlantic, I, pp. 416-427; Annual
Cyclopaedia, 1876, p. 721; Reynolds, pp. 347-350; files of Neivs
and Courier and of the Columbia Union Herald
10
134 The Hayes-Tilden
no great successes had shown much military ability.
He had early accepted the results of the war, and had
been one of the first of the Southern leaders to advo
cate a liberal policy towards the freedmen. While not
the possessor of oratorical nor even of intellectual gifts
of the highest order, he yet had exactly the qualities of
leadership indispensable for success in the present
emergency. 1
The platform on which he was nominated professed
acceptance of the three war Amendments ; stated that
"we turn from the settled and final past to the great,
living, and momentous issues of the present and the
future;" and contained a bitter arraignment of the
Republican party, for "arraying race against race," for
"prostituting the elective franchise" and "tampering
with the ballot-box," and for having brought about a
condition of "venality and corruption" unparalleled in
history. 2 In the opinion of The Nation, the platform
contained "all the things that proper platforms have
to contain in these days — acceptance of the Constitu
tional Amendments and other results of the war, devo
tion to equal rights, love of peace and order, immeas
urable hatred of theft, fraud, and other forms of vil
lainy. . . . The only thing the Republicans can say
against it is that it is hypocritical." 3
The Republicans did not hold their convention until
1 For Hampton's character see South Atlantic, I, pp. 416-419.
and 424; Sewanee Revieiv, X, pp. 364-373; McClure, Recollec
tions of Half a Century, pp. 406-414.
2 Annual Cyclopaedia, 1876, p. 721.
3 Vol. XXIII, p. 111.
Disputed Election of 1876 135
almost a month later. l When it assembled on the I3th
of September, a strong effort was made by R. B. El
liott, the mulatto speaker of the House of Represen
tatives, C. C. Bovven, B. F. Whittemore, and other
anti-reformers, to overthrow Chamberlain. A bitter
contest followed in which the governor was only par
tially victorious. He secured the adoption of a plat
form pledging a large number of specific reforms, and
also secured his own renomination as well as that of
State Treasurer Cardoza and others of his adherents ;
but unfortunately he was unable to prevent the conven
tion from putting R. B. Elliott, T. C. Dunn, and others
of the most corrupt element in the party on the ticket.
By this step a considerable number of honest men of
both races were alienated. 2
The Democrats did not wait for the Republican con
vention to be over before beginning their campaign.
All sections of the party at once united and entered
upon a determined and wonderfully enthusiastic effort
to "redeem" the state. The plan of procedure was to
attempt to conciliate the blacks by making glowing
promises 3 and by nominating negroes for the legis
lature in some of the counties in which the Republican
majorities were too large to overcome, 4 and at the
1 For accounts of the convention see Allen, pp. 352-354 ; Rey
nolds, pp. 362-3.72. Southern Historical Society Papers, 311-316;
Atlantic, XXXIX, p. 186; Annual Cyclopaedia for 1876, p. 722;
files of the New York World, Herald, and Times, and of the
Charleston News and Courier, and the Columbia Union Herald.
VII2 Alle"' PP' 360' 504-505 I Chamberlain in Atlantic, LXXXX-
£ South Atlantic, I, pp. 45-50; H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, Part 1,
44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 306-310
4 Atlantic, XXXIX, p. 184.
136 The Hayes-Til Jen
same time to bring forms of pressure to bear which
would convince the recalcitrant that it would be safer
to affiliate with the Democracy. The leaders of the
party fully understood that only by drastic methods
could they hope to overcome the large Republican ma
jority. Resort was therefore had to the "Mississippi
plan." "Rifle-clubs," "artillery companies," "sabre
clubs," uniformed in red shirts and fully armed, were
organized throughout the state. They at once began
systematically to appear at Republican meetings and
demand a division of time. As an example of how they
behaved at these meetings may be taken the following
description by Governor Chamberlain, who at the time
the incidents occurred was making a tour of the state
for the purpose of defending his administration and
securing a renomination. Says Mr. Chamberlain:
"On the return of Judge Hoge and Mr. Jillson from
Newberry on the iQth of August, they strongly ad
vised the abandonment of the meeting at Abbeville in
view of their experience at Newberry, and especially
on account of a violent and threatening harangue made
at the depot at Newberry on the morning of the I9th,
to a band of his partisans, by Col. D. Wyatt Aiken. I
replied that I should keep my engagement at Abbeville
from a sense of imperative duty to my Republican
friends there. Unwilling to allow me to go alone,
these gentlemen gallantly consented to accompany me
on the 2 ist to Abbeville Court House. On arriving
at Abbeville, I found our Republican friends, as at
Newberry, firmly convinced that if we held our meet
ing prudence would compel us to allow the Democrats
to occupy half the time, and even then they were
Disputed Election of l8jd 137
greatly apprehensive of trouble. An arrangement was
accordingly entered into by which three speakers from
each party were to take part in the meeting. At the
hour appointed we proceeded to the place of meeting,
where we found the Republicans assembled, after the
manner of ordinary political meetings. As soon, how
ever, as the Republicans were assembled, companies
of mounted white men, marching in martial order,
and under the command of officers or persons who
gave orders which were obeyed, began to pour over
the hill in front of the stand and to take their places
at the meeting. At this time I sat beside General
McGowan, Nand we agreed in our estimate that there
were from 800 to 1,000 mounted white men present.
They came, as I know, from Edgefield County, and,
as I was informed, from Newberry, Anderson, and
Laurens Counties, as well as from Abbeville County.
When fully assembled, they covered more than one-half
the space around the stand, besides entirely encircling
the whole meeting with mounted men. I spoke first.
In the course of my speech, in response to loud and
repeated cries from the white men, 'How about Ham
burg,' 'Tell us about Hamburg/ I replied, 'Yes, I wall
tell you about Hamburg,' whereupon I saw a sudden
crowding towards the stand by the mounted white
men on my right and heard distinctly the click of a
considerable number of pistols.
"I was followed by Col. D. Wyatt Aiken, in a speech
filled to overflowing with the spirit of intolerance and
violence. With his thousand mounted and armed par
tisans cheering him on, he shouted to the five or six
hundred colored Republicans, 'If you want war you
can have it — yes, war to the knife, and the knife to
the hilt/ With a thousand armed white men drinking
in his words, he singled out one colored man in the
crowd for special personal denunciation. . . . Later in
138 The Hayes-Tilden
the day Mr. Jillson while speaking was so greatly
interrupted by the white men that he was unable to
make a connected speech or to pursue his intended
line of argument. After the meeting was closed and
while the colored republicans were carrying a United
States flag past the public square in the village, an
effort was made by a party of mounted white men to
snatch it from them, fifteen or twenty pistols were
discharged in the air, and a general riot was thereby
made imminent." 1
The object of activity such as this was well set forth
at the time by H. V. Redfield in a letter to the Cincin
nati Commercial. "The outsider," wrote he, "is apt to
be puzzled by accounts of affairs here. He may not
understand the formation of rifle-clubs, rifle-teams,
artillery companies, among the whites. What are they
afraid of? They are not afraid of anything. Why,
then, this arming? They intend to carry this election,
if it is possible to do so. The programme is to have
rifle-clubs all over the state, and, while avoiding actual
bloodshed as much as possible, to so impress the blacks
that they, or a number of them, will feel impelled to
vote with the whites out of actual fear. The blacks are
timid by nature, timid by habit, timid by education. A
display of force unnerves them. The whites under
stand this, and an immense marching about at night,
1 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, Part 1, 44th Cong. 2d Sess, pp.
359-360. In pages both before and following there are accounts
of similar meetings at other places. For yet other accounts see
Ibid, pp. 187, 223, 228, 230, 231, 239, 243, 246,279, 359, 395, 459,
460; Part 2, pp. 153, 228, 237; and Part 3, pp. 117. 197, 224.
Some of this evidence was given by officers of the United States
army. See also Southern Historical Society Papers, XII, pp.
309-310. Chamberlain's accounts are by no means exaggerated,
if one is to believe the stories told by South Carolinians today.
Disputed Election of l8jd 139
and appearance at any republican meeting 'to divide
time1 is with a view to impress the blacks with a sense
of the danger of longer holding out against white
rule." i
The Democrats, in fact, did everything in their
power to produce a reign of terror among the freed-
men. Threats of violence flew thick as birds in spring ;
the homes of colored men were fired into at night ; and
negroes were whipped, assaulted, and in some in
stances murdered.2
An equally effective weapon used against the blacks
was industrial proscription. Democrats openly an
nounced that they would not employ Republicans nor
rent land to them, and the Democratic newspapers were
filled with resolutions to that effect. Out of the many
such resolutions which might be cited, this one, taken
from the News and Courier for September i8th, will
suffice :
"The following resolutions, adopted by the Easter-
lin's Mill Democratic Club, are commended to the at
tention of the different clubs throughout the state.
Similar resolutions have been adopted by the Willow
Township, Graham's, and Bamberg clubs, and no doubt
by many other clubs in Orangeburgh and Barnwell
Counties. It is intended that the names of the obnox
ious leaders in each township be sent to the different
clubs throughout the county :
"i. Resolved, That we will not rent land to any
1 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, Part 1, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 365.
2 For evidence on these points see index to Ibid, pp. 470-471.
The use of violence is not now denied by candid persons. — See
Sewanee Review, X, p. 367, and Atlantic, LXXXVIII, p. 480.
140 The Hayes-Tilden
radical leader, or any member of his family, or furnish
a home, or give employment to any such leader or any
member of his family.
"2. That we will not furnish any such leader, or
any member of his family, any supplies, such as pro
visions, farm-implements, stock, etc., except so far as
contracts for the present year are concerned.
"3. That we will not purchase anything any radical
leader or any member of his family may offer for sale,
or sell any such leader or any member of his family
anything whatever.
"4. That the names of such persons who may be
considered leaders be furnished to this club at the ear
liest date, and that a list of the same be furnished each
member of the club." 1
The Republicans, on their part, worked unceasingly
to counteract the Democratic efforts. Speakers played
upon the freedman's ever-present fear of being once
more reduced to slavery. 2 Democratic negroes were
stripped naked and beaten with whips and clubs, or were
cut with knives or razors. According to the Democratic
members of an investigating committee later sent out
by the Federal House of Representatives, "Women
utterly refused to have any intercourse \vith men of
their own race who voted against the Republicans.
One instance was proven of the actual desertion of a
1 H. R. R. No. 175, Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 39. Other in
stances are given on the same page. See also Ibid, Mis. Doc. No.
31, Part 1, pp. 219, 221, 223, 224, 228, 237, 244, 260, 264, 271, 291.
General M. C. Butler of Hamburg fame later testified that he
had told his tenants that if they voted the Republican ticket
they would have to leave his plantation. — First report just
quoted, pp. 38-39.
2 Southern Historical Society Papers, XII, p. 310.
Disputed Election of l8jd 141
wife with the children of a husband because he made
campaign speeches for the Democrats." l But, com
pared with the intimidation practiced by their oppon
ents, the amount of which the Republicans were guilty
appears to have been comparatively small; while the
very abhorrence in which Democratic negroes were
held by the people of their own color is pretty conclu
sive proof that when left alone the negroes were almost
unanimously Republican. The freedmen not only
employed violence in preventing desertions, but, exas
perated by the Democratic invasions of their meetings,
they also showed in some localities an unexpected
determination to resist the whites. They began to
carry arms to their meetings, and to indulge in the
most diabolical threats. 2
In the month of September there were, in fact, two
serious collisions between the races. The first took
place in Charleston on the 6th, and was due to an
unjustifiable attempt on the part of colored Republicans
to call two colored Democratic speakers to account for
their utterances. Before the riot was subdued by the
Republican authorities several persons on both sides
1 H. R. R. No. 175, Part 1, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 11-12. For
other evidence along this line see H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, Part 1,
pp. 399, 417, 422, 436, 438, 446. One negro said that on a
certain occasion when he hurrahed for Hampton, men and
women of his race fell upon him "the same as ants," and tore
off all his clothing except his trousers. The same negro stated
that the reason he voted the Democratic ticket was that he was
able to borrow money from a Democrat, who asked no questions
about repayment. "I thought the Democratic party was good,
and we'll give them our support." — Ibid, 402.
2 Atlantic, XXXIX, p. 185.
142 The Hayes-Tilden
had been injured, and one white man had been fatally
wounded. 1
The other riot was a far more serious affair. It
occurred at Ellenton, in the same county in which
Hamburg was situated. As a result of race and poli
tical hatreds, conditions in that section had for some
time been favorable for an outbreak. An occasion
was offered by the attempt of two negroes to commit
a robbery. The opportunity "to teach the negroes a
lesson" was too favorable to be lost. Rifle-clubs from
a radius of thirty miles collected ; all the negroes of
the locality became alarmed ; conflicts took place ; and
before quiet was restored one or two whites and from
fifteen to thirty negroes had lost their lives. Most and
probably all of the negroes killed were wholly inno
cent of the original offense, and many were simply shot
down. Particularly cold-blooded was the murder of
Simon P. Coker, a member of the legislature. A far
greater massacre was prevented only by the opportune
arrival of a company of United States troops, who
saved about one hundred colored men surrounded in
a swamp. Even then the killing of colored men con
tinued for several days. 2
In view of the violence and disorder in the state,
Governor Chamberlain on October 7th issued a proc-
1 Southern Historical Society Papers, XII, pp. 554-558 ; Allen,
p. 351 ; H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp.
1 et seq.
2 My account of the Ellenton affair is based chiefly on South
ern Historical Society Papers, XIII, pp. 47-H3 ; and on the enor
mous mass of evidence contained in H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 44th
Cong. 2d Sess., and in S. Mis. Doc. No. 48, 44th Cong. 2d Sess.
Disputed Election of l8j6 143
lamation ordering the rifle-clubs and other military
organizations not a part of the militia to disband. As
the disturbances continued and the order was not
obeyed, he soon afterwards appealed to the President
for troops. The President accordingly issued a proc
lamation against the rifle-clubs, and sent more than
thirty companies of United States troops into the
state. l
These actions on the part of the governor and the
President evoked, of course, a storm of criticism. 2 It
was denied by the Democrats that the call for troops
was warranted by the facts. It was said that Cham
berlain ought to have called upon the rifle-clubs to put
down the disorders. It was urged that he ought to
have convoked the legislature. On the whole, how
ever, there can be little doubt that the use of troops
was justifiable, even though it be granted that the
governor and the President were actuated by partisan
motives. The governor unquestionably showed wis
dom in not attempting to make use of the negro militia,
for that would have brought on yet more terrible con
sequences ; while, as for making use of the rifle-clubs,
that, as he remarked, would have been calling in the
1 Annual Cyclopaedia, 1876, pp. 719-720, and Allen, pp. 365-
2 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, Part 1, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 338-
40, Southern Historical Society Papers, XIII, pp. 53-55. Some
of the judges denied Chamberlain's charges; some even repre
sented South Carolina as a very elysium of peace and good
order. A United States army officer later testified that the
judges lied. Judge Wiggin, whose circuit embraced the coun
ties of Aiken and Barnwell, stated that domestic violence cer
tainly existed and expressed the opinion that the sending of
troops had saved many lives. — H. R. Mis. Doc No 31 Part 4
45th Cong. 3d Sess., p. 340.
The Hayes-Til den
wolves to guard the sheep. 1 The use of troops in an
election is, to be sure, to be deplored as a usual thing ;
but conditions in South Carolina were such that the
only pity was there were not more troops available.
As for the absurd claim that the presence of the troops
would scare the negroes into voting the Republican
ticket,2 the later admission by the Democratic mem
bers of a House investigating committee that the bear
ing of the troops "was both prudent and wise" 3 is
sufficient refutation. The "true inwardness" of the
outcry lay in the fact that the presence of the troops
interfered with the Democratic plan of campaign. Had
the troops not been sent, there can be little doubt that
the Democrats would have carried the state by a large
majority. But as General N. P. Banks later remarked :
"The last card — one which had been played with so
much success in adjoining states, upon which in fact
every expectation of success depended, the revolver
and rifle, which had been carefully dealt out, according
to the rules of the game as practiced in the best politi
cal society, to each member of the club organized for
intellectual and social pleasures only — was unexpect
edly and scandalously trumped by a Federal bayonet." '
The presence of the troops did much to secure a
more peaceful condition of affairs. After the issuance
of the President's proclamation there was but one con
siderable riot. This occurred at a Republican meeting
1 Allen, p. 387. For Chamberlain's defence see New York
Tribune for October 5th and November 2d .
2 E. g., New York Herald of Oct. 28th.
3 H R R. No. 175, Part I, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 12.
4 Ibid, Part 2, p. 227.
Disputed Election of l8j6 145
held at Cainhoy near Charleston. As usual the Demo
crats had forced the Republicans to divide time, and
while the meeting was in progress some young white
men seized some guns belonging to the negroes. A
fight ensued in which the negroes for once stood their
ground, killed six of the whites, and put the rest to
flight, with the loss of but one of their own number. *
In all places where troops were stationed the negroes
were comparatively safe from physical violence, for so
thoroughly, had South Carolinians learned to respect
the United States that the presence of a single blue uni
form was sufficient to hold a whole company of "red-
shirts" in check. In the back country where there
were no troops, however, there continued to be some
thing of a reign of terror among the freedmen.
The election proper was attended with terrible ex
citement, yet on the whole it was more peaceable than
might have been anticipated. In some respects, how
ever, it was scarcely more than a farce. While there
. were no great riots, there were minor disturbances at
many places, and there was much intimidation of indi
viduals, buying of votes, and repeating. In Charles
ton, Beaufort, and other "black counties" bands of
negroes, armed with guns, clubs, swords, knives, bay
onets, and other weapons, surrounded some of the
polls ; swore they would "kill any - - Democratic
nigger" who offered to vote; and violently handled
some who disregarded the warning. In these counties
1 For some of the evidence see H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 44th
Cons. 2d Sess., pp. 160-260. See also Southern Historical Society
Papers, pp. 57-59, for a very partisan account.
146 The Hayes-TilJen
the Republicans also appear to have done considerable
repeating. l In other counties similar tactics were
pursued to an even greater degree by the Democrats.
Negroes and even white election officials were intimi
dated and in some cases assaulted, and parties of white
men rode about from poll to poll casting their votes at
each. 2 In this sort of work the native whites were
materially aided by Georgians and North Carolinians,
who crossed the border to help their fellow Democrats.3
Since the state census of 1875 gives the number of
males of voting age and since the election managers
in all but four counties classified the voters according
to color, it is possible to arrive at some conclusions by
a process of comparison. 4 Such a study seems to
show that by far the greater amount of illegal voting
was done by the whites. In only two counties did the
colored vote exceed the census figures, the excess being
928 ; in the other counties 5 the negro vote fell below
the census figures by 6,727. In only four counties did
the white vote fall below the census figures, the de
crease in these being 328; in all the other counties,
exclusive of those in which no classification was made,
there was an excess amounting to 3,505, while in the
non-classified counties there was an estimated excess
1 See Atlantic, XXXIX, p. 187 ; index to H. R. Mis. Doc. No.
31 Part 1, pp. 471-472 ; index to S. Mis. Doc. No. 48, p. xiii.
2 Ibid, pp. x-xiii; House report just cited, pp. 470-471; Atlan-
3 Ibid; House report, Part 1, pp. 235, 241; S. Mis. Doc. No.
48, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 328, 352, 410, 675, 861.
4 For figures see H. R. R. No. 175, Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d
Sess., p. 62. The four counties were Charleston, Laurens, Edge-
field, and Williamsburgh.
5 Disregarding the four mentioned.
Disputed Election of iSjd 147
of 3,026. In only one county, namely Barmvell, do
the figures show conclusively that there was Republican
repeating. Most of this repeating was done in Rob-
bins Precinct. About noon of election day the regular
polling-place was fired on and was deserted, but the
Republican manager opened another one at an aban
doned school-house. The voting at this new poll
proceeded so briskly that, when evening came, 1,317
ballots, all for the Republican candidates, were taken
out of the box. As this was about four times the
number of votes cast at the election of 1874, it is toler
ably clear that some citizens must have deposited more
than their share. 1 It was also claimed by the Demo
crats that the Republicans did much repeating in
Charleston county ; but the figures alone do not bear
out the claim, for the total vote of the county lacked
more than 1,000 of equalling the census figures. How
ever, as it was notorious that great numbers of blacks
were induced by the whites to absent themselves from
the polls, it is quite conceivable that some who did go
cast extra ballots for those who remained away. 2
But the Democrats certainly bore away the palm in
the matter of illegal voting. Edgefield county, which
in 1874 had given a Republican majority of 498
1 For index to part of the testimony regarding this precinct see
p. 469 of H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31. Part 1, 44th Cong. 2d Sess. The
Democrats claimed that the Republicans themselves fired on the
polling places. The Republicans tried to explain the size of the
vote by pointing out that in a neighboring precinct no election was
held and that the voters from that precinct voted in the Rob-
bins Precinct. The board of canvassers threw out all the votes.
Not all the cheating in this county was done by Republicans, for
the white vote exceeded the census figures by 416, whereas the
colored vote was less by 971.
2 Atlantic, XXXIX, p. 187.
148 The Hayes-Til den
out of a vote of 6,298, was this time made to
return a Democratic majority of 3,134 out of a
total of 9,3/4, which was 2,252 more votes than
the total number of adult males in the preceding year.1
In Laurens county likewise there was much crooked
work done. In that county the Democratic majority
was 1,112, as against a Republican majority of 1,077
in 1874. 2 In these two counties ballot-box stuffing,
intimidation, repeating, and similar practices were
everywhere rampant.
The ballots were counted much more fairly
than they were cast. With a liberality which did him
honor, Governor Chamberlain had appointed a Dem
ocrat as a member of the board of managers in each
election precinct and had composed the board of county
canvassers in like manner. 3
The election was scarcely over before it was apparent
that the result would be very close. At once there
began a contest similar to those in Florida and Louis
iana. Like those states South Carolina had a board of
state canvassers. This board was composed of the
secretary of state, the comptroller-general, the attorney-
general, auditor, treasurer, adjutant and inspector-gen-
1 For testimony regarding Edgefield see p. xii of index to S.
Mis. Doc. No. 48, 44th Cong. 2d Sess. The Democrats had
claimed that the census figures were too large. — Atlantic, XXXIX,
p. 187.
2 Ibid, pp. xii-xiii.
3 Allen, p. 428. In compiling the vote the county canvassers
made some changes in the precinct returns. The names of some
of the candidates had not been correctly printed on some of the
tickets, and in several cases candidates running for one office had
by mistake received votes for other offices. Some of the boards
credited the candidates with votes clearly intended for them. —
Atlantic, XXXIX, p. 188.
Disputed Election of l8j6 149
eral, and the chairman of the committee on privileges
and elections of the House of Representatives. 1 All
these gentlemen were Republicans, three were colored
men, and three were candidates for re-election. Under
the act creating it, the board had the power to receive
and canvass the returns for all officers except governor
and lieutenant-governor, the returns for these two
being canvassed in joint session of the general assem
bly. In performing their work the board had the
further power, and it was "made their duty, to decide
all cases under protest or contest" that might arise.2
At previous canvasses this section of the statute had
been interpreted as giving the board discretionary
powers. 3 At this canvass, however, the Democrats re
solved to make an effort to confine the board to merely
ministerial duties. In this work they found an instru
ment ready at hand in the state supreme court. That
body was composed of Chief Justice F. J. Moses,
father of the notorious ex-governor whose judicial am
bitions had been thwarted by Chamberlain; of Asso
ciate Justice Willard ; and of Associate Justice Wright,
who was a colored man. 4 All three had been chosen
by the Republicans, but the first two had opposed
Chamberlain and they now displayed a willingness to
lend themselves to actions almost if not quite as par-
1 The last mentioned and the auditor did not act. — P. 67 of
Appendix to H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, Part 3, 44th Cong., 2d
Sess.
2 Act approved March 1, 1870.
3 Allen, p. 429.
4 Ibid.
11
150 The Hayes-Tilden
tisan as many of those already described in Louis
iana. 1
On the 1 4th of November, four days after the board
began its proceedings, the Democrats applied to the
court for a writ of prohibition to restrain the board
from exercising judicial functions, and for a writ of
mandamus to compel it to perform the merely minis
terial functions of ascertaining from the returns which
candidates had the highest number of votes and of
then certifying the statements thereof to the secretary
of state. On the i/th the court complied as far as
to issue an order, auxiliary to its final judgment,
directing the board forthwith to proceed to canvass
the returns, and then make a report of the result to
the court. 2
Very much against their will the board on November
2 ist brought in such a report, but at the same time
submitted a vigorous protest against the claim that the
board was by law compelled to render account of its
actions to the court. The board stated that many
allegations and evidences of fraud and other irregulari
ties had been filed regarding the election in Edgefield,
Barnwell, Laurens, and other counties. They further
reported that, taking the face of the returns but omit
ting Robbins Precinct, the result would be the election
of two Democratic congressmen, two Democratic state
1 Maxwell in the South Atlantic, pp. 328-330, pays a tribute
to the court's "judicial integrity."
2 For the documents in the case see Appendix to H. R. Mis.
Doc. No. 31, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 78-91. Justice Wright dis
sented from that part of the order which required the board to
certify its action to the court.
Disputed Election of 1876 151
officers, 1 enough Democratic members of the general
assembly to give that party a majority of one on
joint ballot, three Republican state officers, four Re
publican congressmen, and all the Republican electors
by majorities averaging about 816. 2
The Democrats now found themselves in an extreme
ly puzzling dilemma. The face of the returns gave
them control of the legislature, and consequently
the governorship and lieutenant-governorship, into
their hands ; but, notwithstanding the frauds in Edge-
field, Barnwell, and Laurens, the vote for the electors
was favorable to Hayes. If the returns were allowed
to stand, then most of the state ticket would be saved,
but Tilden would be lost; if, on the other hand, the
court should decide to allow the board discretionary
power, then the state officers, about which the Demo
crats were by far the most anxious, would probably
be lost without there being much chance that a ma
jority would be evolved for Tilden.
After consulting among themselves and probably
with New York the Democratic managers asked the
court to grant two orders, one for each horn of the
dilemma. The first order was to force the board to
"certify to be correct the statement of the whole num
ber of votes for members of the general assembly
.... and determine and declare what persons have
been by the greatest number of votes elected to
1 But not if certain votes cast for John B. Tolbert were
counted for John R. Tolbert, and certain votes cast for F. C.
Dunn were counted for T. C. Dunn.
2 For this report see appendix to H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 44th
Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 91-114.
152 The Hayes-Tilden
/
such offices .... make certificate of this determin
ation, and deliver it to the secretary of state
.... and do the same in reference to members of
Congress." By this means the Democrats would
secure beyond the chance of loss two members of
Congress, two minor state officers, and a majority of
the members of the legislature and the consequent
declaration by that body in favor of the claims of
the Democratic candidates for governor and lieu
tenant-governor. The request for the other order
recited that there were discrepancies between the
returns of the precinct managers and the returns of
the boards of county canvassers and asked that the
state board be compelled to correct such discrepancies,
and after doing so make a report to the court, and also
deliver to it "all official papers on which the same is in
any manner based, including the returns of the several
managers and the statements of the county canvass
ers." * This petition looked to the saving, if possible,
of one or all of the electors.
The court entertained both petitions, but delayed
action upon them. This delay probably had a hidden
motive. " The statute defining the powers and duties
of the board limited that body's sittings to ten days ;
if, therefore, the board did not fulfill its duties within
that time, it would no longer have any legal authority
in the matter; the court, being in possession of the
1 Appendix to H. R. R. No. 31, Part 3, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp.
133-135. This request was first made on the 20th and was
again brought forward.
2 So charged by Allen, p. 434. See also New York Times of
Nov. 24th et seq.
Disputed Election of 1876 153
records of election, could then have assumed the re
sponsibility of declaring the result. It goes without
saying that that declaration would have been for Til-
den, i
The plan was a shrewd one, but the first step, upon
which all the rest depended, was delayed a little too
long. The ten day limit expired shortly after noon of
the 22d. At ii o'clock of that day the court met, and
issued a writ of peremptory mandamus granting the
first petition; then, after a short recess, ordered that
a "rule do issue" requiring the board of canvassers to
show cause why another writ of mandamus should not
issue requiring them to comply with the second peti
tion. 2
But before the second order was issued and before
the writ granted had been served, the board of state
canvassers had ceased to exist. That body met at 10
A. M. ; "corrected certain errors" in the returns ; threw
out the counties of Edgefield and Laurens (which cer
tainly ought to have been thrown out) ; certified the
election of the Hayes electors, of all the Republican
candidates for state offices except the candidates for
governor and lieutenant-governor, and of other can
didates, both Republicans and Democrats, for whom
they found majorities. The board then adjourned
sine die. 3
1 See Times of Nov. 23d and 24th.
2 Appendix to report just cited, pp. 114-118; Times of Nov.
23d; Herald of Nov. 23d.
3 See appendix just cited, pp. 118-122. For the protests and
evidence before the board see Ibid, pp. 37-67. For the minutes
of the board see Ibid, pp. 67-78. The board did not return any
one as elected to the legislature from Edgefield and Laurens.
154 The Hayes-Tllden
The rage of the Democrats when they discovered
that they had been outwitted was very great indeed. l
Hampton declared the action of the board "a high
handed outrage ;" 2 public excitement ran so high that
an armed conflict seemed not improbable ; the court
endeavored to avenge itself by fining each member
of the board $1,500 for contempt and by committing
all of them to the Richland county jail until further
orders. 3 From thence they were, however, almost im
mediately released on a writ of habeas corpus issued by
Judge Bond of the United States circuit court. 4
The Democrats now resorted to a number of other
expedients to secure one or more electors for Tilden.
A proceeding in the nature of a quo warranto was insti
tuted in the supreme court by the Democratic claim
ants against the Republican electors, but the case was
ultimately dismissed. 5 An attempt was made to bribe
one of the electors; but, like a previous attempt to
bribe the canvassing board, it failed. A scheme was
also formed to prevent the electors from voting by a
process which involved bribery, violence, and the lock-
1 Southern Historical Society Papers, XIII, p. 64.
2 Annual Cyclopaedia, 1876, p. 725. Hampton behaved with
great prudence, however, throughout this exciting period, and
discouraged all resorts to violence. He and the other leaders
saw, of course, that violence would bring them into conflict with
the United States.
3 Appendix to H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 44th Cong. 2d Sess.,
pp. 127-133.
4 Southern Historical Society Papers, XIII, p. 64 ; Herald of
Nov. 28th.
5 Appendix cited above, pp. 190-220 ; H. R. R. No. 175, Part 1,
44th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 9.
Disputed Election of l8j6 155
ing up of the electors in separate cells until after the
legal day for casting their ballots ; but it, too, failed. *
On the 6th of December, therefore, the Republican
electors met unhindered, and cast their ballots for
Hayes and Wheeler. Returns of their vote, duly cer
tified, were then forwarded both by mail and by mes
senger to Washington.
On the same day the Democratic claimants also met
and voted; but it is rather difficult to see on what
ground they based their right to do so, for the Demo
crats admitted among themselves that the national
contest had gone against them. As early as the I4th
of November Mr. Smith Mead Weed, who had come
to the state in the interests of Tilden, had telegraphed
in cipher to New York: ''Best I can figure, Tilden
will be 2,600 behind Hampton, and see little hope ;
shall keep up appearances." 2 At a later date, when
the committee of the House of Representatives came
to the state, the Democratic members were unable to
make any coherent case for their candidate. In their
report they felt constrained to admit that, after "ascer
taining the votes cast at all the precincts and correcting
the mistakes made by the managers in the returns," the
lowest Hayes elector had received over the highest
Tilden elector "a majority of 831." 3 To be sure, the
Democratic members added that "no opinion is ad
vanced upon the truth and accuracy of these returns ;"
1 H. R. R. No. 31, Part 1, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 456. For a
full account of these matters see post Chap. XIII.
2 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, Part 4, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., p. 133.
3 H. R. R. No. 175, Part 1, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 3. This was
exclusive of Robbins Precinct.
156 The Disputed Election of 1876
pointed to the use of the army and to the intimidation
of Democratic negroes ; and made certain other objec
tions; but the case they presented was a perfunctory
one.
There is, in fact, not the slightest doubt regarding
the electoral result in South Carolina. 1 On the face
of the returns the Republicans had a substantial ma
jority. 2 By excluding Edgefield and Laurens, which
certainly ought to have been excluded, the majority
would have been increased by more than 4,000. And,
finally, if the election had been free and fair, the ma
jority would have been increased by many thousands
more.
Nevertheless, the Democratic leaders and newspa
pers throughout the country continued to claim the
state; and it therefore became a bone of contention
in the forthcoming struggle at Washington.
1 As Governor Chamberlain has remarked : "The historian-
here is no longer compelled to spell out his verdict from a wide
induction of facts ; he need only accept the assertions, even the
vaunts, of many of the leading figures in the canvass since the
canvass was closed." — Atlantic, LXXXVII, p. 180.
2 Reynolds admits that "the Republicans got in their electoral
ticket."— p. 391.
CHAPTER IX
THE INELIGIBLE ELECTOR IN OREGON
In Oregon, the remaining state from which a
double set of returns was forwarded to Washington,
the election produced a situation different from those
described in Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina.
In Oregon there was no dispute about the result of the
election; for it was freely admitted by all that the
three Republican candidates for electors had received
majorities, the smallest of which was 1,049 votes.1
But shortly after the result was known a fact which
had attracted practically no attention during the cam
paign began to assume vast importance not only to
the people of Oregon but also to those of the whole
country. The fact in question was that John W.
Watts, one of the Republican electors, was a post
master. To be sure, his office was one of the fourth
class in the little village of La Fayette in Yam Hill
county, and the compensation he received was only
about $268 per year ; 2 nevertheless, the position was
unquestionably one of "trust" and "profit," and by
1 S. R. No. 678, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 1-2. This will be
cited as "Report of the Committee."
2 Ibid, pp. 2-3. The reference is to the committee's report,
but the report accords with the evidence.
I5& The Hayes-Tilden
holding it he was thereby disqualified by section i,
article 2, of the Federal Constitution from being ap
pointed an elector.
The Democrats were somewhat slow in recogniz
ing the possibilities of the situation which thus pre
sented itself; but after telegrams from the East had
announced that a contest had arisen over the eligibility
of a postmaster-elector in Vermont the state leaders
at last awoke to the fact that perhaps here was an
opportunity to secure the one more vote which Tilden
must have to secure his election. They at once began
to bestir themselves to see what could be done. l
In one respect the situation was favorable; in an
other not so much so. The governor, L. F. Grover,
was a Democrat, and was partisan enough to lend
himself to almost any plan which gave hope of suc
cess. The state law was not so promising. It no
where said anything about the power of the governor
to appoint an elector or the right of a minority candi
date to take the place of a successful but ineligible op
ponent ; on the contrary, section 2 expressly provided
that "if there shall be any vacancy in the office of an
elector, occasioned by death, refusal to act, neglect to
attend, or otherwise, the electors present shall immedi
ately proceed to fill, by viva voce and plurality of votes,
such vacancy in the electoral college." The governor's
power in the premises, in accordance with the state
law, was confined to being present when the secretary
of state, who was the returning officer, should can-
1 Report of the Committee, p. 3 ; files of Portland Daily Ore-
ffonian.
Disputed Election of iSjb 159
vass the votes, and to granting certificates of elec
tion to the persons "having the highest number of
votes.''
These certificates were to be prepared by the secre
tary, "signed by the governor and secretary, and by the
latter delivered to the college of electors at the hour
of their meeting."1
Notwithstanding the plain intent of the law, the
Democratic leaders in the state resolved to claim that
the ineligibility of Watts served to give the electorship
for which he had been a contestant, to E. A. Cronin,
who had received the highest number of votes among
the minority candidates. This resolve was by no means
the unaided conception of the Democrats of Oregon, but
in part at least was due to a deluge of telegrams from
W. T. Pelton, Tilden's nephew and acting secretary of
the Democratic national committee, from Abram S.
Hewitt, chairman of that committee, and from other
prominent Eastern Democrats. The purport of many
of these telegrams can be gathered from the following :
"NEW YORK, Nov. 15, — 6.
"Governor L,. F. Grover:
"Upon careful investigation, the legal opinion is that
votes cast for a Federal office-holder are void, and
that the person receiving the next highest number of
votes should receive the certificate of appointment.
The canvassing-officers should act upon this, and the
governor's certificate of appointment be given to the
1 S. Misc. Doc. No. 44, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 31. This will
be cited as "Testimony."
160 The Hayes-Tilde*
elector accordingly, and the subsequent certificate of
the votes of the electors be duly made specifying how
they voted. This will force Congress to go behind
the certificate, and open the way to get into merits of
all cases, which is not only just, but which will relieve
the embarrassment of the situation.
"ABRAM S. HEWITT." *
The Eastern leaders by no means confined them
selves to long distance messages of advice. They
deemed the matter of such importance that they se
cured one J. N. H. Patrick of Omaha, Nebraska, to
make the long trip to Oregon and see to it that no
bungling was done by the supposedly inexperienced
Democrats of the western coast. Mr. Patrick hastened
westward, taking with him a copy of The Household
English Dictionary, 2 which was to be used in certain
activities in which he expected to engage. Arrived in
Oregon, Mr. Patrick displayed much zeal if not discre
tion in forwarding the purpose for which he had been
sent out. After consultation with leading Democrats,
he proceeded, as one of his first acts, to retain in con
sideration of the sum of $3,000 the services of the
Republican law firm of Hill, Durham, and Thompson ;
not, it appears, primarily for the sake of their legal
assistance — there were enough Democratic lawyers
to render all necessary aid in that connection — but
because one of the firm was the editor of the two most
1 Committee's Report, p. 29. For other dispatches see pp. 18-
2 Testimony, pp. 441-455, and Report of Committee, p. 19.
Disputed Election of 1876 161
influential newspapers in the state. l Some time later
Mr. Patrick dispatched the following telegram :
"To W. T. Pel-ton, No. 15, Gramercy Park, New York:
"By vizier association innocuous to negligence cun
ning minutely previously readmit doltish to purchase
afar act with cunning afar sacristy unweighed afar
pointer tigress cuttle superannuated syllabus dilatori-
ness misapprehension contraband Kountze bisculous
top usher spiniferous answer.
"J. N. H. PATRICK." 2
When this dispatch was received, Mr. Pelton, or his
secretary, took each word of the telegram in turn and
found its position in another copy of The Household
English Dictionary, and then sought out the word in
the corresponding position in the eighth column
ahead. 3 The result obtained by this process was as
follows :
"Certificate will be issued to one Democrat. Must
purchase a Republican elector to recognize and act
with Democrat and secure the vote and prevent trouble.
Deposit $10,000 to my credit with Kountze Brothers,
Wall street. Answer."
1 Report of Committee, pp. 9-10; telegram to Pelton in
Testimony, p. 449 ; testimony of Bellinger, pp. 300 et seq., of
Kelly, p. 332, and of others. The newspapers continued hostile,
however.
2 Testimony, p. 448.
3 Ibid, pp. 439-468, 236, 247, 250, 351, 494. Patrick had at
one time used practically the same cipher in business dealings
with Alfred B. Hinman of Detroit. Hinman had explained the
cipher to his agent and later partner Alfred W. Shaw. When the
Senate committee had possession of the dispatches, some of them
in their original form were given to the newspapers. Shaw
saw one of them in a Detroit paper, and explained the key to
the editor of the Detroit Daily Post. v
1 62 The Hayes-Til Jen
Money to the amount of more than $15,000 in all
was furnished Mr. Patrick, l but his scheme to pur
chase a Republican elector was not consummated. 2
How the other part of the plan was carried out will
presently appear.
On the 4th of December the secretary of state can
vassed the returns in the presence of the governor and
found that the Republican candidates — Cartwright,
Odell, and Watts — had received "the highest number
of votes." But the governor then stated that a pro
test had been filed against the issuance of a certificate
to Watts, and announced that on the following day he
would hear arguments anent the matter. At the ap
pointed time he took a seat on the bench in the room
of the state supreme court. The three Republican
electors then presented a protest denying his jurisdic
tion in the case, and insisting that, in the absence of
judicial proceedings, his only power in the premises
was to issue certificates to the persons receiving the
highest number of votes as declared by the secretary
of state. They took no further part in the hearing,
but the Democratic counsel presented arguments which
lasted far into the night. 3
1 Testimony of Asahel Bush of the firm with whom the money
was deposited. — Ibid, p. 284.
2 On the following: day Mr. Pelton sent a dispatch stating
If you make obligation contingent on result in March, it
can be done, and [incremable] slightly if necessary." He tes
tified before the committee that this did not refer to the pur
chase of an elector ; but in view of later revelations, it may well
be doubted whether he told the truth.— See Ibid, 502 et seq.
3 The protests and a summary of the proceedings are given in
the Report of the Committee, pp. 7-9 ; see also Testimony, pp.
Disputed Election of 1876 163
Although his mind was already made up, 1 Governor
Grover withheld his decision until the following day,
which was the time appointed for the electors to cast
their ballots. Shortly after noon of that day he deliv
ered to the secretary of state certificates containing
the names of Odell and Cartwright, the two Republi
can candidates whose eligibility was not questioned,
and of Cronin, the Democratic claimant for Watts's
electorship. The governor pretended to act on the
theory that since Watts was ineligible the votes cast
for him were void and hence the majority of legal
votes were cast for his opponent. In order to escape
the law providing for the rilling of vacancies by the
other electors, he argued that because Watts was in
eligible he was never an ''incumbent" and hence there
could be no vacancy. This interpretation. was plainly
at variance with the state law defining vacancies, but
as the election of a President was at stake the gov
ernor did not hesitate at a matter of such small impor
tance as the law. 2 .
Then ensued a scene which would have been farcical
had it not been fraught with possibilities of grave dan
ger to the peace of a great nation. The secretary of
1 See telegrams from Oregon to Pelton, Testimony, pp. 449,
464.
2 The state law provided that the governor should issue his
certificate to the persons "having the highest number of votes,"
but as the state law by mistake said "two lists" while the Fed
eral law said "three," he evaded the state law by claiming to
act under the Federal law, which was more general. See his
testimony in Ibid, pp. 103, 120, 202, 235, and especially his writ
ten defence, published in pamphlet form, and incorporated into
his testimony, pp. 413-425. For the view of the committee see
their Report, pp. 38-74. The law of the case will be consid
ered in greater detail in Chapter XL
164 The Hayes-Tilden
state signed the certificates given him by the governor,
and took them to the room set apart for the electors.
There he found Odell, Cartwright, and Watts (who
had now resigned his postmastership), and also Cronin
and the other two defeated Democratic candidates. To
Cronin he handed the envelope containing the three
certificates, and then retired. When Odell and Cart-
wright asked for their certificates, Cronin refused to
deliver them, but condescended to read part, or all,
of one of the certificates aloud. Odell and Cartwright
nevertheless proceeded to organize the college; Cart
wright was elected president, and he then chose Odell
as secretary. Cronin now again refused to hand over
the certificates, and also refused to obey a resolution
to that effect passed by Cartwright and Odell. At
this point Watts, who hitherto had taken no part, pre
sented his resignation, stating that the objections made
to his eligibility were his reason for doing so. His
resignation was accepted, whereupon Cronin ex
claimed :
"I understand that by receiving Dr. Watts's resigna
tion you refuse to act with me, and I shall proceed
to fill these vacancies. I declare there are two vacan
cies, and I shall proceed to fill them." 1
He then instructed Mr. Klippel, one of the defeated
Democratic candidates, who now took charge of the
door, to "call in Mr. J. N. T. Miller." Miller was
waiting outside the door in readiness for such an
emergency, and at once came in. Cronin thereupon
1 Testimony, p. 48.
OF THE
UNIVERSITY
Disputed Election of l8j6 165
appointed him to fill one of the "vacancies," after
which the two chose a Mr. Parker to fill the other.
After Parker had been called in the three proceeded
to cast their ballots for President and Vice-President.
Considering that all three were Democrats, they
showed great forbearance in this matter, for they cast
two votes for Hayes and Wheeler and only one for
Tilden and Hendricks. ,
In the meantime Odell and Cartwright were not
idle. They chose Watts to fill the vacancy caused by
his own resignation, or disqualification, and then cast
three ballots for Rutherford B. Hayes for President
and three ballots for William A. Wheeler for Vice-
President. !
Returns from both "colleges" were later forwarded,
both by mail and by special messenger, to the presi
dent of the Senate. The Democratic returns, which
were certified by Governor Grover, were conveyed to
Washington by Cronin, who, however, first forced the
Democratic managers to pay him $3,000 for doing so. 2
The Republican returns, which were not certified by
the governor but which were accompanied by certifi
cates of the results of the canvass furnished by the
secretary of state, 3 were carried by Mr. Odell.
1 My account of this whole transaction is based chiefly upon
the testimony of the secretary of state, Ibid, pp. 19 and 66, of
Odell, pp. 32, 37, 67, 392; of Cartwright, pp. 46, 181; of Watts,
59, 145, 203, 368, 391; of Cronin, p. 78; of Klippel, pp. 162,
249 ; of Miller, p. 175 ; of Laswell, pp. 252, 265, and of some other
witnesses. Upon most of the essential facts the witnesses were
in substantial accord.
2 Testimony of Cronin himself. — Ibid, pp. 88 et seq.
3 Three certificates were obtained from the secretary by a Mr.
Dolph and were carried by him to the Republicans in the elec
toral room. — Ibid, pp. 25, 52.
12
1 66 The Hayes-Tilden
The Republicans, both of the state and the nation,
denounced the Democratic procedure as an "outrage"
and an attempted "steal ;" in Oregon itself the indigna
tion ran so high that Governor Grover was burned in
effigy. The Democrats, on the other hand, usually
characterized the matter as a "good joke," or a "shrewd
trick." * Not many of their leaders expected the Cro-
nin return to stand, but they did believe it would
secure a revision of other electoral returns by forc
ing the Republicans to set a precedent of going be
hind the certificate of the governor. They were now
confident that whatever course the Republicans should
take, Tilden was sure of the necessary number of
electoral votes.
But their rejoicing was premature. As was almost
immediately pointed out, they failed to discern a rad
ical distinction between the Oregon question and the
questions raised in the Southern states. In the latter
the issue arose regarding the manner in which the
board of state canvassers discharged their duties. To
go behind their returns would require a recount of
the popular vote in those states, a revision of the appli
cation of state registry laws, and a decision as to the
facts and effects of intimidation and fraud. Such
action would lead to a substitution of national for state
authority, in violation of the Federal Constitution,
which says that each state shall appoint its electors
"in such manner as the legislature thereof mav direct."
1 Daily Oregonian, Dec. 8th ; New York Times, Dec. 7th to
10th.
Disputed Election of l8jd 167
The Oregon question, on the contrary, was one which
would not lead to any such investigation. The dispute
there began at a point subsequent to where the South
ern questions ended. It would not lead to any inquiry
or judgment as to how or why the people voted or
neglected to vote. It would not touch the action of
any state canvasser in canvassing the votes. It would
simply relate to the unauthorized interference of the
governor of Oregon and his man Cronin with the
action of the college of electors at a time when they
were assembled to discharge their duty under the
United States law and Constitution, as the law of
Oregon expressly declared they should do, and could
hardly, if at all, go beyond facts appearing upon the
face of the returns made by the duly elected electors. 1
In this clear and undeniable distinction between the
domains of state powers and Federal powers lay mo
mentous possibilities. Out of the failure, either
through mental obtuseness or willful obstinacy, on the
part of many persons to perceive this nice distinction
there later originated much unjustifiable criticism of
the constitutional stand taken by eight men who were
to decide one of the most momentous controversies
which judges have ever been called upon to decide.
1 See an article by Dorman B. Eaton in the New York
Times for Dec. 14th. In the light of subsequent events this
article was prophetic.
CHAPTER X
COMPROMISE: OR CIVIL WAR?
Few of the generation which has grown up since
then will ever have any but the faintest conception of
the gravity of the situation existing during the winter
of 1876-77. In the end the question at issue was set
tled peaceably without leaving many traces that could
easily be remarked by future observers. But at the
time probably more people dreaded an armed conflict
than had anticipated a like outcome to the secession
movement of 1860-61. 1
In fact, it was difficult to see how the dispute could
be settled in any other manner. Both parties seemed
equally determined; both professed to be thoroughly
confident of the justice of their cause. There was in
tense bitterness of feeling on both sides, but especially
on the part of the Democrats. They had thought
themselves about to enter the Promised Land, when,
lo, a possibility had arisen that they might be excluded
from it. They at once began to cry out that a con
spiracy was on foot to cheat Tilden out of the Presi
dency ; hot-heads were loud in asserting their deter-
1 Senator Hoar, Autobiography, I, p. 369, says that in hlfc
opinion there would have been a resort to arms had it not been
"for the bitter experience of a few years before."
The Disputed Election of 1876 169
mination to resist to the uttermost the consummation
of the "plot." Threats of force were freely indulged
in. The phrase, "Tilden or blood," was heard in some
quarters. l "Tilden has been elected," said the Evans-
ville, Indiana, Courier; "and by the Eternal he shall be
inaugurated." The New York World declared that in
case Republican returning boards should count in
Hayes, "many times
"Forty thousand American men
Will know the reason why." 2
The New York Express, which was said to be the
property of John Kelly and other prominent Demo
crats, talked about "tea duties" and "the use of the
sword" and indulged in a torrent of incendiary insin
uations and assertions. 3 Similar expressions ap
peared in hundreds of other Democratic newspapers
in all parts of the country. A
But happily some of the persons who had $ti;pported
Tilden were less violent. Speaking for this class,
the New York Herald gave the radical element in the
party some excellent advice. "Let us," it said on
November loth, "be as calm as we can
There must be no violence This is not
Mexico. .... As the Democratic party is that
which ifeels itself likely to be aggrieved in this mat
ter, we beg them to remember that the danger which
1 Quoted in the New York Times, Dec. 19th.
2 Nov. 16th.
3 Cited in the Herald of Nov. 16th.
i jo The Hayes-TilJen
now stares the country in the face is but one of the
results of the rebellion which they encouraged, and in
which the largest part of them engaged in 1861. That
rebellion was causeless and unreasonable to the last
degree ; to their folly and wickedness in beginning and
encouraging it are due the multitude of evils which
have rested upon the country since, and of which this
present emergency is another. The country has not
forgotten their agency in these matters. It is not un
willing once more to trust them with political power;
the present vote shows this. But it will not tolerate
for an instant anything which looks to a disorderly
or violent attempt to grasp power, or even anything
which could be construed into a threat to do so. The
American people will make extremely short work of
any party, be it the Democratic or the Republican,
which attempts or threatens civil disorder hereafter on
any plea or pretext whatever." Other Democratic
journals gave similar counsel. The New York Sun,
for example, said on November 2ist that it would be
better to "submit to wrong for the time, however
gross, than to appeal to any but legal, constitutional,
and peaceful remedies."
The Republicans, while equally determined, were in
general much more conservative in their utterances
than were the Democrats. 1 They made no threats
of "Hayes or war." They merely asserted that in
case he should be found to have a majority of the
electoral vote, he would be inaugurated. They sneered
1 New York Times. Dec. 4th.
Disputed Election of 1876 171
at the Democratic "vaporings," and in reply remarked
significantly that General U. S. Grant, not Buchanan,
was in charge of affairs at Washington. 1
¥ The contest absorbed the attention of the country
to the practical exclusion of every other subject. Each
day the newspapers were filled with conjectures, ru
mors, and long editorials. Few attempts were made
to present the truth on both sides of the question.
The Democratic press represented that during the cam
paign peace and good-will towards all had reigned in
the South, with the exception that many good Demo
cratic negroes had been wickedly intimidated by col
ored Republicans and United States troops. 2 The
returning boards they characterized as the special de
vice of the devil. The Republican press, on the other
hand, spoke of Wells, Anderson, and the rest as gen
tlemen of the highest character, only a "little lower
than the angels," and gave harrowing accounts of
political murders and proscriptions committed without
doubt at the direct instigation of Tilden and other
leaders. For having sent troops to preserve the peace
in the disputed states, the President was lauded by Re
publicans, and was threatened with impeachment by
Democrats.3 There was much talk about ineligible
electors in .Vermont, New Jersey, Missouri, Oregon
1 Harper's Weekly, XX, p. 965.
2 They misrepresented in the most absurd way the Pinkston
story. — New York World of Nov. 29th, 30th, and Dec. 1st.
3 The New York Herald, however, approved the sending of the
troops. — See issue of Nov. 12th. The impeachment talk was most
pronounced after the troops had been used to support the Cham
berlain legislature. — See New York World of uec. 1st and 2d ;
The Nation, XXIII, pp. 337-338.
172 The Hayes-Tilden
and elsewhere. There was the widest possible differ
ence of opinion regarding who possessed the power
to count and declare the electoral vote. Republicans
asserted that this power belonged to the Republican
president of the Senate; Democrats were equally con
fident that the right resided in the ultimate analysis in
the Democratic House. The newspapers were filled
with long and learned discussions of the points of
law involved in the various questions at issue; cases
were cited in the most elaborate and conclusive
manner. The Democrats made much of the fact that
they had received a majority of "200,000" of the pop
ular vote;1 the Republicans retorted that Presidents
are not elected by popular vote, that there had been
several minority Presidents, and that, anyhow, with a
free election in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and
elsewhere in the South, the majority would have been
reversed. 2 All sorts of stories were afloat. Because
the President ordered some companies of troops to
Washington, it was alleged he intended to seat Hayes
by force, or else to declare himself dictator. 3 Hayes
was reported to be arranging a trade with the South
ern Democrats.4 It was said that the Democrats
were attempting to bribe returning boards, that they
were attempting to bribe electors,5 that at the last
1 See almost any issue of the World or Sun. The Herald
deprecated this sort of talk as likely to stir up violence. The
popular vote, it pointed out. was altogether "irrelevant."
2 This was no doubt true. For a convincing demonstration
see New York Times of Dec. 10th
3 Sun, Dec. 18th.
4 Times, Dec. 3d, 4th, 5th.
5 Ibid, Dec. 7th.
Disputed Election of 1876 173
moment they would send out a false telegram purport
ing to be from Zach. Chandler informing the Repub
lican electors that Hayes had withdrawn, and instruc
ting them to vote for Elaine.1 When The Nation,
which was extremely anxious for a peaceful solution
of the difficulty, suggested that some Republican elec
tor give a casting vote for Tilden, the story immedi
ately started that James Russell Lowell, who was one
of the Massachusetts electors, intended to adopt this
advice ; Mr. Lowell had some difficulty in convinc
ing anxious Republicans that he had no intention of
doing so. 2
On Monday, December 4th, two days before the
electoral colleges voted, Congress assembled. As the
solution of the great problem lay with that body, its
composition was a matter of the highest importance.
The Senate was decidedly Republican; the House de
cidedly Democratic. The presiding officer of the Sen
ate was Thomas W. Ferry of Michigan ; the speaker
of the House, now chosen to succeed Mr. Kerr, who
had died during the recess, was Samuel J. Randall of
Pennsylvania.
Neither body had been long in session before the
all-absorbing question was taken up. On the very first
day the House passed without debate a resolution pro
viding for three committees, one of fifteen members;
one of six members, and one of nine members, to
proceed to Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina re-
1 Times, Dec. 5th.
2 Ibid, The Nation, XXIII, pp. 322-323, 334-335.
174 The Hayes-Til den
spectively, and investigate the "recent elections therein
and the action of the returning or canvassing boards
in the said states in reference thereto." 1 Next day
the Senate likewise passed a resolution directing the
Committee on Privileges and Elections to examine
into the elections in the states of South Carolina,
• Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, and Missis
sippi, in order to ascertain whether in those states
the right of citizens to vote had "been denied or greatly
abridged;" and also directing the committee to "in
quire into the eligibility to office under the Consti
tution of the United States" of any electors who were
alleged to have been ineligible, and as to whether
the appointment of any electors had been made by
force, fraud, or other illegal means. 2 On the 22d
the same committee was given instructions to investi
gate the situation in Oregon. 3
The various committees soon entered upon their
labors. With the exception of the Senate subcom
mittees on Oregon, Alabama, and Mississippi, which
summoned witnesses to Washington, all the commit
tees and subcommittees proceeded to the states in dis
pute. 4 There they examined witnesses of all kinds,
1 Record,, pp. 11-16.
2 Ibid, pp. 18-21, 33-40. It will be noticed that the resolu
tion of the Senate was strictly consistent with the stand later
taken by the Electoral Commission.
3 Ibid, pp. 90 and 365-367.
4 A later committee on the privileges, powers, and duties of
the House in counting the electoral votes took testimony at
Washington. See H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 42, 44th Cong. 2d Sess.
Exclusive of the debates in Congress and of several thousands
of pages of testimony regarding contested seats in the House, the
government ultimately published more than 20,000 pages of
Material bearing upon the election.
Disputed Election of 1876 175
conditions, and colors, and after several weeks of work
accumulated about 13,000 pages of testimony, which
are of great value to the historian, but which exer
cised little or no influence upon the outcome of the
controversy. Each committee and subcommittee, with
the exception of the Senate subcommittees on Oregon,
Mississippi and Alabama, brought in two reports.
The majority members of the House committees re
ported that the electoral votes of Louisiana, Florida,
and South Carolina belonged of right to Tilden and
Hendricks; the minority members, from the same
testimony, reported exactly opposite conclusions. The
same state of affairs obtained with the Senate com
mittees, except that with them the majority reports
were favorable to Hayes, the minority reports to Til-
den.
Congress by no means allowed the matter to rest
with the mere appointment of investigating commit
tees. The election, in all its varying aspects of in
timidation, murder, returning boards, ineligible elec
tors, and governors' certificates, was discussed day
after day with great warmth in both houses, without
either party being budged one iota from its claim that
its own candidates had been elected.
Urged on by the New York World and other news
papers, some of the Democratic leaders attempted to
carry through a plan to impeach President Grant for
his alleged unconstitutional use of the army and for
other offenses. A caucus to consider the advisability
of beginning such proceedings and also to determine
i/6 The Hayes-Tilden
the general line of party procedure met on the 6th of
December and again on the 7th. l At the first meet
ing Mr. Fernando Wood, then a representative in
Congress but now chiefly remembered as the mayor
of New York who in 1861 proposed that the metropolis
should secede and set up as a city state, moved that
impeachment proceedings should at once be instituted.
Other leaders also spoke in favor of such action; but
the majority of those present opposed it, and argued
that it would serve to raise a distracting issue, and
might lead to violence. The opposition on the part
of the Southern members to anything which might lead
to a civil war was particularly decided. In reply to a
good deal of incendiary talk which certain Northern
members indulged in, some of the Southern leaders
were refreshingly sensible and frank. They declared
that the South had had its fill of war. If, said John
Young Brown of Kentucky, there should be a war, it
would be the work of the Northern Democrats ; while
Benjamin Hill of Georgia referred cuttingly to a sec
tion of the party who were "invincible in peace and
invisible in war.'* He was also reported to have said
that Mr. Wood and others of those counselling armed
resistance had "no conception of the conservative influ
ence of a 15-inch shell with the fuse in process of
combustion." 2
As time passed it became more than ever apparent
1 For accounts see World, Dec. 7th, 8th, 9th ; The Nation,
XXIII, pp. 337-338 ; Harper's Weekly, XX, p. 9 ; Times, Dec. 7th
and 8th.
2 Ibid, Dec. 14th; H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong. 3d
Sess., I, p. 885.
Disputed Election of 1876 IJJ
that the crux of the whole contest lay in the question
of the power to count and declare the electoral vote.
Unfortunately the constitutional provision on the sub
ject was so indefinite as to leave room for decidedly
different interpretations. The Constitution provides,
it will be remembered, that the certificates of the votes
of the electoral colleges shall be transmitted sealed to
the seat of the government, "directed to the president
of the Senate," and that "the president of the Senate
shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Rep
resentatives, open all the certificates, and the votes
shall then be counted/' Upon the interpretation of
the last clause seemed to hinge the question of who
was to be the President of the United States. If, as
some of the Republicans contended, the clause meant
"counted by the president of the Senate," 1 then there
was little doubt that Mr. Ferry, who was a
partisan, would decide that the returns sent in by the
Republican claimants constituted the true vote and
would declare a majority of one for Hayes. If,
as the Democrats asserted, the counting was to be done
under the direction of the two houses, then a dead
lock seemed likely to ensue. Such a deadlock, they
contended, would throw the election into the Demo
cratic House. 2
Nor did the precedents seem to furnish any way
' 1 Atlantic, LXXII, p. 522.
2 One Democratic theory was that upon disputed questions
the two houses should vote together. This would have meant
that the Republican majority in the Senate would be overcome
by the Democratic majority in the House. — Atlantic, LXXII, p.
523.
178 The Hayes-Tilden
out of the difficulties of the situation. 1 They did,
however, throw light on some of the disputed points.
Down to 1865, excluding a temporary expedient used
in 1789, 2 the process of counting had been practically
the same. Prior to the day appointed the two houses
had always passed concurrent resolutions regulating
the procedure. Before meeting in the joint session,
which sometimes was held in the Senate chamber but
oftener in the hall of the House, the Senate had invar
iably chosen one teller, and the House two. The
duties of these tellers had been to make a list of the
votes and deliver the result to the president of the
Senate. That officer had on every occasion opened
the certificates, but in no instance had he attempted,
basing his claim on the ambiguous clause, "and the
votes shall then be counted," to exercise the power of
counting votes or rejecting votes. Clearly, therefore,
the precedents were against the theory that the pres
ident of the Senate could arrogate to himself the now
much coveted power of counting.
But were there any precedents to guide Congress
through the other difficulties which would inevitably
arise even though the Republican contention on this
particular point should be abandoned? The answer
is: None that were conclusive. At the first elec-
1 For all the proceedings and debates of Congress relating
to counting the electoral votes down to IS 76 see H. R. Mis. Doc.
No. 13, 44th Cong. 2d Sess.
2 John Langdon was chosen president of the Senate "for the
sole purpose of receiving, opening, and counting the votes." This
was done in accordance with a resolution of the Convention of
1787, later ratified by the Congress of the Confederation. — Ibid,
pp. 3-8.
Disputed Election of l8j6 179
tion of Monroe objection was made to counting
the votes of Indiana on the ground that Indiana
was not a state of the Union at the time her electors
were chosen. But as senators and representatives
from the state had been admitted to Congress, her
votes were received and counted. 1 Four years later
a similar question arose regarding the votes of Mis
souri ; as the result of the election did not hinge upon
that state, the issue was evaded by counting the votes
in the alternative, — that is, 231 for Monroe with the
votes of Missouri, and 228 without those votes. 2
In 1837 the same objection was made to the vote of
Michigan, and again the issue was evaded by counting
in the alternative. 3 Twenty years later, at the time
of Buchanan's election, objection was made to the
vote of Wisconsin on the ground that the electors had
voted on the day after that prescribed by law. Her
vote was, however, declared by the Vice-President as
it was reported to him in the certificates ; not because
he claimed the right to pass upon the validity of the
election, for he later expressly disclaimed any such
authority, but merely because the two houses failed
to decide the matter. 4
The count of 1865 to°k place under exceptional cir
cumstances. A week previously Congress passed a
joint resolution excluding the eleven seceded states
1 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 13, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 46-47.
2 Ibid, pp. 49-56.
3 Ibid, pp. 70-76.
4 Ibid, pp. 86-144.
i8o' The Hayes-Til Jen
from participation in the choice of the President, a and
by another joint resolution prescribed a mode of pro
cedure to be used in counting the votes from the other
states. 2 This second resolution was the famous
Twenty-Second Joint Rule, which provided that in
case objection should be made to the vote of any state,
the two houses should separate, and, without debate,
decide upon the question of receiving such vote, and no
vote was to be counted except by consent of both
houses. Of the states excluded by the law none ex
cept Louisiana and Tennessee had chosen electors;
the Vice-President, in obedience to the law, refrained
from presenting their returns to the convention ; and,
as no objection had been made to any other return,
no resort to the most vital part of the rule was neces
sary. 3
Four years later, at the first election of Grant, ob
jection was made to the vote of Louisiana on the
ground that no valid election had been held in that
state, but the two houses concurred in counting her
vote. 4 The vote of Georgia was also objected to be
cause the electors had not been chosen on the day re
quired by law, because at the date of the election the
state had not been readmitted to representation in
Congress, because she had not complied with the
Reconstruction Act, and because the election had not
1 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 13, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 149-223.
President Lincoln signed this resolution, although he expressed
the opinion that it was unnecessary for him to do so. — Ibid, pp.
229-230.
2 Ibid, pp. 147-149, 223-225.
3 Ibid, pp. 225-230.
4 Ibid, pp. 238-244.
Disputed Election of l8j6 181
been "a free, just, equal, and fair election." The two
houses, under a special joint rule already provided
for the case, counted the vote in the alternative. 1
Four years later the situation in the states of Louis
iana and Arkansas was such that Senator Sherman
moved an investigation to ascertain whether the choice
of electors in those states had been conducted "in ar-
cordance with the Constitution and laws of the United
States, and what contests, if any, have arisen as to who
were elected electors in either of said states, and
what measures are necessary to provide for the
determination of such contests, and to guard
against and determine like contests in the future
election of electors."1 In the discussion which
followed a number of opinions were advanced
which are of interest in connection with the con
troversy of 1876. Thurman of Ohio said he would
vote for the resolution, but expressed a belief that
it seemed "to imply that there is a broader jurisdic
tion in Congress over the election than I have been
accustomed to suppose is vested in Congress." He
thought that the only power over electors bestowed
upon Congress was the power to "determine the time of
choosing electors and the day on which they shall give
their votes," and held that to the states belonged the
right to determine the validity of the claims of differ
ent persons to the position of electors. "We may,"
he however admitted, "be compelled possibly from
1 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 13, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 244-21
2 Ibid, p. 336.
13
1 82 The Hayes-Tilden
necessity to determine which of the two sets of elec
tors has the official evidence that entitles their certifi
cates to be received, and votes given by them to be
counted."1 Other Democrats, as well as many Re
publicans, expressed similar views upon the power of
Congress to go behind the returns. Trumbull of Illi
nois said : "I think where there are two bodies claim
ing to be electors of a State we must necessarily have
the right to inquire which is the electoral college of the
state; but I question whether we could go so far as
to go behind the election." 2 Other speakers, includ
ing Senator Conkling, 3 interpreted the powers of Con
gress somewhat more broadly.
The resolution was adopted, and a month later the
committee, through Senator Morton, reported upon
the situation in Louisiana but not upon that in Arkan
sas. The report in part was as follows: "The com
mittee are of the opinion that neither the Senate of
the United States nor both houses jointly have the
power under the Constitution to canvass the returns
of an election and count the votes to determine who
have been elected Presidential electors, but that the
mode and manner of choosing electors are left ex
clusively to the states. And if by the law of the
state they are to be elected by the people, the method
of counting the vote and ascertaining the result can
only be regulated by the law of the states. Whether
it is competent for the two houses, under the Twenty-
1 H R. Mis. Doc. No. 13, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 336-337.
2 Ibid, p. 343.
3 Ibid, pp. 343-345.
Disputed Election of l8j6 183
Second Joint Rule (in regard to the constitutionality
of which the committee here give no opinion), to go
behind the certificate of the governor of the state to
inquire whether the votes have ever been counted by
the legal returning board created by the law of the
state, or whether, in making such count, the board •
had before them the official returns, the committee offer
on suggestions." l '
In the end the votes of neither Arkansas nor of
Louisiana were counted. Three votes from Georgia
were also thrown out because they had been cast for
Horace Greeley after that gentleman was dead. Ob
jections were made to the votes of yet other states,
but none of these objections were sustained by either
House. 2
Prior to 1876 two unsuccessful attempts to regulate
the counting of the electoral votes had been made.
In 1800 a bill was introduced into the Senate providing
for a Grand Council, composed of six senators, six
representatives, and the chief justice, or in his ab
sence the senior associate justice, which should "have
power to examine and finally decide all disputes" rela
tive to the count. In so doing the tribunal was to
have power to take testimony upon questions of the
eligibility of .electors, the truth of their returns, and
such matters, but was expressly denied the power to
go behind the action of canvassing officers. This bill,
which in some of its main features was not unlike
1 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 13, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 358-363.
2 Ibid, 357-408.
184 The Hayes-Tilden
the act creating the Electoral Commission, was passed
in amended form by the Senate, l but was defeated in
the House. 2
The other unsuccessful attempt to regulate the count
occurred after the count of 1873, already described.
Although the general public had taken little interest in
the complications of that count, for the simple reason
that whatever the decision upon the disputed points
might be the general result would not be changed,
some of the members of Congress had been awakened
to the possibility that the system then in force might
in case of a close election lead to a national disaster.
Foremost among these persons was Senator Morton of
Indiana, who, with wonderful prescience of the dan
gers soon to arise, began, even before the count of
1873 was made, to urge upon Congress the advisa
bility of changing the method of electing the President,
or at least of regulating more effectually the process of
the count.3 The Twenty-Second Joint Rule he de
nounced as "the most dangerous contrivance to the
peace of the nation that has even been invented by
Congress — a torpedo planted in the straits with which
the state may at some time come into fatal collision." 4
His first effort was directed to securing a constitu
tional amendment providing for the choice of all but
two of the electors apportioned to a state by con-
1 One of these amendments substituted a senator chosen by
the House from among three nominated by the Senate for the
chief justice.
2 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 13, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 16-29.
3 Ibill, pp. 345-355.
4 Ibid, p. 417.
Disputed Election of 1876 185
gressional districts ; the two others to be chosen by
the state at large. 1 When, early in 1875, it became
apparent that this plan would fail, he attempted to
carry through a bill to govern the count. The bill
provided that the vote of no state from which there
was but one return should be rejected except by con
current vote of both houses; but that in case of two
or more returns only that one should be counted
which each house, acting separately, should decide
to be the true one. In the end the bill also failed,
partly because of opposition to its provisions, but
largely owing to the fact that the Democrats, to
their later regret, were unwilling to have it pass until
the House chosen in 1874 should be installed. 2 When
this had occurred, the matter was again taken up,
but nothing was accomplished. 3
In the debates upon both the proposed amendment
and the bill many widely different opinions upon the
subject of the power to count were expressed, and
some of these opinions are interesting in view of the
stand later taken by the statesmen uttering them. Mor
ton himself was by no means consistent in his attitude
on the matter of the power to count. He held at first
that the president of the Senate must ex necessitate rei
decide between returns. 4 Later he said that while
the constitutional provision might be construed either
as giving the power to the president of the Senate
1 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 13, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 408-458.
2 Senator Thurman, for example, favored the bill but wished
to postpone its passage. — Ibid, p. 505.
3 Ibid, pp. 520-689.
4 Ibid, p. 416.
1 86 The Hayes-Til Jen
or as giving it to the Congress, he adopted the latter
construction as the more reasonable and as more in
accord with the spirit of our government. 1
Numerous devices which have a somewhat similar
interest were proposed for settling disputes about the
count. One, which was brought forward by Senator
Edmunds of Vermont, was for a commission of four
members from each House. 2 Senator Frelinghuysen
introduced an amendment providing that disputes
should be referred to the supreme court. 3 Later he
suggested a commission to be composed of the presi
dent of the Senate, the speaker, and the chief jus
tice. 4
But, as already stated, Congress utterly failed to
put any authoritative interpretation upon the question
of the power of counting. Furthermore, the Senate
in January, 1876, on the motion of Senator Morton,
refused to readopt the Twenty-Second Joint Rule. 5
Thus there remained nothing to regulate the count in
the present crisis save the bare constitutional phrase
and the precedents. And unfortunately the precedents
were not such as to settle conclusively any of the
controversies likely to arise.
Circumstances were therefore favorable for the ad
vocating of extreme measures by hot-heads in both
1 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 13, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 565-566.
2 Ibid, p. 498.
3 Ibid, p. 345.
4 Ibid, p. 549.
5 Ibid, pp. 782-794. The claim was made after Congress re
assembled in December that the rule was still in force, but as
most of the Democratic senators took the opposite view, the
claim came to nothing.
Disputed Election of l8jd 187
parties. Extremists on the Republican side continued
to assert that in case the House and Senate disagreed
upon the question of what were the true returns the
president of the Senate would count the votes and de
clare the result. The Administration, they openly an
nounced, would see to it that the man thus chosen
was inaugurated. The Democratic extremists, on the
other hand, continued to declare that to the House
belonged at least equal power in the count, that that
body possessed the right to decide when a choice had
not been made, and that when such a decision was
made, the House would proceed to choose the Presi
dent as the Constitution directed.
The newspapers continued to publish stories about
the Impending conflict. In furtherance of a Republi
can plot General Hancock, who was in command of
the Department of the East, was to be sent off to the
Pacific coast, his place was to be taken by the ter
rible Phil. Sheridan, and New York City was then to be
"bulldozed" by troops and warships.1 The blood
thirsty and dictatorial Grant had sworn that if the
Democrats in Congress attempted to impeach him, he
would clap them all into Fortress Monroe. 2 Senator
Sherman was to supplant Ferry as president of the
Senate, and with his brother Tecumseh, commander-
in-chief of the army, was to set up a sort of duumvi
rate. 3 Republican newspapers discovered circulars
1 The story appears to have first been published in the Al
bany Argus of Dec. llth. There was truth in part of it. — See
Reminiscences of Hancock by his wife, pp. 158-162.
2 World, Dec. 12th.
3 Ibid, Dec. 14th.
1 88 The Hayes-Til den
directing Southern rifle-clubs to assemble in Washing
ton and assist in inaugurating Tilden, x and asserted
that the treasonable organization known as the Knights
of the Golden Circle, or Sons of Liberty, was being
revived for the same purpose. -
Unquestionably there were some Democrats who
were prepared to go to any lengths in order to seat
their candidates. Resolutions to the effect that usurpa
tion must be resisted were passed by various state com
mittees, and calls were issued for conventions to con
sider what should be done. 3 Steps were taken toward
organizing the members of the state and county com
mittees — especially those members who were ex-sol
diers — into an organization to be used in case force
should become necessary, and in some places Tilden
and Hendricks "minute-men" appear to have been
enrolled. This work was carried on in large measure
through the Democratic Veteran Soldiers Association,
and the activity appears to have been greatest in the
Middle West, where General J. M. Corse of "Hold the
Fort" Allatoona fame was in control. 4
The Republicans were not at all dismayed by these
preparations on the part of their opponents. Since
1 Times, Dec. 10th.
2 Ibid, Dec. 16th et seq.
3 Indianapolis Journal and Sentinel, Dec. 14th.
4 New York Times, Dec. 13th et seq, Dec. 6th Corse tele
graphed to Col. Pelton: "Glory to God. Hold on to the one
vote in Oregon. I have 100,000 men to back it up" Three
weeks before he had telegraphed to Perry H. Smith : "We have
160,000 ex-soldiers now enrolled." Evidently the general had a
poor head for figures, or else some of his men had deserted
Corse later testified before a Senate committee that the dis
patches were intended as a piece of "badinage," and said that he
"never contemplated" raising troops, but some of his testimony
was conflicting. S. R. No. 678, 44th Cong. 2d Sess , pp 409-413
Disputed Election of 1876 189
the electoral colleges had met and voted they would
admit of no doubts as to the election of their candidates.
Hayes himself now expressed the opinion that he had
been honestly elected, and said, "I fully expect to be
inaugurated/' 1
The Democrats abated not one jot nor tittle of their
claim of victory, and on December I3th National
Chairman Hewitt issued at Washington an announce
ment of the election of Tilden and Hendricks. This
drew from Zach. Chandler a rather saucy reply, 2 and
from the New York Herald, which deplored such pro-
nunciamentos as tending to stir up violence, a state
ment to the effect that ''there is a gentleman in Utica,
the inmate of a public institution, who regards him
self as the Emperor of China, and issues edicts by the
score, but we have never heard that he enjoys the
revenues of the Celestial kingdom." 8
But fortunately the American people possessed too
much hard sense to allow themselves to be carried
away by the counsels of extremists on either side. The
recent bloody conflict served as an excellent object
lesson of what might be expected in case the hot-heads
should be allowed to have their way. Good men and
true in both parties set themselves to work to evolve
a compromise. Warlike speeches were frowned upon
or laughed down. Petitions began to flow into Con
gress imploring that body to find means for adjusting
the contest. 4
1 World, Dec. 12th.
2 Ibid, Dec. 14th; Herald, Dec. 14th.
3 Dec. 14th.
4 See, for example, Record, p. 72.
190 The Hayes-Tilden
Happily the men in Congress whose patriotism rose
higher than their partisanship proved equal to the
occasion. Despite the wrangling in both houses, pro
posals looking to a peaceful settlement had already
been made. One of these, introduced by Senator Ed
munds, provided for a constitutional amendment plac
ing the count in the hands of the supreme court.
The proposal was debated on a number of occasions,
but ultimately failed to pass even the Senate. 1 Far
more important in its results was a resolution intro
duced into the House on the 7th of December by
George W. McCrary, a Republican member from
Iowa, who was later a member of Hayes's cabinet and
then a Federal judge. The resolution was as follows :
"Whereas, There are differences of opinion as to the
proper mode of counting the electoral votes for Presi
dent and Vice-President, and as to the manner of
determining questions that may arise as to the legality
and validity of returns made of such votes by the
several states :
"And whereas, It is of the utmost importance that
all differences of opinion and all doubts and uncer
tainty upon these questions should be removed, to
the end that the votes may be counte'd and the result
declared by a tribunal whose authority none can ques
tion and whose decision all will accept as final : there
fore,
"Resolved, That a committee of five members of this
House be appointed by the Speaker, to act in con
junction with any similar committee that may be ap
pointed by the Senate, to prepare and report without
1 Record, pp. 117-128, 140-144, 157-163.
Disputed Election of l8j6 191
delay such a measure, either legislative or constitu
tional, as may in their judgment be best calculated to
accomplish the desired end, and that said committee
have leave to report at any time."
The resolution was referred to the House judiciary
committee, of which J. Proctor Knott, afterward gov
ernor of Kentucky, was chairman. * The fate of the
resolution depended upon the attitude taken by the
Democratic leaders toward compromise. If Mr. Til-
den had had his way, doubtless it would never have
been reported, for he was strongly averse to any sur
render ; but the leaders at Washington, many of whom
were jealous of him, were not much inclined to heed
his wishes. 2 His influence was further weakened by
the fact that neither at this time nor later was it ever
definitely known exactly who represented him. Mr.
David Dudley Field, a well-known lawyer, had ac
cepted an election to Congress at a special election for
the purpose of looking after Mr. Tilden's legal inter
ests ; but neither Field nor Colonel Pelton, nor Hewitt,
nor Randall, were ever thoroughly trusted by Tilden.
Furthermore, shortly before the resolution was intro
duced in the House President Grant, who was anxious
for compromise, summoned Mr. Hewitt, who as na
tional chairman, was naturally regarded as the Demo
cratic leader at Washington, to an interview, as a result
of which Mr. Hewitt became anxious to play the role
of a Henry Clay. Consequently no considerable hostility
toward the resolution developed. The judiciary com-
1 Record, pp. 91-92.
2 Bigelow, II, p. 63 ; personal statement by eame author.
192 The Hayes-Til den
mittee did, however, amend it in such a way as to pro
vide for a committee of seven instead of five, and for
another committee of seven to report upon the powers,
privileges, and duties of the House in counting the
electoral vote. Thus changed, it was on the I4th of
December reported to the House by Mr. Knott, and
was at once passed without debate under the previous
question. 1
On the following day the resolution was taken up
in the Senate. Senator Edmunds thereupon offered
the following:
"Resolved, that the message of the House of Repre
sentatives on the subject of the Presidential election
be referred to a select committee of seven Senators
with power to prepare and report without unnecessary
delay such a measure, either of a legislative or other
character, as may in their judgment be best calculated
to accomplish the lawful counting of the electoral
votes, and best disposition of all questions connected
therewith, and the due declaration of the result; and
that said committee have power to confer and act with
the committee of the House of Representatives named
in such message and to report by bill or otherwise." :
Three days later the resolution was passed without
debate and without opposition.3 On the 21 st the
president of the Senate announced the committee as
follows: Mr. Edmunds of Vermont (chairman), Mr.
Morton of Indiana* Mr. Frelinghuysen of New Jersey,
Mr. Logan of Illinois, — Republicans ; and Mr. Thur-
1 Record, pp. 197-199.
2 Ibid, p. 221.
3 Ibid, p. 258.
Disputed Election of 1876 193
man of Ohio, Mr. Bayard of Delaware, and Mr. Ran
som of North Carolina, — Democrats. As General
Logan was in the midst of a contest for re-election, he
found it expedient to look after his political "fences"
in Illinois, and asked to be excused. l The vacancy
thus made was filled by the appointment of Mr. Conk-
ling of New York.
On the 22d Speaker Randall announced the House
committee as follows: Henry B. Payne of Ohio
(chairman), Eppa Hunton of Virginia, Abram S.
Hewitt of New York, William M. Springer of Illi
nois, Democrats ; and George W. McCrary of Iowa,
George F. Hoar of Massachusetts, and George Willard
of Michigan, Republicans.
Although nothing of much importance 2 was done
by the committees until after the holidays, the effect of
their appointment upon the public mind was quieting.
People "began to get out of the Mexican and into the
Anglo-Saxon frame of mind." In a much applauded
speech delivered in New York at the New England
Society's dinner on Forefathers' Day George William
Curtis unquestionably expressed what were coming
to be the sentiments of the thoughtful, prudent, and
patriotic men of all parties when he said : "The voice
of New England, I believe, going to the Capitol, would
be this, that neither is the Republican Senate to in
sist on its exclusive partisan way, nor is the Demo-
1 Century, XL, p. 924.
2 A subcommittee of the House committee compiled the pro
ceedings and debates of Congress relating to the electoral votes in
the past. The result of their labors constitutes the volume al
ready referred to as Debates on Electoral Count.
194 The Hayes-Tilden
cratic House to insist on its exclusive partisan way;
but the Senate and House, representing the American
people and the American people only, in the light of
the Constitution and by the authority of law, are to
provide a way over which a President, be he Repub
lican or be he Democrat, shall pass unchallenged to the
chair." i
But despite the growth of a spirit of compromise,
there were many evidences that the situation was still
fraught with dangers. The enrolling of Democratic
minute-men went forward until military organization
to a certain degree had been effected in eleven states, 2
and a commander-in-chief, namely General Corse, 3 had
been tentatively agreed upon. Republican leaders still
defiantly asserted that the president of the Senate
would count the vote, and Mr. Ferry let it be known
that he "would shirk no responsibility." 4 The inaug
ural address of Governor Robinson of New York con
tained a long argument, written by Tilden himself,
setting forth the opposing Democratic view of the
right of the House to elect in case of a deadlock. 5 In
the South, although the chief leaders were generally
for peace, expressions like, "We'll try them this time
with Tilden and New York to help us," were fre
quently heard ; 6 while some of the more excitable of
1 The Nation, XXIII, p. 375.
2 McClure's Magazine, XXIII, p. 77. Statement of Hewitt.
3 So says Henry Watterson. John Goode of Virginia says that
Gen. Franklin of Connecticut was mentioned for the place.
Hancock was no doubt considered.
4 World, Dec. 26th; The Nation, XXIII, p. 375.
5 Bigelow, Tilden, II, pp. 66-74 ; Times, Jan. 3d and 4th.
6 Atlantic, XXXIX, p. 190.
Disputed Election of 1876 195
the local leaders wrote all sorts of wild promises of
assistance to their compatriots in the North. *• On the
8th of January conventions of Democrats were held
at Washington, Richmond, and at the capitals of sev
eral of the states of the Middle West. 2 At the Wash
ington meeting a fiery Louisville editor, whose opin
ions are always interesting but whose advice if fol
lowed would have wrecked this Republic a score of
times, declared that 100,000 Kentuckians would see
that justice was done Tilden. 3 At Indianapolis the
orator of the day, Mr. George W. Julian, once can
didate on the Liberty Party's ticket for Vice-Presi
dent, "warned" the Republicans "that millions of men
will be found ready to offer their lives as hostages to
the sacredness of the ballot as the palladium of our
liberty. Whosoever/' he concluded, "hath the gift of
tongues, let him use it; whosoever can wield the pen
of the ready writer, let him dip it into the inkhorn;
whosoever hath a sword, let him gird it on, for the
crisis demands our highest exertions, physical and
moral." 4 Similar speeches were made at the other
meetings, and more or less warlike resolutions were
passed; but, in general, the meetings proved much
less impressive than their promoters had hoped. Far
more dangerous to the peace of the country than mass
meetings or the utterances of fiery editors was the
situation in two of the disputed states of the South.
1 The Nation, XXIV, p. 38.
2 World, Times and Herald of Jan. 9th and 10th.
3 Times and World of Jan. 9th.
4 Indianapolis Journal and Sentinel of Jan. 9th.
196 The Hayes-Tllden
From the last of November there had been a dual leg
islature and from the loth of December a dual execu
tive in South Carolina, and a similar condition of
affairs obtained in Louisiana. * While peace was to
a certain extent maintained between the rival factions
by Federal troops, no man could feel sure that some
violent incident might not occur which would prove a
spark sufficient to fire the whole magazine.
After the holidays the two congressional commit
tees, working first separately, later together, and all
the time in secret, began trying to evolve some plan
for a peaceful settlement. 2 At first there was much
uncertainty and floundering about. In the House
committee, for instance, the first session was devoted
to considering such questions as: What are the
powers of the president of the Senate in counting
the vote? Could the counting of the vote be referred
to an independent tribunal? Should a new election
be held? What would be the situation on the 4th of
March if no person has been declared elected by Con
gress or has been chosen by the House of Represen
tatives?3
The divergence of opinion between the two factions
1 For a more extended account of these matters see Chap.
XII.
2 The Senate committee met in the room of the Senate
judiciary committee ; the House committee in the room of the
House committee on banking and currency or in the chair
man's private apartments in the Riggs House. The joint meet
ings were held in the room of the Senate judiciary committee.
3 My account of the work of the committees is based chiefly
on an article by Milton H. Northrup, secretary of the House
committee, published in the Century, XL, pp. 923-934. The
article is in large part made up of notes taken by Mr. Northrup
at the time. In addition, I have received information froru
ex-Senator Edmunds on a few points.
Disputed Election of 1876 197
proved almost as pronounced in the committees as
elsewhere. At the second meeting of the House com
mittee on the 4th of January the Democratic chairman
introduced a resolution to the effect that the power
of the president of the Senate was confined to open
ing the returns ; while on the loth Mr. McCrary intro
duced one to the effect "that the certificates of the
proper state authorities, executed according to law,
.... if not conclusive, are at least prima facie
evidence, and cannot be set aside or disregarded by
one House without the concurrence of the other."
These two widely divergent resolutions indicate clearly
that in a week's time nothing definite had been ac
complished. Still "the work of crystallization" had
been progressing, and the time had not been wholly
wasted, for to the same meeting of the loth Mr. Mc
Crary brought a plan which was in many respects sim
ilar to that finally adopted.
His plan, which in some of its features was not
unlike the bill of 1800, provided for an independent
tribunal, to be composed of the chief justice and a
certain number of associate justices, whose decisions
were to be final unless overruled by the concurrent
vote of both houses. After a futile debate that night
on the Payne resolution, the plan was taken up and
discussed for some time. On the following day, with
the consent of the Republican members, it was
amended so that the decisions of the tribunal were not
to be final unless concurred in by both houses. An
other amendment excluded Chief Justice Waite, be-
14
198 The Hayes-Til Jen
cause he was thought to be hostile to Tilden. It was
then informally agreed that the commission ought to
consist of the five senior associate justices, namely
Clifford, Swayne, Davis, Miller, and Field.
Meanwhile the Senate committee had also evolved
a plan. Their plan had grown out of a proposition
introduced by Senator Edmunds in the Senate com
mittee about the same time that Mr. McCrary intro
duced his into the House committee. 1 Unlike the
House proposal, the Senate plan provided for a com
mission of thirteen, composed of nine members of Con
gress and the four senior associate justices. In
choosing the nine each house was to choose five, and
then one of the ten was to be eliminated by lot.
On the 1 2th the two plans were presented to the
two committees at a joint session held in the Senate
judiciary room. On the following day at a second
joint session the House committee consented to adopt
that feature of the Senate committee's plan which
provided for a tripartite commission ; while the Sen
ate committee, in turn, agreed that the number of
members should be fifteen instead of thirteen, and that
the "lot" feature should be applied only in choosing
the judges. Before the meeting adjourned all the
members, except Mr. Springer, who wished time to
consider, had agreed that the names of the six senior
associate justices were to be put into a hat, one was
then to be drawn out, and the persons whose names
1 Mr. Edmunds says that, as he remembers it, Mr. McCrary
and he did not work together.
Disputed Election of 1876 199
remained were to constitute the judicial portion of
the commission.
This meeting took place on Saturday, January I3th,
Before the following Monday, through some "leak" in
the committees, the plan became known to the public.
The result was that much opposition, particularly to
the "lot" feature, developed among the Democrats,
who saw that under it the chances would be against
them. Mr. Tilden, who was personally consulted by
Mr. Hewitt in New York, utterly declined to approve
the plan. He opposed compromise of any sort, and
insisted that the House should stand out for its right
to participate in the actual counting and to proceed to
elect in case no one received a majority of the elec
toral votes. Mr. Tilden placed much faith in the
effect of the publication of a compilation of the pre
cedents which Mr. John Bigelow had been preparing,
and which was published about this time under title
of Presidential Counts. He believed that if the Dem
ocrats held firm the Republicans would not dare to
carry through their plan for having the president of
the Senate declare the election of Hayes. The plan
which, without his approval, the Democratic leaders
were considering at Washington, was, he said, "a
panic of pacificators. They will act in haste and re
pent at leisure." "Why surrender now?" he asked.
"You can always surrender." He was especially hos
tile to the "lot" device, and is reported to have said
2OO The Hayes-Til den
next day regarding it: "I may lose the Presidency,
but I will not raffle for it."1
When the committees met again on Monday, Mr.
Payne therefore announced on behalf of the Demo
crats that the six-judge plan would have to be drop
ped, for the opposition to it was so strong that it could
never pass the House. Mr. Tilden's influence, how
ever, was by no means great enough to induce the
Democratic leaders to give up the idea of compromise.
They merely endeavored to evolve a less objectionable
plan, and Mr. Payne, speaking for the Democrats of
the House committee, proposed in lieu of the six-judge
plan, "the selection of the five senior associate jus
tices outright, as in the original House bill. The com
mittee earnestly believes that the selection of these five,
two being understood to be in sympathy with the Re
publicans, twc with the Democracy, and the fifth [Jus
tice David Davis of Illinois] leaning no more to one
side than the other, would assure the non-partisan
character of the commission, and give the odd number
without a resort to the 'lot' system to which there is in
many minds a very serious objection."
"This," says Mr. Northrup, the secretary of the
House committee, "precipitated a discussion of the
political bias of Justice David Davis. The distin
guished Illinois jurist whom Abraham Lincoln had
placed on the supreme bench was thenceforth, till the
committees had come to a final agreement, the storm-
center of earnest disputation. The Republicans tena-
1 Bigelow, Tilden, II, pp. 75-76 ; Marble, A Secret Chapter of
Political History; statement of Mr. Bigelow to the author.
Disputed Election of 1876 201
ciously argued that Justice Davis was, to all intents
and purposes, a Democrat, and that his selection should
be charged up against the Democrats. Just as stren
uously the Democratic committeemen insisted that he
occupied a midway position between the parties, and
therefore could with entire propriety serve as the fifth
wheel of the commission coach. Senator Edmunds
promptly took issue with Mr. Payne's characterization
of Justice Davis as an Independent. 'Judge Davis/
said the cynical Edmunds, 'is one of those Indepen
dents who stand always ready to accept Democratic
nominations. It is my observation that such men are
generally the most extreme in their partisanship. I
would rather intrust a decision to an out-and-out Dem
ocrat than to a so-called Independent.' ': Mr.
Springer, on the other hand, said: "Judge Davis is
just about as much a Democrat as Horace Greeley was
in 1871 ; he is not and never was a Democrat. His
most intimate friends, among whom I may count my
self, don't know to-day whether he favored Tilden or
Hayes. He didn't vote at all. Our people in Illi
nois, when he was mentioned for the Presidency, were
utterly hostile to his nomination because he was not a
Democrat, and had no standing in that party. They
only know that he is absolutely honest and fair."
All the next day, January i6th, was spent in dis
cussion without any agreement being reached. The
Democrats of the House committee tendered the five-
senior-justices plan, with the concession that the deci
sions of the tribunal should be final unless overruled
2O2 The Hayes-Tilden
by both houses, but the Republicans could not bring
themselves to accept Davis. Various other proposals
were made. Mr. Hoar suggested an evenly divided
commission, with power to call in an outsider in case of
a deadlock. Senator Thurman proposed an even num
ber of judges, say four to six; he believed they would
not "range themselves on party lines. No doubt they
would decide as they believed right." Mr. Hewitt said
he would be willing to let four judges select a fifth,
and the suggestion found favor with Mr. Hoar. After
rejecting the five-senior-justices plan, the Senate com
mittee tendered a counter-proposition along the line
of Hewitt's suggestion ; the new scheme provided for
a commission composed of five- senators, five repre
sentatives, and the four senior justices (Clifford,
Davis, Swayne, and Miller), who should name a fifth.
To this Payne demurred, saying Davis was not a Dem
ocrat and ought not to be charged to the Democrats
as one. Senator Bayard, however, being very anxious
for a, compromise, supported the proposition. He
thought it "rather saddening that the agreement should
hinge on the quantum of bias in Judge Davis ;" he
believed "that in this hour of great danger to the
institutions of this country there will be evolved a
feeling above party."
At the joint meeting on the following day Mr. Payne
announced that the majority (meaning, of course, the
Democrats) of his committee were unwilling to assent
to the proposal which required them to take Judge
Davis as a Democrat. He then said that Mr. Hewitt
Disputed Election of l8j6 203
would make "a proposition which at first blush had the
unanimous approval of the House committee." Mr.
Hewitt thereupon stated that he believed none of the
propositions thus far made could pass, because each
leaned one 'way or the other. As an "absolutely just'*
plan he therefore suggested that the two senior jus
tices, Clifford and Swayne, should each select another
justice and that these four should then select a fifth.
The Senate committee, however, rejected Mr. Hew
itt's proposition, and submitted yet another one, which
was to take the associate justices from the first, third,
eighth, and ninth circuits, and let them select a fifth.
In supporting this plan Senator Edmunds urged that it
had the merit of being based on geographical consid
erations — Justice Clifford representing New England,
Justice Strong the Middle States, Justice Miller the
Northwest, and Justice Field the Pacific slope — while
at the same time maintaining the desired political equi
poise of the commission.
After a conference among themselves the House
committee, with the exception of Mr. Hunton, who
wished to consider the matter over night, agreed to the
plan. The two chairmen thereupon began to compare
the bills in the hands of each, and, with the assistance
of other members, to perfect the phraseology. Sen
ator Edmunds also read -a draft of an address prepared
by him to accompany the report of the bill to the two
houses. On motion. Senator Thurman was appointed
to act with him in completing the address, which was
to be signed in the morning.
204 The Hayes-Tilden
Several of the members expressed great relief at
the successful outcome of their labors. Senator Thur-
man said the agreement would be hailed with joy from
one end of the country to the other, and the effect on
business would be immediately felt. Mr. Hewitt
thought it was "worth five hundred millions to the
country at once." Mr. Hoar not unjustly said that
"this committee's action will be considered as one of
the important events in history."
But one senator, namely Morton, was far from be
ing so well satisfied. He objected especially to cer
tain features which might perhaps be taken as con
ferring power upon the Commission to go behind the
returns. In reply to this objection Senator Thurman
made a statement which, in the light of subsequent
events, possesses considerable importance. "The bill,"
declared he, "decides no disputed questions, creates no
new power, but submits all disputes to this tribunal with
the same powers, no more, no less, than belong to
Congress, jointly or severally. It is as near a non
committal bill, as to disputed questions, as could be
made." But Morton continued to frown upon the
bill; and when on the following day the report to
accompany it was in readiness, l he alone, of all the
members of the two committees, refused his signature.
The report2 justified the bill both on constitutional
1 When the report was being discussed, Mr. Hoar objected to
the phrase that it was "comparatively unimportant" who be
came President, and declared that in his opinion it was of
immense importance." Senator Conklingr criticised the phrase,
such jurisdiction is not vested by the Constitution, this bill
creates it. Both phrases were accordingly stricken out.
2 For the report see Record, pp. 713-714
Disputed Election of 1876 205
grounds and on grounds of expediency. The bill, it
argued, "is only directed to ascertaining, for the pur
pose and in the aid of the counting, what are the con
stitutional votes of the respective states; and what
ever jurisdiction exists for such purpose, the bill only
regulates the method of exercising it. The Constitu
tion, our great instrument for liberty and order, speaks
in the amplest language for all such cases, in whatever
aspect they may be presented. It declares that Con
gress shall have power 'to make all laws which shall
be necessary and proper for carrying into execution
the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by
this Constitution in the Government of the United
States, or in any department or officer thereof.' ' "It
is impossible," the report continued, "to estimate the
material loss that the country daily sustains from the
existing state of uncertainty. It directly and power
fully tends to unsettle and paralyze business, to weaken
public and private credit, and to create apprehensions
in the minds of the people that disturb the peaceful
tenor of their ways and mar their happiness. It does
far more ; it tends to bring Republican institutions into
discredit and to create doubts of the success of our
form of government and of the perpetuity of the
Republic. All considerations of interest, of patriotism,
and of justice unite in demanding of the law-making
power a measure that will bring peace and prosperity
to the country and show that our Republican institu
tions are equal to any emergency."
The bill itself, unquestionably one of the most im-
206 The Hayes-Tilden
portant measures ever considered by an American Con
gress, regulated in detail the whole procedure of the
count. It provided that the two houses should meet
in joint session in the hall of the House of Represen
tatives on the first Thursday in February, two weeks
earlier than had been the practice under the then exist
ing law. The joint sessions were to be presided over
by the president of the Senate, and each House was to
be represented by two tellers. In case objections
should be made to the votes of a state from which
there was but one return such objections were to be in
writing, signed by at least one member of each House.
The two houses should then vote separately upon the
question at issue, and no vote or votes should be ex
cluded except by concurrent action. In cases where
more than one return had been received these were to
be opened and read, and then submitted to a tribunal
of fifteen, composed in the manner already described.
Provision was made for filling any vacancy which
might occur in the tribunal. In the disputed cases all
the papers together with written objections were to be
submitted to the tribunal, "which shall proceed to con
sider the same, with the same powers, if any, now
possessed for that purpose by the two houses acting
separately or together, and, by a majority of votes,
decide whether any and what votes from such state
are the votes provided for by the Constitution of the
United States, and how many and what persons were
duly appointed electors in such state, and may therein
take into view such petitions, depositions, and other
Disputed Election of 1876 207
papers, if any, as shall, by the Constitution and now
existing law, be competent and pertinent in such con
sideration." The decision of the commission in dis
puted cases was to stand unless an objection, signed
by at least five senators and five representatives,
should be sustained by the separate vote of both
houses. To facilitate the count, there was to be no
debate at joint sessions, and debate at the separate
sessions was limited to two hours. The joint meeting
was not to be dissolved until the count should be com
pleted; and recesses, except when a case was before
the commission, were not to be taken beyond ten A. M.
the following day, or from Saturday to the following
Monday. Lastly the bill disclaimed any infringing
upon any right, if such existed, to question in the
courts the title of any person to the Presidency or the
Vice-Presidency. a
The news that the committees had at last agreed
upon a plan was received with much satisfaction in all
parts of the country. A large portion of the press
spoke favorably of the bill ; the business interests were
delighted at the prospect of a peaceful settlement ; and
petitions in its behalf began to pour in upon Congress.
Most of the Democrats both in and out of Congress
at once showed themselves favorable to the bill, while
perhaps a majority of the Republicans showed them
selves inclined to oppose it. The Democrats were
the more inclined to treat, not because they had more
grace, but because, despite their pretended confidence,
1 Record, p. 713.
208 The Hayes-Til den
they were at a disadvantage and knew it. * Mr. Ferry
had all the returns in his possession, and was a partisan
Republican. President Grant was also a Republican ;
and, although anxious for a peaceful settlement, 2 he
had given out that he intended to see his duly declared
successor inaugurated. It was well known that in
case the two houses were unable to come to an agree
ment Mr. Ferry would proceed to count the votes, and
would declare Hayes the President-elect. Mr. Hayes
would then be inaugurated under the protection of the
United States army. Even though the House should
refuse to recognize his election and should proceed to
choose Tilden, that gentleman would be unable to set
himself up as more than the de Jufi President. His
opponent would have control of the official machinery,
with appropriations sufficient to last until the first of
July. Mr. Tilden and his supporters would thus be
put in the position of opposing the regular govern
ment. 3 Such a position, as many independent and
even Democratic journals pointed out was one which
the party, with its recent antecedents, could not afford
to assume. 4 It could safely be forecast that in case
the Democrats should resort to force, the majority of
the people would take the side of the government
whose seat was at Washington. 5 For this reason, if
no other, force could not succeed. Another reason
1 The Nation, XXIV, p. 4.
2 Recollections of George W. Childs, pp. 77-81.
3 Herald, Dec. 23d.
4 The Nation, XXIII, p. 364 ; files of Herald and Sun.
5 Some prominent Democrats had publicly stated that they
would not stand by the party in a resort to force. See Herald
of Dec. 19th. Some of these were ex-Confederate generals.
Disputed Election of l8j6 209
why it could not — a reason which brought to pause
hot-heads with whom other considerations weighed
but little — was that at the head of the government
was a man, who, whatever might be said of his capacity
as a civil administrator, was known beyond all cavil
to be a peerless leader on the field of battle.
The Democrats were influenced by yet other motives
to support the compromise plan. a Many favored it
out of genuine patriotism ; while some disliked the idea
of the election devolving upon Congress, since though
that would result in the election of Tilden by the
House, it would also result in the choice of a Republi
can Vice-President by the Senate. These last and
most others believed with Senator Gordon of Georgia
that with the compromise plan both Democratic can
didates were certain of election. They reasoned that
only one more vote was needed, that twenty were
in dispute, and that, out of so many, the Commission,
with Justice Davis as the fifth judge, would surely
award the Democrats at least one. 2
The very considerations which caused Democrats to
favor the compromise led many Republicans to oppose
it. To them the chances for success looked extremely
dubious. To elect their candidates, they must take
every trick. If Tilden should receive so much as a
single one of the disputed votes, the game was up. And
Republicans looked forward with reluctance to such an
outcome. Some groaned at the thought of losing the
1 For an analysis of Democratic motives see Bigelow, Tilden,
II, p. 63.
2 The Nation, XXIV, p. 19.
2io The Hayes-Tilden
fat patronage of a hundred thousand offices. Others
•were more concerned at the thought of relinquishing
the reins of power to men whom they believed to be
at heart disloyal to the Union. It is not strange,,
therefore, that the most radical opposed a plan which
looked not unlike "giving up the fort." They be
lieved that in case no compromise were made Hayes
would be peacefully inaugurated — at any rate he
would be inaugurated. Mr. Hayes himself believed
the bill unconstitutional, and opposed it, though not
actively. 1
On the other hand, a considerable portion of the
party were unwilling to support the extremists. Chief
among those favoring a compromise was the President
himself. He had all along been 'working to secure a
peaceful settlement, and he now used his influence in
behalf of the bill. As a result of his urging Senator
Conkling of New York, and doubtless others under
took to work for its passage. 2
When the bill came up in the Senate on the 2Oth of
January, Senator Edmunds, chairman of the Senate
committee, made a powerful and patriotic plea, singu
larly free from partisanship, in its behalf. He argued
that it was constitutional, that it did not take away
from either the president of the Senate or the
House of Representatives any power which the Con
stitution "vested in them free from limit and free from
1 Hayes thought the power to count belonged to tne presi
dent of the Senate. — Letter to Sherman in John Sherman's Recol
lections, I, p. 561; to Carl Schurz, Jan. 17th and 23d. and to
Alonzo Taft, Jan. 26th, in the Hayes Papers.
2 George W. Childs, Reminiscences, pp. 77-80.
Disputed Election of l8j6 211
regulation." He urged its passage as a wise measure
of public policy. 1
The opposition in the Senate was led by Morton.
On Monday, the 22d, although ill and scarcely able to
attend, he made a bitter speech against it. He de
clared in opening that the bill was a "literal product
of 'the Mississippi plan ;' that the shadow of intimida
tion" had entered the Senate; that members of Con
gress were "acting under the apprehension of vio
lence, of some great revolutionary act" which would
"threaten the safety and continuance of our institu
tions." He did not believe "in the reality of the dan
ger." He regarded the bill as a compromise which
would "take its place alongside of the Compromise of
1820 and the Compromise of 1850." He contended
that Rutherford B. Hayes had been elected President ;
that if he should "be counted in, as eighteen Presi
dents were successively counted in from the begin
ning of this government," there would be "no violence
and no revolution." In discussing the constitutional
question he admitted that Congress had power to leg
islate upon the subject, "yet in the absence of legisla
tion, the President of the Senate must count the votes"
in order "to prevent a deadlock." In support of his
view he quoted from Chancellor Kent a statement to
the effect that "in the absence of all legislative pro
vision on the subject, .... the President of the
Senate counts the votes and determines the result, and
.... the two houses are present only as spec-
1 Record, pp. 767-771.
212 The Hayes-Tilden
tators to witness the fairness and accuracy of the
transaction and to act only if no choice be made by
the electors." Morton asked whether the five judges
would be "officers," and whether, if so, they must not
be appointed as the Constitution prescribes. He ques
tioned the power of Congress to delegate its authority
in the premises, pronounced the whole scheme a patch-
ed-up "contrivance," and finally was forced to con
clude from sheer physical exhaustion. 1
Frelinghuysen of New Jersey refused to follow
Morton's lead, and spoke in behalf of the bill. 2 After
a few other speeches had been made, Edmunds asked
for an immediate vote, but the matter was held over
till the next day. 3
On that day, after a speech in opposition by Sher
man, 4 Senator Conkling began an elaborate and char
acteristic speech, which filled the galleries with spec
tators and consumed the greater part of two days.
He reviewed the precedents in great detail to show
that in no instance had the president of the Senate
assumed of his own authority to do anything beyond
opening the certificates. He referred to the Twenty-
Second Joint Rule, to the Sherman Resolution of in
quiry in 1872, and to Morton's own bill as serving to
show that Congress could regulate the count. He
accused Morton and the other extreme Republicans of
seeking to provoke a deadlock as a result of which the
1 Record, pp. 799-801.
2 Ibid, pp. 801-805.
3 Ibid, pp. 805-808.
4 Ibid, pp. 820-825.
Disputed Election of 1876 213
president of the Senate must act. "If," he exclaimed,
"there was ever a political Hell-Gate paved and honey
combed with dynamite, there it is." He pointed out
that only a few months before Morton himself had
voted for a proposition to import the chief justice into
a similar tribunal. He said he would vote for the bill
because it was constitutional, would prevent disorder,
and would be to the lasting benefit of the people. l
Bayard, Christiancy, Thurman, and others spoke in
behalf of the bill. At half-past twelve o'clock A. M.
of January 25th Morton, after an ineffectual attempt
to secure an adjournment on the plea of being too ill
and worn-out to speak, began his closing argument
against it. In the course of his speech he once more
advanced his theory of the power of the president of
the Senate. It was impossible, he asserted, to con
sider such a body as the proposed Commission a mere
committee of Congress. He admitted that perhaps his
views upon the count had not always been consistent ;
but, said he, "there are no popes in this body." He
could show that every member of the committee had
expressed sentiments different from those contained in
the bill, and he quoted a statement by Conkling entirely
at variance with a portion of it. Any measure, declared
he, which might result in the seating of Tilden and
Hendricks ought to be opposed, because the welfare of
humanity demanded that the Republican party remain
in power. "It is not to our interest," he frankly
1 Record, pp. 825-831, 870-878.
15
214 The Hayes-Tilden
stated, "to depart from that method pursued for sev
enty-five years simply to give our political opponents
advantages and chances which they now have not." :
But all the efforts of the extremists against the bill
proved unavailing. 2 An amendment forbidding the
Commission from going behind the returns and an
other granting it that right were voted down.8 A
final vote was taken at 7 A. M. after an all night session,
and resulted in the passage of the bill by 47 to 17. 4
Although the bill had been reported to the House on
the same day as to the Senate, its consideration was
not begun by the former body until some days later.
From the i/th to the 24th of January the House de
voted most of its time to debating a set of resolutions
reported by the committee which had been directed to
investigate and report upon the powers, privileges, and
duties of the House in counting the electoral vote.
These resolutions, which were really the work of Mr.
Tilden, 5 denied the power of the president of the
Senate to do more than receive and open the certifi
cates ; they asserted that, on the contrary, the two
houses have the power to examine and ascertain the
vote, and held that no return could be counted against
the judgment and determination of the House. 6
On the 25th of January, however, the electoral bill
1 Record, pp. 894-898.
2 For a speech by Elaine against the bill see Ibid, p. 898.
3 Ibid, p. 911-912.
4 Ibid, p. 913.
5 Bigelow, II, pp. 65-66. They were slightly changed by the
committee.
€ Record, p. 609.
Disputed Election of 1 876 215
was at last taken up. Mr. McCrary opened the de
bate with a plea in behalf of favorable action. l He
emphasized the fact that there was "widespread, hon
est difference of opinion." He pointed out that many
Democrats, including Senators Bayard, Whyte, and
Stevenson, had at one time or another held that in
the absence of legislation the power to count inhered
in the president of the Senate; while many Republi
cans, including Senators Boutwell, Dawes, and Chris-
tiancy, had opposed that theory. He showed also that
Democrats like Bayard, Maxey, Whyte, and others,
were on record as opposing the right of one house to
throw out the vote of a state ; while many Republicans
were on record as supporting the contested right.
When there was such difference, there might well be
compromise.
Lamar of Mississippi, Harrison and Springer of
Illinois, Watterson of Kentucky, and many others of
both parties made speeches in behalf of the bill. Hun-
ton of Virginia cited the plan of 1800, the Twenty-
Second Joint Rule, and other precedents in order to
show that the bill was constitutional. 2 Hewitt of
New York said that "a hundred thousand place holders
in esse and an equal number of place hunters in posse
were busily attacking the bill foj- the same reason as
did the " 'Ephesian worker in copper' the early Chris
tians"— it threatened "to spoil their trade/' The
very fact that it was said on the Republican side that
the bill was a scheme to make Tilden President, while
1 Record, pp. 930-935.
2 Ibid, pp. 935-939.
216 The Hayes-Tilden
it was said on the Democratic side that it was a plan
to make Hayes President, was, he thought, sure proof
of the plan's fairness. l Other speakers expressed the
belief that the bill offered the only hope of escape from
a dual government and civil war. 2 Hill of Georgia
said the South was for peace, 3 and the sentiment was
approved by most of the speakers from that section.
Hale of Maine, Knott of Kentucky, Monroe of Ohio,
Townsend of New York, Mills of Texas, Hurlbut of
Illinois, Garfield of Ohio, and others spoke against
the bill. Mills declared that the Democrats should
have taken a bold stand on the powers of the House ;
he objected chiefly to the provision that no vote could
be excluded except by the concurrent vote of both
houses.4 Hurlbut thought that in arranging for the
choice of the fifth judge Congress had "gravely in
augurated the great national game of draw." 5 One of
the chief speeches in opposition was that by Garfield.
He said in part:
"The Senate at Rome never deliberated a moment
after the flag was hauled down which floated on the
Janiculum Hill across the Tiber. That flag was the
sign that no enemy of Rome breathing hot threats of
war, had entered the sacred precincts of the city ; and
when it was struck, the Senate sat no longer. The
reply to war is not words but swords.
"When you tell me that civil war is threatened by
any party or State in this Republic, you have given
me a supreme reason why an American Congress
1 Record, pp. 946-948.
2 See, for example, Watterson's speech, Ibid, p. 1007.
3 Ibid, pp. 1008-1009.
4 Ibid, pp. 979-982.
5 Ibid, p. 1008.
Disputed Election of l8j6 217
should refuse with unutterable scorn to listen to those
who threaten, or to do any act whatever under the
coercion of threats by any power on the earth. With
all my soul I despise your threat of civil war, come
it from what quarter or what party it may. Brave
men, certainly a brave nation, will do nothing under
such compulsion." 1
But, just as in the Senate, the opponents of the bill
found themselves powerless. The pressure of public
opinion in favor of compromise was well-nigh irre
sistible, and a perfect hurricane of petitions was sweep
ing into Congress. 2 The Democrats were almost
unanimous in favor of the 'bill, and the Republicans
were not able to muster their full strength against it.
When a vote was taken on January 26th, the bill was
passed by the overwhelming majority of 191 to 86. 3
A study of the vote in both houses sho"ws~ unmis
takably that the bill succeeded by grace of the support
given it by most of the Democratic members and by a
comparatively small number of Republicans. In the
Senate 26 Democrats supported it, and only one oppos
ed it; in the same body 21 Republicans supported it,
and 16 opposed it. In the House 160 Democrats sup
ported it and 17 opposed it; while only 31 Republicans
supported it, and 69 opposed it. In the light of these
figures it seems almost fair to call the act a Democratic
measure. 4 Whatever, therefore, should be the out
come of the labors of the tribunal thus created, it
could reasonably be held that the Democrats were in
1 Record, p. 968.
2 Ibid, pp. 913, 946, 948, 949, 1024, 1049, etc.
3 Ibid, p. 1050.
4 For a discussion of this matter see Blaine II, p. 587.
21 8 The Hayes-Tilden
honor bound to accept its decisions and abide by
them.
Unquestionably one of the chief factors in the Dem
ocratic support of the measure and the Republican
opposition to it lay in the prevailing belief that Justice
"David Davis would be the fifth representative of the
supreme court. "In the ponderous Illinois jurist
were centered the hopes of Democracy, the apprehen
sions of Republicanism." But it has well been said
that all things are uncertain in love, war and politics — •
especially in politics. At the capital of Illinois while
the bill was still pending occurred one of those unex
pected events which so often seem to change the course
of history. l In that city the supporters of General
Logan had for some time been vainly trying to secure
his re-election to the Federal Senate. The situation
was complicated by the presence in the legislature of
five Independents, who held the balance of power.
For more than a week the balloting proceeded without
result. During that time a few votes were cast for
Judge Davis. On the 24th, the day before the elec
toral bill came up in the House at Washington, the
Democrats at Springfield, with strange fatuity, began
to regard him as the proper man on whom to form a
combination;2 and on the following day he received
1 Assuming, of course, that Davis would have voted with the
Democratic members in at least one case. In a letter written
to Mr. Joseph M. Rogers the late Senator Hoar expressed the
belief that since Davis "was a great lawyer and at heart a very
earnest Republican he would .... have never
agreed to any other decision than that to which the majority of
the Commission came."
2 Mr. Hewitt believed to the day of his death that the elec
tion of Davis was the result of a corrupt bargain engin-
Disputed Election of 1876 219
the votes of three Independents and of the 98 Demo
crats, making exactly a majority.1
The news came as a stunning blow to the Demo
cratic leaders in Congress; for they realized that the
election rendered him in a certain sense ineligible for
a place upon the Commission, and that the fifth judge
would of necessity be chosen from out-and-out Repub
licans. 2 But they had committed themselves too far
to recede ; and, still hoping for the best, they voted for
the bill. Later they realized more fully that this bit
of gaucherie on the part of their compatriots on the
broad prairies of the West had probably exercised a
determining influence in deciding whether the Repub
lican or the Democratic party should during the en
suing four years control the government of the Amer
ican people.
eered by Sen. Morton to get Davis off the Commission and se
cure a Democrat in his place. Mr. Hewitt left an article on
the disputed election, which is sometime to be published, in which
he gives his view of this matter. See also Bigelow, II, p. 64.
Mr. Foulke, Morton's biographer, says he has found no evi
dence to support the story. It seems entirely improbable.
1 New York World and Times of Jan. 25th and 26th; Annual
Cyclopaedia, 1877, p. 383.
2 "The writer," says Mr. Northrup, "will never forget the
drop in the countenance of the Hon. Abram S. Hewitt, who had
charge of Tilden's campaign, when, meeting him in the hall of
the House of Representatives, he informed him of Judge Davis's
transfer from the Supreme Court to the Senate." — Century, XL.
p. 983.
CHAPTER XI
EIGHT TO SEVEN
President Grant approved the Electoral ^Commission
bill on the 29th, and in doing so expressed to Congress
his great satisfaction at the adoption of a measure
that affords an orderly means for deciding "a gravely
exciting question." 1
On the following day each House proceeded by a
viva voce vote to designate five of its members to sit
upon the Commission. 2 The House chose Payne of
Ohio, Hunton of Virginia, Abbott of Massachusetts,
Democrats; Hoar of Massachusetts and Garfield of
Ohio, Republicans. The Senate selected Edmunds of
Vermont, Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, Morton of
Indiana, Republicans; Thurman of Ohio and Bayard
of Delaware, Democrats. All these gentlemen had, of
course, been previously designated in party caucuses. 3
Naturally each caucus had done its work with ex
treme care. It occasioned some remark at the time
that the caucus of Senate Republicans had not chosen
Conkling. The claim was later made that the reason
why he was not chosen was that he believed Tilden
1 Record, p. 1081.
2 Proceedings of the Electoral Commission, pp. 5-6.
3 World and Times of Jan. 28th, 29th, and 30th.
The Disputed Election of 1876 22 1
had been elected. But this seems not to be the cor
rect explanation. A more probable one is that first of
all he was a "Conkling man ;" his popularity in the
Senate was not great ; he had been indifferent to Hayes
even during the campaign ; l and it was known that he
thought it would be better politics, since the title was
in doubt and there had been fraud on both sides, to
yield the Presidency to the Democrats. 2
On the same day the four justices — Clifford and
Field, Democrats; and Strong and Miller, Republi
cans — while not greatly relishing the work they had
been called upon to perform, met together to select
the fifth justice. It appears that they offered the
place to Justice Davis, but that he, being averse to
accepting the responsibility, refused it and based his
refusal on the fact that he had just been elected sen
ator by the Democrats. The justices were then for
some time unable to agree upon a substitute ; there
seemed a possibility that the whole plan of settlement
might be blocked ; 3 but at length they selected Justice
Joseph P. Bradley, of the fifth judicial circuit. Justice
Bradley was the most acceptable to the Democrats of
any of the remaining justices ; for he was by no means
a partisan, and in some of his opinions had shown
himself out "of sympathy with the radical Republi
cans. 4
1 Ante, p. 36, note.
2 Conkling, Life and Letters of Roscoe Conkling, p. 528.
Later, when he was completely estranged from Hayes, he took
a more pronounced view. — Hoar, II, p. 44.
3 McClure's, XXIII, p. 83.
4 New York World of Feb. 1st. In the opinion of that paper
Bradley was not satisfactory to the Republicans. It expressed
pleasure over his choice. See also Atlantic, LXXII, p. 529.
\
222 The Hayes-Tilden
Thursday, February 1st, the day set by the law for
the count to begin, saw a great crowd of sightseers
in the hall of the House of Representatives. In the
diplomatic gallery were Sir Edward Thornton, the
English minister ; the Japanese and German ministers,
and other foreign representatives, together with their
suites and members of their families. In the other
galleries sat the wives and relatives of congressmen
and of the cabinet officers, and persons of lesser note.
On the floor itself were Justices Field and Miller of
the Commission, Jeremiah S. Black, jurist and member
of Buchanan's cabinet, J. D. Cameron, the secretary
of war, Charles O'Conor of the New York bar,
George Bancroft, diplomatist and historian, General
Sherman, and many other distinguished visitors.
At one o'clock the door-keeper of the House an
nounced the Senate of the United States. That body
then entered the hall, preceded by their sergeant-at-
arms, and headed by their president and secretary, the
members of the House standing to receive them.
Upon reaching the desk the president, Mr. Ferry, in
accordance with the law, took the speaker's chair;
Mr. Randall, the speaker, occupied another immedi
ately on his left; the senators seated them|eievj in
the body of the hall on the right of the chair ; the
representatives and visitors filled the remaining floor
space ; the tellers, — Messrs. Ingalls and Allison for
the Senate and Messrs. Cook and Stone for the House
— the secretary of the Senate, and the clerk of the
House took seats at the clerk's desk ; the other officers
Disputed Election of l8j6 223
were accommodated in front of the clerk's desk and on
each side of the speaker's platform. 1
Mr. Ferry then called the joint session to order,
and the historic count began. The votes of Alabama,
Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, and Del
aware were declared and counted without special in
cident; the proceedings were somewhat tedious, and
there was considerable talk and confusion on the floor
and in the galleries. But as the count of the votes of
Delaware was completed a hush fell over the hall,
and there was a great craning of necks in the galleries.
Florida had been reached.
From Florida there were three certificates : one from
the Hayes electors, regular in form because certified
by Governor Stearns and Secretary of State McLin;
one from the Tilden electors, dated December 6th,
but confessedly irregular in form, though certified by
Attorney-General Cocke; one from the same Demo
cratic electors, dated January 26th, 1877, certified by
the new governor, Drew, and containing a copy of
the act of January I7th, the certificate of the state
canvassers who recanvassed the vote under that act
and a reference, in the governor's certificate, to the
judgment of the circuit court in the quo warranto pro
ceedings against the Hayes electors. 2
Objections were at once filed against each of the
certificates, and the Democrats also filed a special ob
jection against the reception of the vote of F. C.
1 Proceedings, pp. 6-9.
2 Ibid, pp. 10-24.
224 The Hayes-Tilden
Humphreys, one of the Hayes electors, on the ground
that he was a Federal office-holder, and was therefore
ineligible. The certificates, objections, and all other
papers were then, in accordance with the law, referred
to the Electoral Commission. 1
That tribunal had already met and organized, with
the venerable Justice Clifford, the justice "longest in
commission" as president. 2 The sessions were held
in the room usually occupied by the supreme court.
For the sake of the future historian the spectacle pre
sented by the Commission should have been a splen
did one, but it was not. If the official painting, which
now hangs in the Capitol, be a true representation, the
sight was far from imposing. 3 We are distinctly told
by an eye-witness that the proceedings furnished little
that was "unusual, unique, picturesque, or dramatic." 4
Attempted descriptions along the line of Macaulay's
passage on the trial of Hastings are therefore mislead
ing. 5 To be sure, the room itself was the same which,
as the Senate chamber of other days, had "resounded
with the eloquence of Clay and of Webster ;" but it
was much too small for the audience which now filled
it, and even the bench was insufficient to accommodate
all of the fifteen judges. 6
1 For the objections see Proceedings, pp. 24-28.
2 Ibid, pp. 8-9. The law so provided.
3 Painted by Mrs. C. Adele Fassett, who made sketches during
the sessions and later secured sittings from most of the dis
tinguished participants. For an account of the painting and a
'key" see Magazine of American History, XXVII, pp. 81-97.
4 Times of Feb. 6th.
5 Herald of Feb. llth.
6 Owing to lack of lighting facilities in the court room, aome
of the evening sessions were held in the Senate chamber.
Disputed Election of 1876 225
The proceedings were more notable for the eminent
character of the participants than for any dramatic
or spectacular interest. All the members of the Com
mission were men of broad experience and high legal
attainments. Of the five from the Senate, two, Thur-
man and Edmunds, were unsurpassed as constitutional
lawyers; a third, Bayard, was to be a secretary of
state, a minister to England, and several times a for
midable candidate for the Presidential nomination;
while a fourth, Morton, had approved himself the
greatest of "war governors," x and now, though par
tially paralyzed, possessed a will which triumphed over
all the infirmities of the body and made him one of the
most feared leaders of his party. Of those from the
House, one was soon to be honored with the exalted
position for which the contest was now raging; while
another, who has but recently gone from among us,
was a man who in spotless integrity and singleness of
devotion to his country's service was the peer of any
man who has ever represented the great state of Mas
sachusetts.
The counsel who appeared for the contending parties
were scarcely less eminent than the Commission itself.
Among those for the Democrats were Charles O'Con-
or, Jeremiah S. Black, John A. Campbell, once asso
ciate justice of the supreme court, ex-Senator Lyman
Trumbull of Illinois, William C. Whitney of New
York, and Richard T. Merrick of Washington. Fore
most among the Republican counsel was the astute
1 So thought Stanton and Chase. — Letter of Chase to Morton
given by Foulke, I. p. 456. See also Hoar, II, p. 75.
226 The Hayes-Tilden
and learned William M. Evarts, leader of the New
York bar, defender of Andrew Johnson, ex-attorney-
general, and soon to be secretary of state. He was
ably assisted by Edward M. Stoughton of New York
and by Samuel Shellabarger, the personal representa
tive of Hayes, and by Stanley Matthews of Ohio.
Some of the best known of the senators and represen
tatives including Montgomery Blair, J. Randolph
Tucker, George W. McCrary, David Dudley Field,
John A. Kasson, and William Lawrence, appeared be
fore the Commission as objectors to the various cer
tificates.
The objections to the Florida certificates were heard
on the 2d. The Democratic objections were pre
sented by David Dudley Field of New York and by J.
Randolph Tucker of Virginia. Mr. Field, who was
the first to speak, asserted that in a peaceful and
orderly election the Tilden electors had been chosen
by a majority of the votes, but that through a "sort
of jugglery" a false certificate signed by the former
governor of the state had been sent up by the Re
publican candidates. He then entered upon a detailed
account of the sharp practices resorted to by the Re
publican canvassing officers in Baker county and
charged that the returning board had manufactured
a majority for Hayes. He also laid stress upon the
quo ivarranto proceedings which had resulted in a de
cree by a district court in favor of the Tilden electors,
and told of the later canvass of votes by the new re
turning board created for the purpose by the new legis-
Disputed Election of l8jd 227
lature. The certificate of Governor Stearns, he ar
gued, formed no barrier against the investigation of
the facts by the Commission, for the governor's cer
tification was done in accordance with a Federal law
which did not provide that his certificate should be
conclusive evidence. The Commission could, there
fore, go behind the certificate and overthrow the
"fraud." l Mr. Tucker, the other objector, pointed
out that the powers of the tribunal, in accordance
with the act creating it, were exactly those of the two
houses of Congress ; these powers, he thought, "are
not less than the powers of a court upon a quo war-
ranto proceeding." In every appointment or election,
he argued, there are two elements : first, the elective
function, and second, the determining function.
Whenever the determining authority acts illegally such
action must be set aside. The determining authority
in Florida had so acted, and its action must be set
aside by the Commission. Since the canvass made by
the returning board had been declared illegal by a
court in quo ivarranto proceedings, the judgment of
the court must be accepted as final. He closed by
stating the Democratic objection to the vote of the
alleged ineligible Republican elector. 2
Representatives Kasson and McCrary appeared as
the Republican objectors. 3 The certificate sent by
the Hayes electors, argued Mr. Kasson, was the only
regular one. The second was irregular, because
1 Proceedings, pp. 35-45.
2 /bid, pp. 45-52.
3 For their respective speeches see Ibid, pp. 54-64 and 64-72.
228 The Hayes-Tilden
''signed by an officer not recognized by the laws of
the United States nor by the statutes of Florida as
a certifying officer." The third was "still more ex
traordinary .... a certificate which is thor
oughly ex post facto, certified by an officer not in ex
istence until the functions of the office had been ex
hausted ; a certificate which recites or refers to poster
ior proceedings in a subordinate court and in a super
ior state court, the latter expressly excluding the
electoral question ; a certificate which is accompanied
by that sort of a return which a canvassing board
might under some circumstances report to the state
officers, but which has never been sent to the Congress
of the United States or to the President of the Senate
for their consideration in the hundred years in which
we have been a Republic." The Republicans were
prepared to meet the charges of fraud that had been
brought. The Democratic objectors had spoken of
Baker county but had neglected to mention the train-
load of non-resident Democrats who had voted in
Alachua county. He denied, however, that the Com
mission had power to investigate such matters ; it must
accept the regular return certified by the state author
ities ; it could not go behind the action of the state
canvassers because the Constitution provides that each
state shall appoint its electors "in such manner as the
legislature thereof may direct." Mr. McCrary, in
his speech, attacked the theory put forward by his op
ponents that the Commission possessed the judicial
powers attributed to it by his opponents. He held
Disputed Election of 1876 229
also that the Republican electors, under color of title,
had met and voted on the 6th of December, and had
thereupon become functi officio; all subsequent pro
ceedings were of no effect; the acts of the electors,
in accordance with the law of officers, must stand,
even though it be admitted for the sake of argument
that they were only officers de facto and not de jure.
While contending that the Commission should not take
cognizance of the proceedings in quo warranto, he said
that if the Commission did decide to do so, the Repub
licans were prepared to show that an appeal to a
higher court was then pending. As regarded the case
of the alleged ineligible elector, Humphreys, he
stated that it could be easily proven that Mr. Hum
phreys had resigned the office before the election; he
objected, however, to the subject coming before the
Commission because there were "no papers accom
panying any of the votes, or papers purporting to be
votes," that related to the matter.
When the counsel began their arguments on the fol
lowing day, this vital question of the reception of evi
dence at once arose, and as it had to 'be decided before
any progress could be made, the whole attention of the
Commission was turned to it. In their arguments * the
Democratic advocates showed themselves, for once,
strangely indifferent to the sphere of state powers.
The evidence they wished to bring in was of two
1 For the Democratic arguments see Proceedings, pp. 64-101,
124-136. For their briefs see pp. 729-774. None of these
briefs was devoted entirely to this matter of the reception of
evidence, but all touched upon it.
16
230 The Hayes-Tilden
kinds: first, that which was contained in the various
certificates received from Florida; and, second, ex
trinsic evidence taken by the investigating committee
of the House of Representatives, or evidence to be
taken by the Commission itself. The certificate of the
governor, argued they, was not conclusive; it was
merely required by a Federal statute, which must have
been passed as a precautionary measure, for the
Constitution itself provides for the return by the
electors themselves. Under the circumstances of the
present case the Commission must make an investiga
tion in order to determine what votes should be
counted ; "any legitimate evidence going to determine
the true votes is," they held, "proper and competent
evidence before this tribunal." They pointed out that
in 1873 a Senate committee had gone behind the cer
tificate of the governor of Louisiana, had found that
the returns "had never been counted by anybody hav
ing authority to count them," and that -with this report
before them Congress had excluded the vote of the
state. This precedent, the Democrats contended, was
sufficient proof of the right of Congress and the Com
mission to receive both kinds of evidence; but they
said they would, in the case of Florida, ask the recep
tion of no extrinsic evidence save upon the rejection
of certain returns by the returning board and upon the
ineligibility of Mr. Humphreys. They suggested that
the Republicans would need to offer in rebuttal no
extrinsic evidence save upon these matters and upon
the fact of the appeal from the decision in quo war-
Disputed Election of 1876 231
ranto. This was intended to meet the Republican
argument that, aside from constitutional reasons, the
reception of extrinsic evidence would from the very
vastness of the labor involved be impracticable.
The Republican advocates, on their part, advanced
"strict construction" views which were quite as un
wonted as were the "loose construction" arguments
put forward by their opponents. 1 With admirable
acumen and calculation they placed themselves square
ly upon the line of division between Federal and
state powers. They accepted the position so painfully
constructed by the Democrats on the question of the
power to go behind the governor's certificate ; this
could be done, said they, because the governor acts
in that matter in obedience to Federal law and his
action is therefore reviewable by Federal authority.
But, they pointed out, this does not apply to the choice
of the electors ; that is a matter wholly under state
control, for the Constitution expressly declares that
electors shall be appointed by each state "in such
manner as the legislature thereof may direct."
Up to "the completion and consummation of this
appointment," argued Matthews, "the state alone
acts. That last act completes the appointment, and
that appointment completed and finished is unchange
able except by state authority exerted upon that act
within an interval of time; and what is that? Con
gress, under the Constitution of the United States, has
1 For the Republican arguments see Proceedings, pp. 101-
124 and 136-137.
232 The Hayes-Tilden
had reserved to it control in certain particulars over
this appointment; that is to say, it may designate the
day on which the appointment may be made, and it
shall designate the day on which the electors so ap
pointed shall deposit their ballots for President and
Vice-President. In that interval I do not know and
I do not care to discuss, I will neither deny nor af
firm, but I am willing to admit, any and everything
that may be claimed on the other side as t® the ex
istence of state authority to inquire into and affect
that record." But he contended that once the day
had passed when the body which according to the
forms of law had been invested with the apparent title
to act had accomplished the purpose for which it had
been brought into being, then that transaction, so far
as state authority was concerned, had passed beyond
the limits of its control. l
In case of conflicting returns Congress might in
vestigate to see which one was the true one, but its
investigation must stop with ascertaining the deter
mination reached by the authority empowered by state
law with that function. Its duty was merely "to
count the electoral vote, and not to count the votes
by which the electors are elected." To attempt to do
the latter would not only be unconstitutional but would
involve difficulties which would be insuperable.
On the question of receiving extraneous proof re
garding the eligibility of electors the Republican coun
sel held that while Congress had power to make a law
1 Proceedings, p. 103.
Disputed Election of 1876 233
providing for the reception of such proof, there was
no such law and therefore such proof must not be
received. The injunction against appointing persons
holding Federal offices, they argued, "does not exe
cute itself under the Constitution, and if unexecuted
in the laws of the state, is only to be executed by
laws of Congress providing the means and time and
place for proof and determination on the fact of dis
qualification." 1
The hearing on the question of receiving evidence
was concluded on the afternoon of Monday, Febru
ary 6th. The Commission reserved its decision until
the following Wednesday. In the meantime there
was great impatience in Washington and elsewhere to
learn what stand the Commission would take, for upon
that stand hinged, it was believed by many, the final
decision.
Through a peculiar misapprehension the Democrats
believed for a time that their cause was won. In mak
ing up his mind, Mr. Bradley, following a not uncom
mon custom among jurists, wrote out what were in
effect two opinions giving the arguments on both
sides. A Democratic member learned of the opin
ion giving the Democratic arguments and inferred
that Justice Bradley was siding with the Democrats.
The joyful news was carried to Mr. Hewitt. There
was jubilation among the Democrats. Bradley was
a just judge — a veritable "Daniel come to judg
ment." But hasty inferences are apt to prove mis-
1 From speech by Evarts, Proceedings, pp. 117-118.
234 The Hayes-Tilden
leading. On the following day, when Justice Miller
moved, "that no evidence will be received or consid
ered by the Commission which was not submitted to
the joint convention of the two houses by the presi
dent of the Senate with the different certificates, ex
cept such as relates to the eligibility of F. C. Hum
phreys, one of the electors," Bradley voted with the
Republicans ; and the order was carried by 8 to 7. 1
From that time forward Justice Joseph P. Bradley
was in the eyes of Democrats an "unjust judge," a
"partisan," and the cry went forth from the house
tops that he had been bribed. To give color to the
bribery story, it was alleged that on the night prior to
the decision his house had been surrounded by the
carriages of Republican politicians and Pacific Rail
road magnates, and that as a result of "pressure"
brought to bear upon him at this time he had changed
his views. There was not one iota of proof brought
forward in support of the charge, but Democratic
newspapers took up the story, and Justice Bradley's
whole after-life was embittered by it. 2
Upon one question, however, namely that of receiv
ing extraneous evidence relating to the alleged ineli-
1 Proceedings, pp. 138-139.
2 The New York Sun was especially active in keeping the
story alive. See Lewis, Miscellaneous Writings of the Late Hon.
Joseph P. Bradley, pp. 220-222, for a letter written by Bradley
to the Newark Daily Advertiser of Sept. 5, 1877. Bigelow, Til-
den, II, p. 95, states that Tilden told him that he had been
offered the vote of a member of the supreme court (presumably
Bradley) on the question of going behind the returns for
$200,000. If there was such an offer, it was made by one of
those irresponsible persons who were so active just then in
trying to engineer corrupt bargains without any authority from
those concerned.
Disputed Election of l8j6 235
gibility of Mr. Humphreys, Mr. Bradley voted with
the Democrats. On the following day the evidence
was taken. It showed conclusively that Mr. Hum
phreys had been shipping commissioner of the port of
Pensacola, but that on the 24th of September he had
sent a letter of resignation to the Federal circuit judge,
who was then on a visit to Ohio. The resignation had
been accepted on the 2d of October, and Mr. Hum
phreys had turned over the books and records to the
collector of customs and had ceased to perform the
duties of the office. The Democratic counsel did not
deny these facts ; but they raised the technical objec
tion that the resignation was not valid because made,
not to the appointing power, the circuit court, but to
the absent judge.
In the final hearing upon the Florida case the coun
sel for both parties made use of substantially the same
arguments that have already been set forth. 17fThe
Republicans once again claimed that theirs was the
only regular certificate ; that the first Democratic cer
tificate was confessedly irregular ; that the second was
"a posthumous certificate of a post-mortem action,
never proceeding from any vital or living body of
electors, but only from the galvanic agency of inter- '
ested party purpose, taking effect after the whole
transaction was ended." 2 The quo warranto proceed
ings, they held, were not before the Commission;
1 For the final arguments on both sides see Proceedings, pp.
145-193. See also Democratic briefs Nos. 2, 3, and 4, pp. 745-
774.
2 Evarts, Hid, p. 179.
236 The Hayes-Tilden
even if they were, they were wholly post hoc
and, furthermore, had been appealed from. If such
post hoc proceedings were to be of any effect,
it lay in the power of any partisan nisi prius
court to reverse an election and even to un
seat a President after he was inaugurated. In reply,
the Democrats admitted that the quo warranto had
been decided after the electors had voted, but they
claimed that service had been made before the act.
The Tilden electors, they declared, had been recog
nized by all the departments of the state government ;
and their votes must be received and counted.
The hearing in the Florida case was closed on
Thursday, February 8th. Next day the Commission
met behind closed doors and argued the question for
many hours.1 On one point, namely the eligibility
of Mr. Humphreys, there were three Democrats —
Thurman, Bayard, and Clifford — who were willing
to take the Republican view ; 2 but upon every other
important question the Commission divided on strict
party lines. And on strict party lines the Republicans
had a majority of one. By a vote of 8 to 7 it was
therefore ordered that the four electoral votes of Flor
ida should be counted for Hayes and Wheeler. 3 The
grounds of the decision, as stated in the report to
Congress, were as follows:
Each
2 Ibid, pp. 194, 871, 1059.
3 Ibid, pp. 195-198.
OF
UNIVERSITY
Disputed Election of l8j6 237
"That it is not competent under the Constitution and
the law, as it existed at the date of the passage of
said act, to go into evidence aliunde the papers opened
by the president of the Senate in the presence of the
two houses to prove that other persons than those
regularly certified to by the governor of the state of
Florida, in and according to the determination and
declaration of their appointment by the board of state
canvassers of said state prior to the time required
for the performance of their duties, had been ap
pointed electors, or by counter-proof to show that they
had not, and that all proceedings of the courts or acts
of the legislature or of the executive of Florida sub
sequent to the casting of the votes of the electors on
the prescribed day, are inadmissible for any such pur
pose.
"As to the objection made to the eligibility of Mr.
Humphreys, the Commission is of 'the opinion that,
without reference to the question of the effect of the
vote of an ineligible elector, the evidence does not
show that he held the office of shipping-commissioner
on the day when the electors were appointed." 1
When the report of the Commission was read in
joint session on Saturday, February loth, Mr. Field at
once submitted an objection, signed by the requisite
number of senators and representatives. 2 The two
houses accordingly separated to decide upon the ob
jection. The Senate soon decreed by 44 to 25 that
the decision should stand. 3 But in the House the
Democratic majority were much exercised over the
decision ; and against the protests of the Republicans,
1 Proceedings, p. 198.
2 Ibid, pp. 200-201.
3 Record, pp. 1473-1477.
238 The Hayes-Tilden
a recess was .taken over Sunday in order that the Dem
ocrats might have more time for deliberation. l On
Monday some of the more indignant members irreg
ularly attempted to have the questions resubmitted to
the Commission. 2 Others were for not having any
thing further to do with the tribunal. After much
denunciatory talk the report was rejected by 168 to
103. 3 But, as the act provided that a decision should
stand unless overruled by both houses, the votes of
Florida were, when the joint convention reassembled,
counted for Hayes. 4
The count of the states then proceeded unchal
lenged until Louisiana was reached. 'From Louisiana
there we*£ four certificates, or papers purporting to be
such. 5 The first was the original certificate made by
the Republican electors on December 6th and certified
by Governor Kellogg ; only one copy of it was in the
hands of the president of the Senate, for, as already
explained, the copy sent by messenger had been carried
back to Louisiana. The second, of which there were
two copies, was from the Tilden "electors," and was
certified by "Governor" McEnery. The third, of
which there were also two copies, was the antedated
Republican certificate, in which, although the Demo
crats knew it not, two signatures were forged. The
fourth, received by mail only, was from "John Smith,
1 Record, p. 1487.
2 A resolution to that effect was offered by Proctor Knott. —
pp. 1489-1490.
3 Ibid, p. 1502.
4 Ibid, p. 1503.
5 Proceedings, pp. 205-212.
Disputed Election of l8j6 239
bull-dozed governor of Louisiana," certifying that the
vote of Louisiana had been cast for Peter Cooper.
This certificate was suppressed, but its announcement
created considerable merriment, and the Democrats
later claimed that it had purposely been sent in in
order to distract attention from the Republican cer
tificates. * Three objections were submitted against
the Republican certificates, one against the Democratic,
and the whole case was then transferred to the Com
mission. 2
The objections offered to the Republican returns
before the Commission were many, complicated, and
not entirely consistent with one another. 3 It was
claimed that at the time of the election there had been
no law "in force directing the manner in which elec
tors for said state should be appointed." In the elec
tion which had taken place the Democratic electors
had received a majority of votes; hence "the lists
of names of electors made and certified by the said
William P. Kellogg, claiming to be, but not being,
governor of said state, were false." The canvass
made by the returning board was illegal and void —
because the statutes gave that body no power to can
vass the vote for electors; because such "statutes, if
construed as conferring such jurisdiction, give the re
turning officers power to appoint electors, and are void,
as in conflict with the Constitution, which requires
1 H. R. R. No. 140, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., p. 58.
2 Proceedings, pp. 212-217.
3 For the written objections see I&id, pp. 212-216 ; for the oral
ones, pp. 221-243.
240 The Hayes-Tilden
that electors shall be appointed by the state ;" because
the board had no right to exercise discretionary
powers; because the board consisted of but four
persons instead of five, as the law provided;
because the board usurped jurisdiction in cases where
protests had not been properly filed ; because the board
illegally and fraudulently changed the result ; and be
cause a member offered to receive a bribe. The votes
of A. B. Levissee and O. H. Brewster were of no
effect, because on the 7th of November both were Fed
eral office-holders and therefore ineligible ; the votes of
Oscar Joffrion, J. H. Burch, Morris Marks, and W. P.
Kellogg were likewise void because all of these four
persons held state offices and were ineligible under
state law. None of the Republican votes should be
counted because at the time of the appointment of the
Republican electors the state did not have a repub
lican form of government.
The Republicans brought forward no such compli
cated and elaborate list of objections against the Dem
ocratic certificate.1 They contented themselves with
defending their own certificates and with pointing out
that the Tilden electors had not been declared elected
by any state authority, that McEnery, who certified
their vote, was not governor, for Kellogg was the
real governor, having been recognized by the state
authorities and by every department of the Federal
government. 2 While asserting that the Commission
1 For written protest see Proceedings, p. 217; for oral ob-
itions see pp. 243-261.
2 Ibid, pp. 244-246, 253-254.
Disputed Election of jSjd 241
must accept the returning board's decision and must
not attempt to investigate the conduct of the election,
the Republican objectors took time to reply with vigor
to the Democratic assertions regarding fraud. Sen
ator Howe, who had been one of the Senate investi
gating committee, vividly described the intimidation in
some of the parishes. There was, he admitted, in re
ply to a statement made by one of his opponents,
"more than one foul stream to be found in the .state
of Louisiana. Coming right from .that state, I know
of other and larger streams which are not merely
dirty but are very bloody. I would be glad if in this
[tribunal or in any there was power to say that only
pure water should run anywhere ; but the power does
not reside in any human tribunal. I want your
streams all purified as soon as it can be done. If you
can aid in that direction, cleanse the bloody before you
attempt the muddy -streams."1
As in Florida, the real struggle was over the admis
sion of evidence. The matter was again debated at
great length ;2 Democratic offers to prove their con
tentions were many and insistent; but again the ma
jority of the Commission refused to trench upon the
domain of state powers by examining into such mat
ters as the proceedings of the returning board and
the ineligibility of electors holding state offices.
Upon the other questions, such as whether the board
was a lawful agent of the state, whether the vacancy
1 Proceedings, p. 261.
2 For the arguments in thts case see Ibid, pp. 261-415; for the Dem
ocratic briefs see pp. 772-778.
242 The Hayes-Til den
vitiated its proceedings, and whether any of the elec
tors were ineligible under the Federal Constitution,
the Republcans were on tolerably firm ground. The
law did provide for the returning board and gave it
power over "all elections held in the state;" the two
electors who had held Federal offices had not claimed
to vote by virtue of having been elected on Novem
ber 7th but by virtue of appointment by the college
on December 6th after they had removed their dis
qualifications by resigning; lastly, on the question of
the effect of the vacancy in the board, one opinon
could be defended about as successfully as the other.1
On the 1 6th the Commission met in secret session
to make its decision. After debate a great variety of
resolutions — to admit evidence showing that the re
turning .board was unconstitutional, to admit evidence
to prove that the board was not legally constituted,
to receive testimony on the fraudulent acts of the re
turning board, and even to reject all the votes from
Louisiana — were offered by the desperate Demo
cratic members. All were relentlessly voted down by
8 to 7.2- Then the deciding vote was taken on a
resolution introduced by Senator Morton. Morton
had been informed by Kellogg that -something was
wrong with certificate No. 3, so he was careful in
his resolution to stipulate that the votes certified in
1 Ii\ifac*,' the- Republicans had slightly the stronger position be
cause of the decisions of the state supreme court referred to above, pp.
115-116.
LFor a11 these resolutions with the votes see Proceedings, pp.
41G-423.
Disputed Election of 1876 243
No. i should be counted. 1 The resolution was carried
by the usual vote of 8 to 7. The Commission ex
plained its action to Congress as follows:
"The brief ground of this decision is that it appears,
upon such evidence as by the Constitution and the law
named in said act of Congress is competent and per
tinent to the consideration of the subject, that the
before mentioned electors appear to have been lawfully
appointed such electors of President and Vice-Presi-
dent of the United States for the term beginning
March 4th, A. D. 1877, of the state of Louisiana,
and that they voted as such at the time and in the man
ner provided for by the Constitution of the United
States and the law.
"And the Commission has by a majority of votes de
cided, and does hereby decide, that it is not competent,
under the Constitution and the law as it existed at
the date of the passage of said act, to go' into evidence
aliunde the papers opened by the president of the
Senate in the presence of the two houses to prove
that other persons than those regularly certified to
by the governor of the state of Jx)uisiana, on and
according to the determination and declaration of their
appointment by the returning officers for elections in
the said state prior to the time required for the per
formance of their duties, had been appointed electors,
or by counter-proof to show that they had not, or that
the determination of the said returning officers was not
in accordance with the truth and the fact, the Com
mission by a majority of votes being of opinion that
it is not within the jurisdiction of the two houses
of Congress assembled to count the votes for Presi-
1 Foulke, Morton, II, p. 470 ; H. R. R. No. 160, 45th Cong. 3d
Sess., p. 60.
244 The Hayes-Til Jen
dent and Vice-President to enter upon a trial of such
question.
"The Commission by a majority of votes is also of
opinion that it is not competent to prove that any of
said persons so appointed electors as aforesaid held
an office of trust or profit under the United States at
the time when they were appointed, or that they
were ineligible under the laws of the state, or any
other matter offered to be proved aliunde the said
certificates and papers.
"The Commission is also of opinion by a majority of
votes that the returning officers of the election who
canvassed the votes at the election for electors in
Louisiana were a legally-constituted body, by virtue of
a constitutional law, and that a vacancy in" said body
did not vitiate its proceedings." l
Owing to a dilatory recess taken by the House
against the protests of the Republican members, it
was not until Monday, February igth, that the joint
session convened and received the report. The read
ing of the report was not greeted with many cheers
from the Democrats. An elaborate objection, suffi
cient to fill pages 426 to 438 of the Proceedings, was
at once presented by General Gibson of Louisiana, and
shorter ones were offered by Senator Wallace and
Representative Cochrane. 2 The two houses then
separated in order to deliberate and decide upon the
objections.
From the speeches in the debates which followed, it
1 Proceedings, p. 422. For Bradley's opinion on the con
stitutionality of the board see pp. 1028 et seq. There was no
inconsistency in passing upon this point. The Commission nat
urally had the power to ascertain whether the returning board
was the legal agent of the state.
2 Ibid, pp. 439-440.
Disputed Election of 1876 245
is easy to infer that the Democrats had lost much of
their pristine enthusiasm for the Electoral Commis
sion. In the Senate Mr. Maxey declared that "the
judgment in effect exalts fraud, degrades justice, and
consigns truth to the dungeon."1 "Deep indeed,"
said Bayard, "is my sorrow and poignant my disap
pointment. I mourn my failure for my country's
sake ; for it seems to me that not only does this
decision of these eight members destroy and level in
the dust the essential safeguards of the Constitution,
intended to surround and protect the election of the
Chief Magistrate of this Union, but it announces to
the people of this land that truth and justice, honesty
and morality, are no longer the essential bases of their
political power."2 In arguing that the Commission
ought to have received evidence, Senator Wallace
pointed out that one argument made by Morton, Gar-
field, and other Republicans against the bill had been
that it might be interpreted as conferring power to go
behind the returns. 3
The decision did not, however, lack defenders among
the Republican senators. Boutwell suggested that
the opinion of the Republican "eight" was entitled to
at least as much weight as that of the Democratic
"seven," and expressed confidence that the people
would accept the award.4 "Mr. President," ex
claimed Sherman, "a good deal is said about fraud,
1 Record, p. 1675.
2 Ibid, p. 1678.
3 Ibid, p. 1679.
4 Ibid, p. 1681.
246 The Hayes-Tilden
fraud, fraud — fraud and perjury, and wrong. Why,
sir, if you go behind the returns in Louisiana, the case
is stronger for the Republicans than upon the face
of the returns. What do you find there? Crime,
murder, violence, that is what you find I say
now, as I said two months ago, that, while there may
have been irregularities, while there may have been a
non-observance of some directory laws, yet the sub
stantial right was arrived at by the action of the
returning board." 1
None of the speeches made on either side had any
effect on the vote. After two hours of debate the
decision was concurred in by the Senate by 41 to 28. 2
In the House the waves of Democratic declamation
and vituperation ran even higher than in the Senate.
The Democrats were, as Mr. McMahon admitted, 3
almost without hope, and they sought what little con
solation they could find in flaying the wicked "eight."
If, said New of Indiana, no evidence was to be re
ceived, what was the use of these many thick volumes
of reports made by investigating committees and "vis
iting statesmen ?" 4 There was much talk about the
"ten thousand sovereign voters" who had been dis
franchised by the returning board. 5 Solemn warnings
were given of the terrible wrath which an outraged
nation would visit upon the party which upheld such
fraud. "There is vet much to live for in this rough
1 Record, p. 1677.
2 Proceedings, p. 440.
3 Record, p. 1688.
4 Ibid, p. 1685.
5 Ibid, 1701.
Disputed Election of l8j6 247
world," said Watterson, that fiery editor whose dream
of "a hundred thousand" had now been supplanted by
the dream of a revanche, "and among the rest that day
of reckoning, dies irae, dies ilia,
"When the dark shall be light,
"And the wrong be made right."1
"Ah," cried the gentleman so justly famous for his
description of a sunset, "they called in the ermine to
help them. The ermine is a little animal. It is an
emblem of purity; it would rather be caught than be
bedraggled in the mire. Hunters put mud around its
haunt to catch it. But where is the ermine now. Ah !
the fox has become the ermine. But no cunning, no
craft, no human law, no divine law, can ever condone
fraud. All codes and the histories of all nations cry
out against it. Crime cannot breed crime forever.
Ask the people of this country. Fraud is to them an
endless offense. I was about, Mr. Speaker, before
the hammer fell, to refer to the holy writ, so that
gentlemen on the other side may have time for repent
ance. With permission of the House, I will read
from Psalms, xciv, 20: 'Shall the throne of iniquity
have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by
a law?'"
MR. KELLEY. — I object.
MR. Cox. — The Bible is aliunde with these gen
tlemen. 2
1 Record, p. 1690.
2 As quoted in Three Decades of Federal Legislation, p. 659.
248 The Hayes-Tilden
Two Republicans of the House, — Pierce and Prof.
Seelye, both of Massachusetts, — while not accepting
the Democratic view, refused to vote with their party
on the Louisiana decision. Pierce beHeved that the
evidence offered should have been received. In his
opinion, the evidence collected was such as to render
^necessary the exclusion of the state from participation
in the Presidential election; there was, he declared,
more ground for such action than there had been in
1872. 1 Prof. Seelye said that the Commission had
unquestionably "applied the Constitution and the laws
to the question ;" but he feared that a strict and accu
rate interpretation of the Constitution would, under
the attending circumstances, imperil the vote of the
future. "It seems to me perfectly clear," said he, in a
speech which received the closest attention, "that the
charges made by each side against the other are in the
main true. No facts were ever proved more conclu
sively than the fraud and corruption charged on the
one side and the intimidation and cruelty charged on
the other. Which of the two sides went the further
would be very hard to say. The corruption of the
one side seems as heinous as the cruelty of the other
side is horrible, and on both sides there does not seem
to be any limit to the extent they went, save only
where the necessities of the case did not permit or the
requirements of the case did not call for any more.
I find it therefore quite impossible to say which of the
two sets of electors coming up here with their certifi-
1 Record, p. 1701. Pierce later became an ardent Democrat.
— Hoar, Autobiography of Seventy Tears, I, p. 370.
Disputed Election of 1876 249
cates voices the true will of the people of Louisiana
in the late election, and therefore equally beyond my
power to assent to the propriety of counting either.
.... Granted that the decision reached is fairly with
in the bond ; yet what if the pound of flesh cannot be
taken without its drop of blood ?" l
The other House Republicans stood by the decision.
At heart they doubtless believed with Mr. Crapo2
that the returning 'board of Louisiana was a suspicious
body, but thought that the rifle-clubs of Ouachita and
elsewhere were equally so, and as the rifle-clubs had
been the original offenders, decided that the acts of
the returning" board formed an equitable set-off, and
hence declined to give way and allow violence and
murder to be rewarded. To the Democratic denuncia
tions of fraud they replied with accounts of intimida
tion and talk of Oregon cipher telegrams. Some of
their speeches were quite as denunciatory as any made
by their opponents. One member declared that the
Democrats had started out in their campaign for the
"Grand Fraud of Gramercy Park" with "the impres
sion that they could buy every man they could not
frighten or delude." 3
Uipon the conclusion of the debate the House re
jected the decision by 173 to 99. But, as the Senate
had accepted it, the eight votes of Louisiana were
counted for Hayes and Wheeler. 4
1 Record, p. 1685.
2 Ibid. p. 1689.
3 Ibid, p. 1686.
4 Proceedings, p. 441.
250 The Hayes-Tilden
The count then proceeded unchallenged until Mich
igan was reached. From Michigan but one return
had been received, but objection was offered by Repre
sentative Tucker to counting the vote of one of the
electors of that state. 1 The grounds of the objection
were, however, so slight that after deliberation the
houses concurred in receiving the vote. An equally
baseless objection was submitted to the vote of one of
the Nevada electors, but again both houses refused to
sustain the objection. 2
At last Oregon was reached. From that state there
were two certificates : One from the Republican
electors, Cartwright, Watts, and Odell ; the other from
Cronin, Miller, and Parker. 3 The first was not certi
fied by the governor, but it did contain certified copies
of the canvass of votes, furnished by the secretary of
state, together with a statement of the resignation of
Watts from the college and his subsequent re-appoint
ment. The one made by Cronin et al. contained the
governor's certificate, attested by the secretary of
state ; this certificate stated that "at a genera! election
held in the said state on the 7th day of November, A.
D. 1876, William H. Odell received 15,206 votes, John
C. Cartwright received 15,214 votes, E. A. Cronin
received 14,157 votes for electors of President and
Vice-President of the United States ; being the high
est number of votes cast at said election for persons
eligible, under the Constitution of the United States,
1 Proceedings, pp. 442-446.
2 /bid, pp. 446-454.
3 Ibid, pp. 454-460.
Disputed Election of l8j6 251
to be appointed electors of President and Vice-Presi
dent." Two objections were submitted against the
Cronin certificate and one against the Republican
certificate. 1 The case was therefore referred to the
Commission.
The Democratic contention2 in the Oregon case
started with the premise that since Postmaster Watts
had been ineligible the votes cast for him had been
null and void, and Cronin, his opponent next highest
on the list, had been elected. The governor, after a
hearing, had so declared, and with the secretary of
state had made out lists attesting the fact. Even if
the claim of Cronin was not valid, the subsequent
resignation by Watts of the postmastership and then
of the office of elector had failed to make it legal for
the other two electors to choose him, for as Watts
could not be elected because of his ineligibility, there
could be no vacancy, and hence no filling of a vacancy.
To be sure, the statute of Oregon provided that "if
there shall be any vacancy in the office of an elector
occasioned by the death, refusal to act, neglect to
attend, or otherwise," the electors should proceed to
fill such vacancy ; but, argued the Democratic counsel,
the law of Oregon stated only seven cases in Avhich
an office should be deemed vacant, namely, upon "the
death of the incumbent;" "his resignation;" "his re
moval ;" "his ceasing to be an inhabitant of the dis
trict, county, town or village," in which the duties of
1 Proceedings, pp. 461-463.
2 For the Democratic oral objections and arguments see
Ibid, pp. 466-488, 555-581, 623-636. For their brief see p. 778.
252 The II ayes-Til den
the office were to be exercised; "his conviction of an
infamous crime;" "his refusal or neglect to take hi&
oath of office ;" "the decision of a competent tribunal,
declaring void his election or appointment." Since
Watts had never been an "incumbent," there had not,
the Democrats argued, been any "vacancy" for the
college to fill. Even should this line of reasoning be
held to be erroneous, the Commission must, to be
consistent with its stand in the Florida and Louisiana
cases, receive the certificate or list signed by the gov
ernor and secretary of state, under the great seal of
the state, as final and conclusive evidence of how the
vote was cast. Whether or not the governor had
acted legally, his action had served, the Democrats
held, to give the Cronin college possession of the office
as electors de facto.
But the Democratic position was badly shaken be
fore the hearing was concluded. 1 The Republicans
successfully combated the claim that Cronin had been
elected, and in so doing quoted Thurman himself to
the effect "that the weight of judicial decision in the
United States is decidedly against the claim of a
minority man to election." They met the Democratic
non-vacancy argument by quoting the clause, "The
decision of a competent tribunal declaring void his
[the incumbent's] election or appointment," which,
they justly pointed out, was conclusive that under the
law even an ineligible person might temporarily be an
"incumbent." This was conclusive against the theorv
1 For the Republican objections and arguments see Pro
ceedings, pp. 461, 463, 488-549, 581-598, 609-623.
Disputed Election of l8j6 253
that Watts could not have been elected, because
whether Watts's incumbency was terminated by the
governor's decision — and this the Republicans stren
uously denied — or by his resignation presented to the
college, there existed a vacancy which the statute said
should be filled by the other electors.
The Republicans were also able to s-how pretty
conclusively that the merits of the case could be ar
rived at by the Commission without any trenching
upon the domain of state powers. The constitution
of Oregon, they pointed out, declared that "the person
or persons who shall receive the highest number of
votes shall be declared duly elected," and a statute
provided that the canvass of votes should be made by
the secretary of state in the presence of the governor.
The secretary had canvassed the votes, and his certi
fied statement, enclosed with the Republican return,
s'howed that Odell, Cartwright, and Watts had received
"the highest number of votes," and were hence "duly
elected." This constituted the appointment. All else
that followed was merely certification of the results of
the canvass. As the duties laid down by the section of
the law governing the certification were ministerial
only, any certificate not in accord with the appoint
ment as shown by the canvass was mere usurpation
and should not be taken as paramount to the certificate
of the canvass. Furthermore, the matter of certifi
cation lay within the domain of Federal powers', for
the state law on the subject was merely a carrying
into effect of the Federal law governing the matter;
254 The Hayes-Tilden
objection to this contention could not consistently be
made by the Democrats, for Governor Grover, on the
groutfd of non-agreement between the two, had
claimed to ignore the state law and to act under the
Federal law. * All other matters were likewise in the
domain of Federal powers and could be examined into
and the truth ascertained.
Following the line just indicated, the Republicans
were able to make good their case. Evidence was
taken which showed conclusively that Watts had re-
' signed the postmastership before acting as elector. 2
The certificate showed that he had also resigned his
electorship and had been rechosen by the other two
electors. The certificate itself was regular except that
it was not accompanied by the governor's lists. These
lists, however, were a statutory, not a constitutional
requirement; and the Republicans contended that as
the certificate of the canvass furnished sufficient au
thentication, their absence was not vital.
The vote on the Oregon case was taken on Friday,
February 23d, at the home of Senator Thurman,
whither the Commission had repaired in order that
1 The state law provided that "The secretary of state shall
prepare two lists of the names of the electors elected, and affix
the seal of the state to the same. Such lists shall be signed
by the governor and secretary, and by the latter delivered to
the college of electors at the hour of their meeting on such first
Wednesday of December."
The Federal law provided that "It shall be the duty of the
executive of the state to cause three lists of the names of the
electors of such state to be made and certified and to be
delivered to the electors on or before the day on which they
are required by the preceding section to meet."
The governor claimed that because the state law through
some mistake said "two lists" instead of three, he was justified
in ignoring it. — Proceedings, p. 495.
2 /bid, pp. 602-609.
Disputed Election of 1876 255
the senator, who was ill, might participate. Upon
one conclusion, namely that the Cronin certificate did
not contain the vote of Oregon, the Commission was
unanimous ; but upon the proposal to reject the vote of
Watts there was the usual party division. By the
same vote it was then decided that the Republican
certificate should be received. 1 The defense trans
mitted to Congress was as follows :
"The brief ground of this decision is that it appears,
upon such evidence as by the Constitution and the law
named in said act of Congress is competent and pertin
ent to the consideration of the subject, that the before-
mentioned electors appear to have been lawfully
appointed such electors of President and Vice-Presi-
dent of the United States for the term beginning
March 4, A. D. 1877, °f tne state °f Oregon, and
that they voted as such at the time and in the manner
provided for by the Constitution of the United States
and the law.
"And we are further of opinion —
"That by the laws of the state of Oregon the duty of
canvassing the returns of all the votes given at an
election for electors of President and Vice-President
was imposed upon the secretary of state and upon no
one else.
"That the secretary of state did canvass the returns
in the case before us and thereby ascertained that J.
C. Cartwright, W. H. Odell, and J. W. Watts had a
majority of all the votes given for electors, and had
the highest number of votes for that office, and by the
express language of the statute those persons are
'deemed elected.'
"That in obedience to his duty the secretary made
1 Proceedings, pp. 637-641.
256 The Hayes-Tilden
a canvass and tabulated statement of the votes showing
this result, which, according to law, he placed on file
in his office on the 4th day of December, A. D. 1876.
All this appears by an official certificate under the seal
of the state and signed by him, and delivered by him
to the electors and forwarded by them to the president
of the Senate with their votes.
"That the refusal or failure of the governor of Ore
gon to sign the certificate of the election of the persons
so elected does not have the effect of defeating their
appointment as such electors.
"That the act of the governor of Oregon in giving
to E. A. Cronin a certificate of his election, though he
received a thousand votes less than Watts, on the
ground that the latter was ineligible, was without
authority of law and is therefore void.
"That although the evidence shows that Watts was
a postmaster at the time of his election, that fact is
rendered immaterial by his resignation both' as post
master and elector, and his subsequent appointment
to fill the vacancy so made by the electoral college/' 1
In the joint session an objection to accepting the
decision was submitted, and the two houses therefore
separated as the law required. In the Senate2 the
Republicans defended the decision, denounced Grover
and Cronin, and made frequent references to the cipher
telegrams to and from 15 Gramercy Park.3 The
Democratic speakers devoted much of their time to
the Florida and Louisiana cases and to contending
that the decisions of the Commission were not con
sistent. They did not attempt seriously to sustain
1 Proceedings, p. 640.
2 For the Senate debate see Record, pp. 1888-1896.
3 Ibid, p. 1894.
Disputed Election of 1876 257
the theory that the Cronin certificate should be re
ceived, but did insist that only two votes should be
counted for Hayes. l When the debate came to an
end, however, a resolution to that effect was voted
down, and the decision of the Commission was then
sustained by 41 to 24. 2
In the House the debate was preceded by a spirited
parliamentary contest. Although a Democratic cau
cus held about a week before had decided that the
count should be allowed to proceed, 3 a knot of repre
sentatives had made up their minds to delay the
progress of the count by dilatory proceedings. These
filibusters were of two classes. One class, numbering
about forty members and composed of men like Black
burn of Kentucky, Springer of Illinois, Mills of Texas,
O'Brien of Maryland, and Cox of New York, were
those irreconcilables who were willing to resort to
any measures to prevent the consummation of what
they termed "the Fraud." The other class, composed
in large measure of Southern members, were actuated
chiefly by other motives. Most of them were desir
ous that the count should be completed in order to
prevent anarchy; but before it was accomplished they
wished to scare the Republicans, and particularly the
friends of Hayes, into giving assurances that the new
Administration would refrain from supporting the
Republican claimants for state offices in South Caro
lina and Louisiana. This movement was organized
1 Record, p. 1896.
2 Proceedings, p. 645.
3 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., I, p. 970.
258 The Hayes-Tilden
shortly after the Louisiana decision had convinced
most Democrats that the prospects of saving the
national ticket were hopeless; those who entered it
were inspired by the belief that it would be thrifty
policy to save even a little out of the wreck. 1 Con
ditions seemed to favor the filibusters, for the par
liamentary methods of "Czar" Reed had not then been
introduced ; and in the preceding Congress Mr. Ran
dall, who was now speaker, had for seventy-two hours
occupied the floor and had forced the Republicans to
abandon their attempt to re-enact the Force Bill. 2
But when the irreconcilables, led by such men as
Clymer of Pennsylvania, Lane of Oregon, and Spring
er of Illinois, began their attempt to hold up the count
by introducing dilatory motions, they discovered, to
their surprise and indignation, that the speaker re
fused to entertain the motions. A scene of disorder
followed, but the speaker stood firm. The Chair
"rules," said he, "that when the Constitution of the
United States directs anything to be done, or when
the law under the Constitution of the United States
enacted in obedience thereto directs any act by this
House, it is not in order to make any motion to
obstruct or impede the execution of that injunction
of the Constitution and the laws." 3
Thanks to this wise and determined stand, the
House was then able to proceed to the consideration
1 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., I, pp. 971.
980; III, pp. 595, 631-632.
2 McClure's, XXIII, p. 85; American, Law Review, XXXVIII,
p. 173.
3 Record, pp. 1905-1907.
Disputed Election of l8jd 259
of the Commission's finding. As in the Senate, the
Democratic speakers did not display a great deal of
enthusiasm for the Grover-Cronin proceedings. In
fact, Mr. Le Moyne of Illinois said: "I have never
believed in this Oregon road, and it does not satisfy
me to say that it is only using the same means em
ployed by the Republicans." The same speaker also
showed considerable disgust at the Democratic man
agement of affairs. "We of the West," he declared,
"are done in politics with the domination of New
York." Referring to the Oregon dispatches, he said :
"If Mr. Tilden either directly or indirectly consented
to the purchase of a Republican elector, he deserves
double condemnation from every man who supported
him." 1 Several speakers laid stress upon alleged in
consistencies in the Commission's rulings in the var
ious cases 2 and upon inconsistencies in the positions
taken by Republican members of that tribunal. In
the latter connection Mr. Hewitt accused Mr. Hoar
of having said in the debate on the bill that proof
would be admitted ; the charge brought a warm denial
from Mr. Hoar, who proceeded to intimate, amidst
laughter, that, as a result of the responsibilities im
posed upon him, there was "a screw loose somewhere"
in Mr. Hewitt. 3
1 Record, p. 1913.
2 E. g., Ibid, pp. 1910-1911.
3 Ibid, pp. 1914-1915. A study of the Record will show that
Hewitt's charge was not well founded. Not long before his
death Mr. Hoar prepared a statement which is to be published
in case the one left by Mr. Hewitt (see foot-note at end of pre
ceding chapter) appears. Mr. Hoar's statement makes certain
allegations which are designed to cast a decidedly unfavorable
light on Mr. Hewitt's veracity.
260 The Hayes-Tilde*
The Republican "eight," and especially Judge Brad
ley, came in for much rabid denunciation. Referring
to Bradley, Clymer of Pennsylvania said: "We in
this House assisted in developing one the latchets of
whose shoes even Wells, in all his moral deformity, is
unworthy to unloose. Their precious names will go
to posterity linked together, as those between whom,
here in this Capitol, in the very temple of justice, the
rights of the people were betrayed and crucified." 1
In reply to talk of this kind, Woodworth of Ohio said
it was curious that "while the supposed partisanship
of the eight who concur is denounced, there is a silence
profound as the hush of death as to the at least equal
partisanship of the seven who dissent."
The same speaker accused the Democrats of being
poor losers. "Filibuster," said he, "has been called in
to aid those who cannot accept defeat. I am not
surprised at this, nor at the chagrin and natural wrath
of our Democratic friends ; for with everything to gain
and nothing to lose, they cunningly set a trap and were
themselves caught — caught by the act of God, who
disposes of all human events, and by the act of the
Illinois legislature, which disposed of Judge Davis
[Laughter].
"They digged a pit, they digged it deep,
They digged it for their brother ;
But through their sin they did fall in
The pit they digged for t'other." :
But, as usual, the debate had no effect upon the
1 Record, p. 1908.
2 Ibid, p. 1911.
Disputed Election of 1876 261
vote. A resolution to accept the Commission's deci
sion was so amended as to provide for rejecting the
vote of Watts, and in this form was then adopted
without a division. *
The count of the states in joint session then pro
ceeded, but was much delayed by technical objections
to votes from states in which there had been no con
test. Such an objection was made to receiving one
of the votes from Pennsylvania; but as, after debate,
only the House sustained the objection, the vote was
counted with the rest. 2 An equally futile objection —
sustained by neither house — was made to one of the
votes of Rhode Island ; then, about six in the afternoon
of February 26th, South Carolina was reached.
From South Carolina there were two certificates.
The first, that from the Hayes electors, was certified by
Governor Chamberlain and Secretary of State Hayne ;
the second, that from the Tilden "electors," was not
certified by any one, but in it the "electors" claimed
to have received a majority of the votes cast, alleged
that they had wrongfully been deprived of their rights
by the returning board, and referred to the mandamus
and quo warranto proceedings which have already been
described. Objections were submitted against both
1 Proceedings, pp. 645-646.
2 One of the electors, who was a centennial commissioner, had
remained away from the college, and the other electors had
chosen H. A. Boggs to fill the vacancy. The Democrats held
that because the first elector was ineligible, he was never an
incumbent, and that hence his resignation created no vacancy
which the other electors had power to fill. The contention was
not, however, sustained by all the Democrats. — E. g., speech
of Cockrell, Record, p. 1905. For the whole matter see Ibid,
pp. 1900-1905, 1919-1923, 1927-1938, and Proceedings, pp. 647-652.
18
262 The Hayes-Til den
returns, and the case was referred to the Commission. 1
The contest before that body 2 was a rather perfunc
tory one. The Democratic objectors did not attempt
to prove that the Democratic electors had been chosen,
but took the ground that because the legislature had
failed to provide a registration law as required by the
constitution of 1868 there had been no legal election
in the state. 3 They further contended that the vote
of the state ought not to be received because at the
time of the election there was not a republican form
of government in the state. In support of this view
they alleged that prior to and during the election Fed
eral troops, without authority of law, had been sta
tioned at or near the polling-places, with the result
that no legal or free election could be held ; that more
than 1,000 deputy United States marshals, appointed
under an unconstitutional law, had interfered with the
full and free exercise of the right of suffrage by the
voters of the state. In their anxiety to prove that a
condition of anarchy had existed in the state the
Democrats made some interesting admissions. "We
propose to show," said Representative Kurd, "by testi
mony taken by the minority of the same committee
[the House committee], that in the counties which
gave large Democratic majorities the Democratic
leaders and managers interfered with the freedom of
the election by practicing intimidation upon their black
1 For the returns and the written objections see Proceed
ings, pp. 659-664.
2 Owing to the illness of Thurman his place on the Commission
was now taken by Kernan of New York. — Ibid, p. 655.
3 For the Democratic oral objections see Ibid, pp. 666-678.
Disputed Election of 1876 263
employes and those who might happen to live within
their districts. We propose to show that rifle-clubs
were organized which were not disbanded in accord
ance with the proclamation of the President of the
United States, and that under the effect of these
rifle-clubs and of the intimidation that was practiced
in that method large numbers of negroes who other
wise would have voted the Republican ticket voted the
Democratic ticket." l
As the Democrats did not attempt to prove that the
votes of the Tilden "electors" should be received, the
Republican objectors2 confined themselves almost en
tirely to defending their own certificate and to com
bating the argument that the vote of the state ought
to be thrown out. They contended that the constitu
tional provision requiring a registration was directory
only, that the legislature had in effect complied with
the requirement by enacting that a poll-list should be
kept, that the Democratic position on the matter was
untenable because otherwise all elections and all gov
ernment in South Carolina during the last eight years
would be illegal and void. Upon the question of
whether the state possessed a republican form of
government they argued that the fact that the state
was represented in both houses of Congress must be
taken as conclusive ; to sustain this contention they
quoted an opinion delivered in the case of Luther vs.
1 Proceedings, p. 669. In reporting his speech the New York
World of Feb. 28th represented him as saying that work of this
kind was done by "colored [sic] rifle-clubs."
2 For the speeches of the Republican objectors see Proceed
ings, pp. 678-688.
264 The Hayes-Tilden
Borden. As regarded the use of troops and deputy
marshals, they contended that the Commission was not
competent to receive evidence ; they pointed out, how
ever, that both the troops and the marshals had been
used in accordance with the laws of the United States
and under the direction of the President and the at
torney general.
In order to hasten the count, the Republicans sub
mitted their case without any argument by counsel. 1
For the Democrats short speeches were made by
Montgomery Blair 2 and Jeremiah S. Black. 3 Mr.
Black made the closing address. As he expressly dis
claimed any intention of arguing the case, it is evident
that he was put forward for no other purpose than to
damn the Commission. And damn it he did in a bitter
invective, hardly to have been expected from the man
who, in the greatest crisis of our history, had ren
dered to a weak President one of the mildest and most
unfortunate opinions ever given by a public officer. 4
He was, he said, "fallen from the proud estate of an
American citizen," and was "fit for nothing on earth
but to represent the poor, defrauded, broken-hearted
Democracy."
"We may," he continued, "struggle for justice ; we
may cry for mercy; we may go down on our knees,
and beg and woo for some little recognition of our
rights as American citizens ; but we might as well put
1 Proceedings, p. 694.
2 Ibid, pp. 688-694.
3 Ibid, pp. 695-699.
4 Burgess, The Civil War and the Constitution, I, p. 80.
Disputed Election of l8j6 265
up our prayers to Jupiter, or Mars, as bring suit in
the court where Rhadamanthus presides. There is
not a god on Olympus that would not listen to us with
more favor than we shall be heard by our adversaries.
. . . Usually it is said that the 'fowler setteth not
forth his net in the sight of the bird/ but this fowler
set the net in the sight of the birds that went into it.
It is largely our own fault that we are caught
They offer us everything now. They denounce
negro supremacy and carpet-bag thieves. Their pet
policy for the South is to be abandoned. They offer
us everything but one; but on that subject their lips
are closely sealed. They refuse to say that they will
not cheat us hereafter in the elections
"If this thing stands accepted and the law you have
made for this occasion shall be the law for all occa
sions, we can never expect such a thing as an honest
election again. If you want to know who will be
President by a future election, do not inquire how the
people of the states are going to vote. You need
only to know what kind of scoundrels constitute the
returning boards, and how much it will take to buy
them.
"But I think even that will end some day. At
present you have us down and under your feet. Never
had you a better right to rejoice. Well may you say,
'We have made a covenant with death, and with hell
are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge
shall pass through, it shall not come unto us : for we
have made lies our refuge, and under falsehoods have
266 The Hayes-Tilden
•we hid ourselves.' But nevertheless wait a little while.
The waters of truth will rise gradually, and slowly
but surely, and then look out for the overwhelming
scourge. 'The refuge of lies shall be swept away, and
the hiding place of falsehood shall be uncovered.' This
mighty and puissant nation will yet raise herself up
like a strong man after sleep, and shake her invincible
locks in a fashion you little think of now. Wait;
retribution will come in due time. Justice travels
with a leaden heel but strikes with an iron hand. God's
mill grinds slowly but dreadfully fine. Wait till the
flood-gate is lifted and a full head of water comes
rushing on. Wait, and you will see fine grinding
then."
But the fiery words of the old Pennsylvanian did
not suffice to melt the hearts of the Republican eight.
Upon a proposal to receive evidence regarding the use
of the troops and of the marshals they voted as usual.
Then, after a resolution to the effect that the Demo
cratic electors had not been chosen had been unani
mously agreed to, they carried a resolution to count
the votes of South Carolina for Hayes. They ex
plained their action in the following words :
"The brief ground of this decision is, that it appears,
upon such evidence as by the Constitution and the law
named in said act of Congress is competent and per
tinent to the consideration of the subject, that the
beforementioned electors appear to have been lawfully
appointed such electors of President and Vice-Presi-
dent of the United States for the term beginning
March 4, A. D. 1877, of the state of South Carolina,
Disputed Election of 1876 267
and that they voted as such at the time and in the
manner provided for by the Constitution of the United
States and the law.
"And the Commission, as further grounds for their
decision, are of opinion that the failure of the legis
lature to provide a system for the registration of per
sons entitled to vote, does not render nugatory all
elections held under laws otherwise sufficient, though
it may be the duty of the legislature to enact such a
law. If it were otherwise, all government in that state
is a usurpation, its officers without authority, and the
social compact in that state is at an end.
"That this Commission must take notice that there
is a government in South Carolina republican in form,
since its Constitution provides for such a government,
and it is, and was on the day of appointing electors, so
recognized by the executive and by both branches of
the legislative department of the government of the
United States.
"That so far as this Commission can take notice of
the presence of the soldiers of the United States in the
state of South Carolina during the election, it appears
that they were placed there by the President of the
United States to suppress insurrection, at the request
of the proper authorities of the state.
"And we are also of opinion that from the papers
before us it appears that the governor and secretary
of state having certified under the seal of the state
that the electors whose votes we have decided to be
the lawful electoral votes of the state, were duly ap
pointed electors, which certificate, both by presumption
of law and by the certificate of the rival claimants of
the electoral office, was based upon the action of the
state canvassers, there exists no power in this Com
mission, as there exists none in the two houses of
Congress in counting the electoral vote, to inquire into
The Hayes-Tilden
the circumstances under which the primary vote for
electors was given.
"The power of the Congress of the United States in
its legislative capacity to inquire into the matters
alleged, and to act upon the information so obtained,
is a very different one from its power in the matter
of counting the electoral vote. The votes to be counted
are those presented by the state, and when ascertained
and presented by the proper authorities of the states
they must be counted." 1
While the South Carolina case was before the Com
mission other events of great significance had been
taking place in secret. As already narrated, a move
ment had for some days been on foot to exact from
the friends of Hayes pledges regarding the state
governments in Louisiana and South Carolina. 2 This
movement had created considerable alarm among Re
publicans. As early as February 23d, in an effort
to conciliate the Southern Democrats, Mr. Charles
Foster, representative from Hayes's own district, had
stated in a speech in the Louisiana debate that it would
be the policy of Mr. Hayes, if inaugurated, to wipe
out sectional lines, that under him "the flag should
wave over states, not provinces, over freemen and not
subjects/' 3 Negotiations were entered into between
1 Proceedings, 702.
2 An attempt to ascertain the probable attitude of Hayes to
ward the South had been made as early as the end of the pre
ceding November. At that time Mr. W. H. Roberts of the New
Orleans Times visited Columbus for that purpose. Hayes re
ferred him to his letter of acceptance and also stated that in
his opinion intelligence ought to govern. H. R. Mis. Doc No
31, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., I, pp. 875-899.
3 Ibid, III, p. 596 ; Record, p. 1708. On the 23d Hayes wrote
to Foster commending this speech. He said that when the
count was completed — if favorable — the public was to be in
formed that the Southern policy was to be as Foster had stated
Disputed Election of 1876 269
the interested parties, and various conferences were
held. 1 Qn the 26th of February there were three
such conferences. One took place in the room of the
House committee on appropriations between Mr. Fos
ter, Representative John Young Brown of Ken
tucky, and Senator J. B. Gordon of Georgia.2 An
other occurred in the finance committee room of the
Senate ; 3 present, Major E. A. Burke, special agent
for Louisiana, Stanley Matthews and ex-Governor
Dennison of Ohio, and John Sherman. 4 The third
took place that evening in the room of Mr. Evarts at
KWormley's Hotel; present, Mr. Burke, Mr. E. J. Ellis
and Mr. W. M. Levy, Democratic representatives
from Louisiana, Mr. Henry Watterson, who repre
sented the interests of South Carolina, Mr. Matthews,
Mr. Dennison, Mr. Sherman, and Mr. James A. Gar-
field. 5
The outcome of these conferences was to all intents
it. Foster showed this letter to Burke on the 25th. Burke
"urged direct assurances or action before House yields." — See
Burke's telegram to Nicholls, Report just quoted, p. 618.
1 Burke held an interview with Stanley Matthews as early
as the night of February 16th, just after the Louisiana decision
was announced. Bishop Wilmer of Louisiana was also in Wash
ington trying to assist Nicholls and his associates. After an
interview with Grant he visited Columbus. From there he tele
graphed on Feb. 23d: "Peace not to be disturbed in Louisiana."
— H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., Ill, p. 617.
2 Letter of Brown in Louisville Courier- Journal of March
29th. Given in New York Times of same date.
3 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., Ill, p. 619.
4 Sherman had just returned from a visit to Hayes in Colum
bus. On the 15th Hayes had written Sherman that he preferred
not to make any new declarations regarding his Southern policy
further than to confirm what he had said in his letter of ac
ceptance. "But you may say, if you deem it advisable, that you
know that I will stand by the friendly and encouraging words
of that letter and by all that they imply. You cannot express
that too strongly." — John Sherman's Recollections, I, p. 561.
5 House document just cited, III, pp. 591, 619.
270 The Hayes-Tilden
and purposes an agreement — ''bargain" is perhaps
a more concise term — by which each contracting
party tacitly agreed to do certain things. * The Re
publicans, while expressly disclaiming any authority
to speak for him, in effect guaranteed that Mr. Hayes,
vvhen he became President, would, by a gradual pro
cess of non-interference and withdrawal of troops,
allow the Republican governments in the two states
to disappear. They also agreed to use their best en
deavors to induce President Grant to embark upon the
same policy before the end of his term. 2 The Dem
ocrats, on their part, promised to use their influence to
stop filibustering, and guaranteed peace, good order,
protection of the law to whites and blacks alike, and
no persecution for past political offenses. In order to
avoid precipitating the whole issue upon the Senate
before the cabinet should have been confirmed and
thereby .rousing up perhaps sufficient opposition to
prevent the confirmation of persons favorable to the
new Southern policy, the Democrats further agreed
that the Nicholls legislature should not elect the long-
term senator before March loth. 3
1 Many efforts were later made to show that no bargain was
made, but there is no evading the fact that in all essentials there
was an agreement. Hayes, however, was not a party to it.
He had steadfastly refused to authorize any one to represent
him, and had already made up his mind regarding his Southern
policy. On Feb. 4th he wrote to Schurz in regard to the use of
the military as follows : "But there is to be an end to all that,
except in emergencies which I cannot think of as possible again."
2 The President had already declined to recognize either gov
ernment. — See his telegrams to Kellogg and Gen. Augur in H.
R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., III. pp. 603-604. In
case one must be recognized, however, he intended to recognize
Packard. — Telegram to Augur just cited. As time passed he
became more favorable to Nicholls. See Ibid, pp. 604-631.
3 For accounts of the Wormley Conference see Ibid, I, pp.
978, 980, 981, 984, 990; III, pp. 595-633.
Disputed Election of 1876 271
Certain details of the agreement were arranged next
day. The Democratic assurances of peace, order, and
equal rights were ratified by Governor Nicholls and
by a legislative caucus, and a copy was sent by Burke
to Matthews and his associates. Matthews, on his
part, assured the Louisiana agents that Grant had
promised that as soon as the count should be completed
all orders heretofore issued in regard to preserving
the status quo should be rescinded or modified so far
as they were necessary for preserving the public peace.1
Mr. Foster sought John Young Brown and gave to
him the following unsigned letter addressed to Brown
and to Senator Gordon :
"GENTLEMEN: Referring to the conversation had
with you yesterday in which Governor Hayes's policy
as to the status of certain Southern states was dis
cussed, we desire to say in reply that we can assure
you in the strongest possible manner of our great desire
to have adopted such a policy as will give to the people
of the states of South Carolina and Louisiana the
right to control their own affairs in their own way;
and to say further that we feel authorized, from an
acquaintance with and knowledge of Governor Hayes
and his views on this question, to pledge ourselves to
you that such will be his policy."
After reading the letter Brown expressed the opin
ion that it might be "fuller and stronger," but that
coming from the men it did it would be sufficient.
Foster then saw Matthews, and an hour later Brown
received from Foster the following:
1 See copy of written assurance given by Matthews to Burke
and Levy, H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong., 3d Sess., III., p.
623.
272 The Hayes-Tilden
"GENTLEMEN: Referring to the conversation had
with you yesterday, in which Governor Hayes's policy
as to the status of certain states was discussed, we
desire to say that we can assure you in the strongest
possible manner of our great desire to have him adopt
such a policy as will give to the people of the states
of South Carolina and Louisiana the right to control
their own affairs in their own way, subject only to
the Constitution of the United States and the laws
made in pursuance thereof, and to say further, that
from an acquaintance with and knowledge of Governor
Hayes and his views, we have the most complete con
fidence that such will be the policy of his administra
tion. Respectfully,
"STANLEY MATTHEWS,
"CHARLES FOSTER."
Brown did not like some of the generalities which
this letter contained, but accepted it. By his request
Foster affixed his signature to the first letter, and
Brown retained that letter also. Later Brown gave
copies to Ellis, to Burke, to M. C. Butler, of South
Carolina, and to one or two other persons. 1
While the personal friends of Hayes were striving
in ways just described to lessen Democratic opposition
to the completion of the count, other schemes were
being devised for the contingency which would arise
should the count not be completed. In the Senate Mr.
Sargent on the 26th introduced a resolution to the
effect that the Senate should proceed at once to elect
a president pro tempore to succeed Mr. Ferry, whose
1 See Brown's statement in the Louisville Courier -Journal of
March 29th. The statement is giren in the New York Times
of the same date.
Disputed Election of l8j6 273
term as senator would expire on the 4th of March. 1
The resolution was laid aside until the time should
come when its passage would be desirable. If that
time had come, it would probably have been passed,
and Morton would have been chosen. He would then
either have completed the count and declared Hayes
elected, or would himself have been installed as Pres
ident under a forced construction of the law of 1792. 2
In the House David Dudley Field on the 2/th
reported from the committee on the powers, priv
ileges, and duties of the House in counting the elec
toral vote a bill providing that, in case of a failure to
elect, the line of succession should be the president of
the Senate, the speaker of the House, and the secre
tary of state, and that the person who succeeded
should hold office until a successor had been duly
elected. 3 The bill was regarded by some as part of a
scheme to defeat the count and secure a new election.
Some Democrats opposed it because they preferred
Hayes to Morton ; 4 but it was hurried through, 5 and
was then sent to the Senate, where it was referred to a
committee, and never came to a vote. 6
1 Record, p. 1926 ; Times of 27th.
2 Record, p. 1983 ; Times of March 2d; letter of William Dud
ley Foulke to the writer. The law of 1792 provided, "That in
case of the removal, death, resignation, or disability both of the
President and Vice-President of the United States, the President
of the Senate, pro tempore, and, in case there shall be no Pres
ident of the Senate, then the Speaker of the House of Represen
tatives, for the time being, shall act as President of the United
States until such disability be removed, or until a President be
elected."
3 Record, p. 1980.
4 Ibid, p. 1983.
5 Ibid, p. 1984.
6 Ibid, p. 1974.
274 The Hayes-Tilden
On the 28th the South Carolina decision was read in
joint session. Objections were at once offered, and
the houses separated to deliberate. After a short
debate the Senate accepted the decision by 39 to 22. x
In the House after the irreconcilables, led by Springer
of Illinois and O'Brien of Maryland, had tried hard
to secure a dilatory recess, but had been thwarted by
the opposition of the Republicans, of the speaker,
and of a number of Democrats under the leadership
of Fernando Wood, who had now become a conserva
tive, a debate was had, after which the decision was
rejected. 2
When the joint session had been resumed and Ver
mont had been reached, the proceedings entered upon
a new and dangerous phase. After the regular return
had been read, Representative Poppleton inquired
whether any other return had been received. Mr.
Ferry gave a negative answer. Mr. Hewitt, who up
to this time had favored the completion of the count
and had been much criticised by some rabid Democrats,
then arose, and amidst breathless interest asked to be
allowed to make a statement.
"I hold in my hand," said he, "a package which
purports to contain electoral votes from the state of
Vermont. This package was delivered to me by ex
press about the middle of December last, and with it
came a letter stating that a .similar package had been
forwarded by mail to the presiding officer of the
1 Record, pp. 1992-2002.
2 Ibid, pp. 2005-2020.
Disputed Election of l8jb 275
Senate; I called upon him and inquired whether any
other than one certificate from the state of Vermont
had been received by him by mail, and he informed
me that there had been no other received by him than
the one which was already in his possession. I then
tendered to him this package, the seals of which are
unbroken and which is now as it came into my pos
session. He declined to receive it, upon the ground
that he had no authority in law to do so. Under the
circumstances, I now tender this package to the pre
siding officer of the Senate as purporting to contain
electoral votes from the state of Vermont." x
It was well known that the package had been sent
in by a minority Democratic candidate who, although
defeated by about twenty-four thousand votes, claimed
to have been elected because one of the Republican
candidates was a postmaster. Mr. Ferry pointed out
that it would not be legal for him to receive the certi
ficate because the law designated the first Thursday
in February as the date on which certificates must be
handed in ; 2 but the opponents of the count, in ac
cordance with a prearranged plan, were determined
to make the most of the opportunity which they
thought presented itself. Springer attempted to pre
cipitate a debate in joint session, shrieked wildly, threw
his arms about, and for a time refused to come to
order. 3 After some minutes of excitement, however,
quiet was restored, and the objections against the
1 Proceedings, p. 712.
2 Ibid, p. 712.
3 Ibid, pp. 712-714.
276 The Hayes-Til den
Vermont return were submitted. a The two houses
then separated.
In the Senate a decision was soon reached by a
unanimous vote to count the Vermont return, 2 but
in the House an adjournment was decided upon before
a vote had been taken. 3 The session of the following
day was probably the stormiest ever witnessed in any
House of Representatives. The irreconcilables were
determined to force the president of the Senate to
receive the certificate, and then to have the two certi
ficates referred to the Commission. A resolution to
that effect was introduced by Poppleton, but he shortly
after accepted a substitute of the same tenor offered
by J. Proctor Knott of Kentucky.4 But the speaker
was determined that the count should proceed, and
therefore ruled that under the law the two hours' de
bate upon Vermont should begin. Then ensued a
scene of the wildest excitement. Every possible de
vice was resorted to by the filibusters. The speaker
was assailed "with a storm of questions and re
proaches. Would he not then put a motion for a
recess ? A motion for a call of the House ? A motion
to excuse some member from voting? A motion to
reconsider? A motion to lay something on the table?
He would not. Were not these motions in order
under the rules? They were. Would he not then
submit some one of them to the House? He would
1 Proceedings, 714-717.
2 Record, 2002-2004.
3 Ibid, 2024-2027.
4 Ibid, pp. 2027 and 2032.
Disputed Election of 1876 277
not. Was he not an oppressor, a tyrant, a despot?
He was not. Would he not then put some dilatory
motion? He would not. Why would he not? Be
cause of his obligation to the law." 1
The occasion was rendered the more noisy and ex
citing by the presence on the floor of many persons
who had no right there and by the fact that the gal
leries were packed with a crowd who wildly applauded
each outbreak. Furthermore, some even of the con
servative Democrats were angry and suspicious be
cause the irregular certificate had temporarily disap
peared. At one time the wrath of the filibusters be
came so great that they rushed forward shouting and
gesticulating; and one of them, Beebe of New York,
even sprang upon a desk, and, amid great uproar, de
manded of the Chair why he declined to hear an
appeal. Pale but resolute, Mr. Randall still refused
to recede, and declared that he would no longer sub
mit to the disorder. "If gentlemen forget themselves,"
said he, "it is the duty of the Chair to remind them
that they are members of the American Congress." 2
After some further disorder the House quieted
down sufficiently for the debate to proceed. None of
the speeches made possessed any importance save one ;
it was made by Levy of Louisiana, who, remembering
the Wormley compact, was anxious to stop the filibus
tering. "The people of Louisiana," said he, "have
solemn, earnest, and I believe truthful assurances from
1 Atlantic, LXXII, p. 533. The passage was written by James
Monroe, who was then a member of the House from Ohio.
2 Record, pp. 2033-2034.
19
278 The Hayes-Tilden
prominent members of the Republican party, high in
the confidence of Mr. Hayes, that, in the event of his
election to the Presidency, he will be guided by a
policy of conciliation toward the Southern states, that
he will not use the Federal authority or the army to
force upon those states governments not of their
choice, but in the case of these states will leave their
own people to settle the matter peaceably, of them
selves. This, too, is the opinion of President Grant,
which he freely expresses, and which I am satisfied he
will carry out and adhere to." Levy then announced
that because of these assurances he would throw no
obstacles in the way of the completion of the count,
and he called upon fellow-members who had been in
fluenced in their action by a desire to protect Louisiana
and South Carolina to join him in opposing the fili
busters. 1
Shortly after this speech was made a vote was taken
on Knott's resolution regarding the bogus certifi
cate. It was the decisive moment. If the resolution
was carried, there was no telling what might hap
pen. There seemed to be danger that it might be
carried. Now that the end was at hand many con
servative Democrats, badgered by their constituents
for having supported the Commission plan, felt des
perate enough to vote with the filibusters. But some
of those members who were fully cognizant of the
agreement hurried about the hall appealing to their
fellows to vote in the negative; Hewitt and others
1 Record, p. 2047.
Disputed Election of l8jd 279
were brought over;1 enough other Democrats were
sober-minded sufficiently not to stultify the party by re
fusing to carry out the terms of a law which they
had themselves helped to pass ; and the resolution was
finally voted down by 116 to 148. 2
With this vote the possibility of defeating the com
pletion of the count disappeared. The strength of the
filibusters rapidly decreased. After some further de
lay the House voted to reject the vote of the post
master-elector. 3 The Senate once more entered the
hall. The irreconcilables in their desperation even
attempted to get up an objection to receiving the vote
of one of the Virginia electors, but no senator would
lend himself to the scheme. 4 The votes of Virginia
were therefore counted; then those of West Virginia.
Wisconsin was reached. A final objection was then
offered; it alleged that Daniel L. Downs, one of the
electors, was an examining surgeon of the pension
office and was therefore ineligible. 5 The two houses
1 Speech of Hewitt in 45th Cong. 2d Sess. (Record, p. 1007) ;
McClure's, XXIII, p. 87. Hewitt later boasted that he forced
the Republicans to make concessions by his policy in the matter
of the Vermont return, and claimed that Levy came in just at
this time from the Wormley conference. This was impossible,
for Levy had just spoken. The assurances were exacted before
Hewitt became a filibuster, and Hewitt misrepresented his part
in the affair either through ignorance or in order to lessen Dem
ocratic criticism levelled against him for his failure to secure
the seating of Tilden. On Feb. 28th Burke telegraphed to
Nicholls: "Recent strength filibusters spasmodic. — Our leaders
have now no defined policy except prospect of anarchy, some
other Republican, or new election." On March 1st he tele
graphed: "The weary struggle of aimless filibusters continues."
—See copies of the dispatches in H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th
Cong. 3d Sess., Ill, pp. 624-625.
2 Record, p. 2049.
3 Ibid, pp. 2049-2055.
4 World, March 3d.
5 Proceedings, pp. 722-725.
280 The Hayes-Tilden
separated. The Senate, without debate and without a
division, agreed that the vote of Downs should be
received. 1 In the house the filibusters made a last
effort. Mills of Texas claimed the floor to submit, as
a question of privilege, a resolution that the House
should immediately proceed to elect a President of
the United States. 2 The resolution was not allowed
to come to a vote. Dilatory motions were not enter
tained. The indignation on the part of the filibusters
against their Democratic brethren who refused to join
them rose high. O'Brien caller Fernando Wood
"the high priest of the Republican party." 3 At length
the debate on Wisconsin began. After midnight on
the morning of the 2d Blackburn of Kentucky rose
and delivered the swan-song of the filibusters.
"Mr. Speaker," said he, "the end has come. There
is no longer a margin for argument, and manhood
spurns the plea of mercy, and yet there is a fitness in
the hour which should not pass unheeded. Today is
Friday. Upon that day the Saviour of the world suf
fered crucifixion between two thieves. On this Friday
constitutional government, justice, honesty, fair deal
ing, manhood, and decency suffer crucifixion amid a
number of thieves." [Applause on the floor and in the
galleries].
The passage was not to go unanswered. After the
gentleman from Kentucky had finished, Mr. Williams
of Wisconsin arose. "I do not desire," said he, "to
1 Record, p. 2029.
2 Ibid, pp. 2055-2056.
3 Ibid, p. 2057.
Disputed Election of 1876 281
retort in the spirit indulged in by the gentleman who
has just taken his seat. But if I did I might remind
him and this House that this is not only Friday but
hangman's day; and that there could be no more fit
ting time than just after the hour of midnight
'When churchyards yawn, and Hell itself
breathes out
Contagion to this world.'
that this bogus, pretentious, bastard brat of political
reform, which for the last twelve months has affronted
the eyes of gods and men should be strangled to death,
gibbetted higher than Haman." [Great applause on
the floor and in the galleries].1
The end was indeed come. After a little more delay
the House voted to reject the vote of Downs ; and then
the speaker, having received a telegram from Tilden
expressing his willingness that the count should be
completed, 2 sent a messenger to the Senate to an
nounce that the House would once more receive them.
It was now four o'clock in the morning, but the
galleries still contained a crowd of tired sightseers
anxious to witness the final scene in the great contest
which had so long absorbed the attention of the Amer
ican people. The session had lasted continuously for
eighteen hours, and the members were too weary to
make much of a demonstration of any sort. The Re
publicans were happy but not exultant; the Demo-
1 Record, p. 2062.
2 McClure's, .XXIII, p. 87. This statement is made by Mr.
Rogers on the authority of Mr. Hewitt and confirmed from other
sources.
282 The Hayes-Tilden
crats disappointed but on the whole good-humored.
The occasion was an extraordinary but by no means
a solemn one. It was relieved by a final bit of pleas
antry. While the House was waiting a Democratic
member shouted to Henry Watterson to bring on his
"hundred thousand."1
The hundred thousand did not appear; instead the
Senate of the United States filed into the room in the
usual manner. After the members were seated the
decisions in the case of the Wisconsin elector were
announced, and the votes of the state were counted.
Senator Allison, one of the tellers, then read the list
of all the votes, after which/ the president of the Sen
ate arose to make the concluding statement.
"In announcing the final result of the electoral vote,"
said he, "the Chair trusts that all present, whether
on the floor or in the galleries, will refrain from all
demonstration whatever; that nothing shall transpire
on this occasion to mar the dignity and moderation
which have characterized these proceedings, in the
main so reputable to the American people and worthy
of the respect of the world."
Then, after announcing the total vote received by
each candidate, he continued :
"Wherefore, I do declare: That Rutherford B.
Hayes, of Ohio, having received a majority of the
whole number of electoral votes, is duly elected Presi
dent of the United States for four years, commencing
on the 4th day of March, 1877.^ And that William
1 World, March 3d.
Disputed Election of 1876 283
A. Wheeler, of New York, having received a ma
jority of the whole number of electoral votes, is duly
elected Vice-President of the United States for four
years, commencing on the 4th day of March, 1877."
Soon thereafter the Senate retired to its chamber.
The galleries were quickly emptied. The House it
self adjourned. 1 The greatest contest for an elective
office in the history of popular government had been
peacefully concluded.
1 Record, pp. 2067-2068.
CHAPTER XII
THE ADJUSTMENT IN THE SOUTH
In the days preceding the final declaration of the
result the bitterness of party feeling was so intense
that not a few hot-headed partisans had sworn that
even if "counted in," Hayes should never be inaug
urated. A Washington newspaper, namely The Cap
ital, edited by Don. Piatt, went so far as practically
to counsel his assassination. 1 The President-elect re
ceived many letters containing threats of violence and
"curiously drawn sketches of knives, daggers and re
volvers/' 2
That there was no untoward incident during the
long strain of waiting or after the result had been
declared was unquestionably due in large measure to
the firm hand of President Grant. His course during
the whole trying crisis had been one which in the
main merits the gratitude of his countrymen. His
1 In issue of Feb. 18th. Quoted in New York Times of 19th.
2 Quoted in Record, p. 1934, from a speech made by Hayes.
One package, sent it would seem with no very serious intentions,
contained "a knife about two feet long, one edge hacked like a
saw, probably for sawing the bone, the other for cutting the
flesh. This was wrapped in several thicknesses of paper, and
inside was a note, as follows :
" 'This is the knife with which the editor of the Capital was
to assassinate you as you went from the White House to
the Capitol. It was taken from his pants leg while asleep'."
The Disputed Election of 1876 285
sending of troops to the disputed states brought upon
him a storm of criticism, and the use to which they
were put in at least one instance would be difficult to
justify; but it is scarcely too much to say that their
presence in all human probability prevented bloody
collisions that might have led to yet more lamentable
consequences. Throughout he had labored for a
peaceful and legal settlement. 1 While in some things
he showed himself perhaps too much the partisan, he
afterwards said that had Tilden been declared elected
he would have been quite as energetic in securing
Tilden's inauguration as he was in securing that of
Hayes. Unlike Buchanan, Grant "was quite prepared
for any contingency. Any outbreak would have been
suddenly and summarily stopped." He "did not in
tend to have two governments or any South American
pronunciamentos." 2
Thus when a rumor spread abroad that Tilden in
tended to be sworn into office in New York, the Pres
ident caused steps to be taken to declare martial law
in that city in case the attempt should be made. 3
As it turned out, these preparations were utterly need
less. Mr. Tilden was far from possessing the tem
perament of a revolutionist. Although some irrespon
sible persons urged him to take the oath and later
criticised him for not taking it, and although on the
3d the House of Representatives passed a resolution
1 Church, Life of Grant, pp. 420-421.
2 Young, Around the World with General Grant, II, pp. 270-
272. See also H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., Ill,
pp. 884-885.
3 Church, p. 421.
286 The Hayes-Tilden
declaring he had received 196 electoral votes and "was
thereby duly elected President/' 1 he saw clearly that
he had no claim which would justify him in taking
a course that would inevitably lead to civil war. There
were, in fact, only two contingencies under which he
would have asserted his claims: if Congress had de
clared him elected, or if the House, on the failure of
a choice by the electoral colleges, had elected him.
"No contingency provided by the Constitution," said
one of his closest friends, "ever existed in which Mr.
Tilden could lawfully or properly take the oath of
office as President." 2
So, despite the fact that some Democratic news
papers, such as the New York Sun and the Indian
apolis Sentinel, came out in mourning and said much
about "usurpers" and "the de facto President," Mr.
Hayes was peacefully installed. He started for Wash
ington before the result was finally declared, reached
that city on March 2d, and was entertained at the
home of Senator Sherman. As the 4th fell on Sun
day, there was much curiosity and some uneasiness
throughout the country regarding what means would
be taken to guard against the danger of an interreg
num. President Grant had taken it upon himself to
solve this problem. On Saturday night, the 3d, in
accordance with an invitation written on the 2Oth of
February after the decision of the Louisiana case, the
President-elect dined at the White House. Among the
1 Record, pp. 2225-2227.
2 Bigelow, Tilden, II, pp. 112-115. Mr. Bigelow gave this
statement to a reporter at the time.
Disputed Election of l8jd 287
guests present was Chief Justice Waite. In the course
of the evening General Grant sent his son Ulysses
for a Bible. The two Grants, Mr. Waite, and Mr.
Hayes then repaired to an unoccupied room, and there
the chief justice administered the oath. x On Mon
day, the 5th, the new President was formally inaug
urated.
One of his first and most trying tasks was to estab
lish peace in the South. In order that the aspects of
the settlement which was finally reached may be made
clear, it will be necessary to go back in time and con
sider at some length certain events hitherto only refer
red to.
It will be recalled that in South Carolina the board
of canvassers, before its hasty dissolution to avoid
the action of the court, had thrown out the votes of
the counties of Edgefield and Laurens because of gross
frauds at the polls. Their canvass showed the election
of all the Republican candidates for state offices ex
cepting for the governorship and lieutenant-govern
orship, the returns for which were by law to be can
vassed by the legislature; the choice of a House of
Representatives composed of 59 Republicans and 57
Democrats, with eight vacancies from the two counties
just named; and the election of enough Republican
senators to give that party, with two vacancies from
the same counties, a majority of five. 2
The legislature met on Tuesday, the 28th of No-
1 Statement of Col. Webb C. Hayes.
2 Appendix to H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 44th Cong. 2d Sess. pp.
118-122.
288 The Hayes-Til den
vember. On the night before a company of United
States troops had occupied the Capitol, and these now
assisted A. O. Jones, clerk of the last House, and John
B. Dennis, who claimed to be acting as sergeant-at-
arms, in excluding the Democratic claimants from
Edgefield and Laurens from the hall of the House.
The Democratic representatives, with one temporary
exception, thereupon withdrew to the hall of a rifle
company and organized with General W. H. Wallace
of Union as speaker. The Republicans remained and
organized with E. W. M. Mackey of Charleston as
speaker. The important question then arose as to
which body, if either, possessed a legal quorum of the
members. The Democrats claimed to have 66 of the
124 members, but of these 66 only 57 had been de
clared elected by the canvassing board and held cer
tificates from the secretary of state. The Republi
cans, on the other hand, had 59 certified members,
and this number, they claimed, was a quorum of the
116 members who had been chosen.1 The Senate,
with Lieutenant-Governor Gleaves in the chair, organ
ized with much less disturbance and with all hold
over members, and every newly elected member who
had a certificate, present. The Democratic claimants
from Edgefield and Laurens and a person who had
been elected to fill the vacancy occasioned bv the death
1 See H. R. R. No. 175, Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 100-
104, 126-129, 138-140 for the official journals and other papers
bearing on these occurrences. Also The Nation, XXIII, p. 337 ;
Annual Cyclopaedia, 1876, pp. 725-726 ; Allen, pp. 436-441 ;
Southern Historical Society Papers, XIII, p. 66.
Disputed Election of l8j6 289
of a hold-over senator from Abbeville county were
also present but were not allowed to vote. *•
The Democrats protested vehemently against the
use which had been made of the troops and managed
to secure from General Ruger assurances that in the
future his men would confine themselves to preserv
ing the peace and would not assist in keeping the
doors of the House. 2 On the morning of the 3Oth,
therefore, the Democratic representatives all marched
to the Capitol, and reached that building before many
of the Republican members had arrived. Some of the
Democrats who had certificates were allowed to enter ;
when they had done so, they turned, flung open the
doors, placed their backs against them, and thereby,
despite desperate efforts on the part of the doorkeepers,
enabled all the Democratic claimants, including those
without certificates, to get inside. Shortly afterwards
the remaining Republican members appeared, and a
scene of great confusion ensued which in all human
probability would have resulted in bloodshed, had it
not been for the restraining influence exercised upon
the Democrats by the presence of the troops. 3
For more than four days both bodies remained con
tinuously within the hall, endeavoring from time to
time to transact business, with dual speakers and fre
quently with dual debates. In this contest each side
had some advantages. It was, says a South Caro-
1 H. R. R. No. 175, Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 104-109.
2 Southern Historical Society Papers, XIII, p. 69 ; Annual
Cyclopaedia, 1876, p. 726.
3 H. R. R. No. 175, Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 101, 141;
New York Herald for Dec. 1st.
290 The Hayes-Tilden
linian, hard service for the Democrats "to be thus
shut up with these unwashed 'wards of the nation'
sending forth a stifling native perfume, when the pierc
ing cold without prevented necessary ventilation. Sleep
ing, too, on dirty floors, each with a single blanket,
would read well in a story of martyrdom, but their
heads and frames ached nevertheless. In all this the
negroes had the great advantage, as they were just
in their element. The perfume served but to stimu
late them to song and jollity, and a blanket big enough
to cover the head was all that each needed. On the
other hand, in eating and drinking, the whites had
the incalculable advantage. While Sambo was munch
ing his hardtack and cheese, he had to gaze wistfully
on baskets and boxes of fruit, and tempting viands,
furnished the other side in profusion by the rebel-
sympathizing merchants of Columbia and Charleston."1
Ultimately, however, the outcome of this novel contest
did not depend upon endurance ; for the Democrats
learned that on the afternoon of the 4th a constab
ulary force, backed up by the troops, would attempt
to eject the claimants from Edgefield and Laurens,
and rather than submit to this all the Democrats once
more withdrew to their former meeting-place. 2
On the following day the Senate and the Republican
House, which had now by desertion lost its quorum,
met in joint convention and proceeded to canvass the
votes for governor and lieutenant-governor. In do-
1 Leland, p. 170.
2 H. R. R. No. 175, Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 101, 142.
Disputed Election of 1876 291
ing so they threw out the returns from Edgefield and
Laurens on the plea of violence and fraud, and de
clared Chamberlain and Cleaves elected by majorities
of 3,145 and 4,099 votes respectively.1 Two days
later the two were inaugurated. 2
Meanwhile the Democrats had attempted to secure
a mandamus to compel Speaker Mackey to give up the
election returns for governor and lieutenant-govern
or. The supreme court held, however, that a man
damus would issue only against a public officer, and
that, as Mackey was not speaker of the House, the
writ could not be issued against him. The decision
was favorable to the Democrats in that it recognized
the Wallace House, which had now been increased
by desertions from the Republican camp to 63 mem
bers having certificates ; but it was unfavorable in
that it still left them without the official returns. B
Nevertheless, on the I4th the Democratic House, to
gether with the Democratic senators, proceeded to
canvass the votes, using in that work tabular state
ments made from the county returns and from re
turns which had been in the possession of the board
of state canvassers. As the result of their labors
they announced the election of Hampton and Simpson,
the candidate for lieutenant-governor, by majorities
of 1,134 and 139 votes respectively. On the after-
1 H. R. R. No. 175, Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 114-121.
2 Ibid, pp. 136-138.
3 For court proceedings see Appendix to H. R. Mis. Doc. No.
31, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 137 et seq. The petition was also
directed against Secretary of State Hayne, but he had turned
over the returns to Mackey. See also Southern Historical So
ciety Papers, XIII, p. 70, and The Nation, XXIII, pp. 338, 348.
292 The Hayes-Tilden
noon of the same day these two also were inaugu
rated. !
r~ Both governments asserted their claim to be the
l legal authority of the state, and peace was preserved
only by the presence of the Federal troops. Not
long after his inauguration Chamberlain attempted to
pardon a prisoner in the penitentiary, with the result
that the question of his right to the office of governor
was brought up before Circuit Judge Carpenter. On
the ist of February the judge held that the recent
proceedings gave neither Chamberlain nor Hampton a
legal title and that Chamberlain, as the former gov
ernor, should hold over until his successor had been
legally declared and inaugurated. 2 An appeal was
taken to the supreme court, but before it was tried
a new case came up before that court as a result of
an attempt of Hampton to pardon Tilda Norris, an
other convict. After a long trial and much delay
nothing remained save to pronounce judgment; but
at this juncture Chief Justice Moses was stricken
with an illness from which he never recovered, thus
leaving but two judges, one being the negro Wright.
On the 27th of February an order was finally signed
for the release of Norris, but Wright asked that the
filing and publication might be delayed for a few days,
and Justice Willard consented. Two days later
Wright, upon whom all possible influences had been
brought to bear in the meantime, filed an opinion favor-
1 Annual Cyclopaedia, 1876,, pp. 726-727; H. R. R. No. 175,
Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 154-157.
2 Southern Historical Society Papers, XIII, p. 72.
Disputed Election of l8jd 293
able to the legality of Chamberlain's claims and with
drew his signature from the order. Thus, although
the convict was freed next day, the judgment of the
court upon the merits of the claims of Chamberlain
and Hampton was not entirely clear. l
However, the Hampton government had all the
while been growing stronger, that of Chamberlain
weaker. The supreme court had granted an injunc
tion forbidding the banks which were depositories of
public money from paying it out until further orders
from the courts; and as property owners almost uni
formly refused to recognize the authority of the Cham
berlain government, the Republicans were left without
the sinews of war. 2 In this respect the Democrats
were more fortunate. Their House appealed to the
people to pay to such receivers as Hampton should
appoint twenty-five per cent, of the amount of taxes
levied the preceding year. The appeal was answered
with enthusiasm, and enough money was received to
keep the government running. 3 In most of the coun
ties the Democrats were strong enough to have their
own way, and even at the Capital there were desertions
from the Republican ranks. By the 4th of March,
therefore, the Chamberlain government had dwindled
to a mere shadow, and was saved from disappearing
entirely only by the presence of the troops. 4
1 Southern Historical Society Papers, XIII, p. 73 ; The Na
tion, XXIV, p. 141; New York Herald of March 2d ; Reynolds,
p. 467.
2 Southern Historical Society Papers, XIII, p. 71.
3 Ibid, pp. 71-72; H. R. R. No. 175, Part 2, 44th Cong. 2d
Sess., pp. 163-167; The Nation, XXIII, p. 376. Hampton asked
for only 10 per cent.
4 Southern Historical Society Papers, XIII, p. 83.
20
294 The Hayes-Tilden
The situation of affairs in Louisiana can be ex
plained in fewer words. On January 1st, the day
for the assembling of the legislature, the state house
was by Governor Kellogg's orders occupied by armed
police and militia, and no persons were admitted to
the legislative halls except those having certificates
from the returning board. The Democratic members
therefore withdrew to St. Patrick's Hall and organ
ized separately, admitting not only those having cer
tificates, but also those declared elected by the so-
called Democratic Committee on Returns. The Re
publican members remained and organized with 19
senators and 68 representatives, which was, they
claimed, a quorum in each House. The Democratic
legislature consisted of 21 senators and 62 repre
sentatives, but of these 4 senators and 22 repre
sentatives had no certificates save from the Democratic
committee. On the following day the Republican
legislature in joint session, with, they claimed, a
quorum in each House, received the election returns
from the secretary of state, and declared Packard and
Antoine elected; the Democratic legislature on the
same day announced the election of Nicholls and Wiltz.
On the 8th the Republican claimants were inaugurated
at the Capitol ; the Democratic claimants at St. Pat
rick's Hall. Next day a large force of armed White
Leaguers, under pretense of acting as the state militia,
gained possession of the police station and court
rooms, installed Democratic appointees as judges of
the supreme court, captured the state arsenal, block-
Disputed Election of 1876 295
aded the state house, and would doubtless have over
thrown the Packard government entirely had it not
been for the interference of United States troops. l
From that time on until March the Federal govern
ment, without recognizing either claimant, preserved
the status quo. As in South Carolina, the authority
of the Republicans grew weaker and weaker ; some of
the parishes slipped out of their grasp, and there
were numerous desertions from their legislature; the
causes of this decline in their strength lay in the
fact that their opponents were supported by the great
mass of property owners and taxpayers and by prac
tically the whole of the stronger white race. 2
Such then, was the situation in these two states
when Hayes came to power. The South Carolina
problem was the first solved. The initial step in its
solution was a letter written on the 4th of March to
Chamberlain by Stanley Matthews and indorsed by
William M. Evarts, who had been selected by Hayes
as his secretary of state. The letter asked the gov
ernor's concurrence and co-operation in some arrange
ment whereby the continued use of Federal troops
might be rendered unnecessary and that government
left to stand which should prove itself able to stand
1 My account of these matters is based upon files of the
World, Herald, and Times ; the legislative journals ; a pamphlet
entitled Legal Status of the Louisiana State Government, pub
lished by the Packard legislature ; another entitled Organization
of the House of Representatives, published by the adherents of
Nicholls ; testimony of Burke, Packard, Kellogg, and others be
fore the Potter Committee.
2 See H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., Ill, pp.
603-631.
296 The Hayes-Tilden
of itself. l The proposal was indignantly rejected by
Chamberlain, and no further steps of importance were
taken for a fortnight. On the 23d of March, how
ever, duplicate letters were by the President's order
addressed to both claimants asking them to come to
Washington and confer with the President upon the
situation. 2 Both complied with the request, and
while in Washington had protracted interviews with
the President and members of the cabinet. Cham
berlain and the two South Carolina senators pro
posed that the election controversy be submitted to a
commission of five, but the Democrats had lost faith
in commissions, and declined the offer. 3 By the Pres
ident's request the Republican claimant also set forth
in a letter his objections to the withdrawal of the
troops; such action would, he said, inevitably result
in the downfall of the Republican government before
the superior physical force of its enemies and in "the
quick consummation of a political outrage against
which I have felt and now feel it my solemn duty to
struggle and protest so long as the faintest hope of
success can be seen." 4 Hampton, on his part, asked
that the troops be withdrawn, and gave pledges that
if it were done no violence would be used by his
party and the constitutional rights of all parties would
be respected. With the concurrence of the cabinet,
the President at last decided to grant his request and
1 For this letter and Chamberlain's reply see Allen, pp. 469
and 470; Reynolds, pp. 451-453.
2 Allen, p. 472.
3 Ibid, p. 478.
4 Ibid, pp. 474-477.
Disputed Election of l8j6 297
bring Federal interference in South Carolina to an
end. l On the loth of April, therefore, the troops
were withdrawn from the state house to the garrison
post; on the nth Chamberlain, who had already an
nounced that he would not prolong the contest further,
turned over the executive office to a representative of
Hampton; and, to the great rejoicing of the white
inhabitants, Radical rule in South Carolina came to
an end. 2
The process of settlement in Louisiana was slower
and more complicated. In that state the problem
which faced the Administration was much more em
barrassing ; for while in South Carolina the Hayes elec
tors had received a majority of the votes actually
cast and Chamberlain had not, in Louisiana Packard,
whom it was now proposed to sacrifice, had received
many hundreds of votes more than several of the
electors. How then could the Packard government be
allowed to fall and yet leave a semblance of title to
Hayes ? 3 So perplexing did the problem prove that
after telegrams sent by President Grant on the 1st
and 2d of March to the effect that public opinion
would no longer support the maintenance of state
governments in Louisiana by military force, 4 no
1 Allen, p. 479 ; New York Times, April 3.
2 Allen, pp. 480-486 ; Leland, p. 173 ; Southern Historical So
ciety Papers, III, p. 85 ; Reynolds, p. 460.
3 See Butler's report as a member of the Potter Committee,
H. R. R. No. 140, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., pp. 113-114.
4 The first telegram was sent by the President's private secre
tary to Packard on March 1st. — H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th
Cong. 3d Sess., I, pp. 537, 890, 961, 1041, III, p. 33. The tele
gram was repeated to Gen. Augur by Gen. Sherman on the 2d
after, it has been claimed, Pres. Grant had had a personal inter-
298 The Hayes-Til den
further steps of importance were taken for almost
four weeks. Some of the Democrats who had been
parties to the "bargain" chafed exceedingly under the
delay. By the 28th of March Mr. John Young Brown
had become so impatient that he published the written
guarantees of Foster and Matthews in the Louisville
Courier- Journal and demanded of the President "ful
fillment of the assurances" therein contained. l
On the same day, in accordance with a plan he had
already formulated, 2 the President appointed a com
mission to go to Louisiana and arrange matters. The
commission was composed of General Joseph R. Haw-
ley of Connecticut, Judge Charles B. Lawrence of
Illinois, General John M. Harlan of Kentucky, ex-
Governor J. C. Brown of Tennessee, and Wayne Mac-
Veagh of Pennsylvania. The commission was direc
ted to proceed to Louisiana and there ascertain what
were the hindrances to a peaceful conduct of the state
government without the interference of the Federal
authority. They were to devote their "principal at
tention to a removal of the obstacles to an acknowl
edgment of one government;" but "if these obstacles
should prove insuperable from whatever reason, and
the hope of a single government in all its departments
be disappointed," it was to be their next endeavor to
accomplish the recognition of a single legislature as
view with Hayes. — Ibid, I, p. 537; III, pp. 628-629. These tele
grams were intended to fulfil the agreement, but it is difficult
to see how they affected the status then existing in Louisiana.
1 New York Tribune and Times of March 29th.
2 Times of March 22d.
Disputed Election of l8jd 299
the depositary of the representative will of the people
of Louisiana." *
Into all the details of their work it is unnecessary to
enter here. They reached New Orleans on the 5th of
April, and at once set to work. The Democrats did
all in their power to further the performance of the
task. Their legislature passed conciliatory resolu
tions indorsing the President's policy, promising to ac
cept in good faith the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fif
teenth amendments, and guaranteeing school priv
ileges to both races ; these resolutions were transmitted
by Nicholls, along with his own personal pledge, to
the commission. 2 The Democrats rendered especially
effective aid in securing the recognition of a single
legislature, which was the goal towards which the
commission found it expedient to direct its labors.
The members of the Packard legislature who had re
ceived majorities of the votes actually cast were given
to understand that upon joining the Nicholls leg
islature they would receive $8 per day for their *pre-
vious services and forty cents per mile mileage. As
the Packard government was bankrupt and as most
of its legislators were poor negroes, the offer proved
in many cases too strong to be resisted. 3 Some of]
the more important leaders are said to have been bribed
directly with money coming from the Louisiana Lot-
1 For the full Instructions, which were written by Secretary
of State Evarts, see H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 97, 45th Cong. 2d Sess.,
p. 2.
2 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., Ill, p. 28.
3 Ibid, I, pp. 835, 840, 908.
300 The Hayes-Tilden
tery Company. l Other members who refused to be
bribed but who feared for their personal safety in case
they held out resigned, and by the 2ist of April the
Packard legislature had practically ceased to exist. 2
j* Three days later the troops were withdrawn to the post
below the city; Packard_and his remaining supporters
gave up the struggle ; and the authority of the Nicholls
government was everywhere established without blood
shed. 3
The settlement in South Carolina and Louisiana was
not reached without arousing a storm of protest in
the President's own party. Boutwell and Butler of
Massachusetts, W. E. Chandler of New Hampshire,
Blaine of Maine, Wade of Ohio, and others, together
with a considerable portion of the Republican press,
denounced the President's policy in unmeasured terms.
The failure of the Administration to uphold the Re
publican claimants was characterized as a cowardly
and treacherous abandonment of the Republicans of
the South to their bitterest enemies. 4
1 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., Ill, p. 35;
H. R. R. No. 140, 45th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 114; McClure, Our
Presidents and How We Make Them, p. 267.
2 H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 97, 45th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 11; H. R.
Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., I, p. 460 ; III, pp. 10 et seq.
3 For accounts of the whole Louisiana situation see testimony
of Packard, Burke, Ellis, and others in Ibid. The testimony
of Burke and Packard contains many important documents. In
preparing my account I have also used the files of The Nation,
Harper's Weekly, The Times, Herald, etc.
4 See The Nation, XXIV, pp. 154, 216, 242, XXV, p. 117; Har
per's Weekly, XXI, pp. 282, 302, 558; Blaine, Twenty Years of
Congress, II, p. 596 ; John Sherman's Recollections, I, p. 586 ;
Hoar, Autobiography, II, p. 12 ; Congressional Record, 45th Cong,
special sess. of Senate, pp. 16, 20, etc. ; and a pamphlet by W. E.
Chandler, entitled "Can Such Things Be and Overcome Us Like
a Summer Cloud without Our Special Wonder?" The New York
Times was one of the most active newspapers in attacking the
Southern policy.
Disputed Election of 1876 301
Nor was this feeling unnatural ; for, from whatever
point of view the settlements are regarded, they pre
sent some rather extraordinary aspects. In the case
of South Carolina, to be sure, a fairly consistent de
fense could be made. On the face of the returns the
Hayes electors had been chosen while Chamberlain
had not been; the title given Chamberlain by the leg
islature was open to question ; the courts had inclined
to support Hampton's claims; and the Administra
tion's part in the Republican downfall had been con
fined to refusing to decide between the claims of the
two parties and to removing the troops and thereby
allowing the stronger claimant to take possession.
But in Louisiana the situation was more complicated.
Upon the face of the returns Packard had received a
considerably larger vote than several of the Hayes
electors, and his claim had been favorably passed upon
by a legislature containing an alleged quorum of
members declared elected by the same returning board
which had canvassed the returns for the electors. A
possible escape from the conclusion that the claim of
Packard was at least as good as that of Hayes would
be to adopt the theory that since the state constitution
provided that "each House of the General Assembly
shall judge of the qualifications, election, and re
turns of its members," the law conferring upon
the returning board the power to canvass the
votes for members of the Assembly was unconstitu
tional, and that as a result the legislature which had
302 The Hayes-Tilden
declared Packard elected had not been a legal one. 1
Instead, however, of taking the attitude that Pack
ard and he should stand or fall together, the Presi-
f dent had, through a commission sent to Louisiana for
l that purpose, worked to overthrow Packard and his
\ government. 2
But there are other aspects of the case which must
be considered before any final conclusions are drawn.
While the title of Packard may have been fully as
good as that of Hayes, it does not necessarily follow
that because Hayes declined to support Packard in
maintaining his title he thereby acknowledged, as was
claimed by Democrats, the worthlessness of his own.
The conditions surrounding the two were entirely dif
ferent. At Washington Republican administrations
had no difficulty in maintaining themselves ; but in
Louisiana for some years there had been Republican
governments which, while probably representing a ma
jority of the inhabitants, had not represented the in
telligence, the property, and above all the physical and
moral force of the state, and in consequence
had stood only by grace of support afforded by Fed
eral bayonets. Now, the Constitution provides that
the United States shall protect every state, "on appli
cation of the legislature, or of the executive (when
the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic
1 For a fuller statement of this theory see report of the com
mission to the President in H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 97, 45th Cong. 2d
Sess., p. 12.
2 Not only had the President sent the commission but after
Its work was ended, in order to break up the Packard supreme
court, he appointed one of its judges, J. E. King, collector of
New Orleans. — Tribune of April 30th.
Disputed Election of 1876 303
violence ;" but it can hardly be held that the Constitu
tion contemplates a situation of affairs such that pro
tection, actually exercised in the form of military aid,
shall be continuous. Common sense dictates that
there must be an end to such aid sometime. It could
reasonably be claimed that the proper time in Louisi
ana had now been reached. 1
There were yet other considerations which rendered
a policy of non-interference necessary. Even had the
President not been bound by the promises of his
friends, it would have been impossible for him to
uphold the Republican claimants. Public opinion, as
Grant himself had telegraphed 2 to Packard, wouldjia.
longer support the main^enance^^cj^^eLgo^^rtirn^ntg
in Louisiana by military force. The Househad^al-
ready refused to pass an army appropriation bill for
the ensuing year, and would doubtless refuse to do so
as long as there was danger that the troops would be
used in the South. Under the circumstances to have
attempted to maintain Chamberlain and Packard
would have been to court governmental demoralization
and inevitable defeat. 3 Even had he desired to do
otherwise, prudence would therefore have dictated
to the President that he acquiesce with the best grace
possible in what in some respects may be regarded as
a bloodless revolution in the states of Louisiana and
South Carolina.
1 The Nation, XXIV, pp. 172, 244.
2 Under date of March 1. — H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong.
3d Sess., Ill, p. 33.
3 Hoar, II, p. 13.
304 The Disputed Election of 1876
Whatever were the causes which produced it, the
results of the new Southern policy were on the whole
good. It is true that the promises made by the Louis
iana legislature, by Nicholls, and by Hampton were
kept only in part by the white people of the two
states ; but it was something that such promises should
be made, and, after all, the reaction which followed
might have gone much farther. It is also true that
the Republican party practically disappeared in the
South, and as a result the freedman in effect lost his
political rights ; but he preserved his civil rights, and
he lived under a better government than when he him
self had assisted in making and administering the
laws.
Thus ended the story of Reconstruction. It had
been a lurid drama, but one which from the nature of
things may be said to have been inevitable. For on
the one side had stood a class who were disinclined
except under compulsion to concede to all men the
basic rights of human liberty ; while on the other had
been a class who, though staunch advocates of liberty,
were too unmoral, too ignorant, to govern either purely
or efficiently. Many lessons might be drawn from the
period, but the chief is this :
"He who is unwilling to concede liberty to others
deserves it not for himself, and under a just God can
not long retain it."
CHAPTER XIII
THE POTTER COMMITTEE AND THE CIPHER DISPATCHES
It would seem that after so perilous an experience
as that through which the country had just passed
statesmen ought never to have rested until the recur
rence of such a crisis had been guarded against by
the necessary legislation. Numerous proposals for
changes in the electoral system were made in the years
immediately following, but not one of the many bills
and amendments brought forward was incorporated
into the law of the land. Not, in fact, until a decade
later, after two subsequent Presidential elections had
occurred, did Congress pass a bill providing a per
manent plan for counting the electoral vote. l
This bill was signed by President Cleveland on the
3d of February, 1887. In the main it was in accord
with the principles laid down in the decisions of the
Electoral Commission. It provides that a state may
finally determine every contest connected with the
choice of electors, but that such determination must
be made in accordance with a law passed before the
electors are chosen and that the decision must have
been made at least six days before the meeting of the
1 For a synopsis of some of these proposals see Dougherty,
The Electoral Commission, pp. 214, 354.
306 The Hayes-Tilden
electors. l Where such a determination has been
made, it must be accepted; but in cases where there
is a conflict of tribunals that return is to be counted
which the two houses concur in receiving. In no
case is a return to be thrown out except by the con
sent of both houses ; when the two cannot agree, that
return is to be received which is certified by the ex
ecutive of the state. 2
The long delay in remedying the defects in the
electoral machinery was in part due to the fact that
both parties were far more concerned about the polit
ical effects of the great dispute than they were inter
ested in statesmanlike efforts to secure the country
from similar dangers in the future. Revanche in
1880 — that was the goal towards which all Demo
cratic endeavors were directed. With this idea in
mind, although yielding a grudging obedience to "the
de facto President," they were careful not to allow
the methods by which that President had been seated
to drop out of the public's thought for an instant. In
almost every issue of almost every Democratic news
paper there appeared at least one reference to the
"Steal ;" Hayes was a "Usurper," "the Boss Thief ;"
Liberty had been "stabbed by Radical Ruffians;" the
"Death knell of the Republic" had sounded. Nor did
the cry lessen in intensity as the months passed. Even
1 In order to give more time for such determination, the law
provides that the electors shall not meet until the second Mon
day in January.
2 U. S. Statutes at Large, vol. 24, chap. 90, pp. 373 et seq.
Even this law in many respects is unsatisfactory and in some
respects is defective. For a detailed criticism see an article by
Prof. Burgess in The Political Science Quarterly, III, p. 633.
Disputed Election of l8j6 307
after the quieting effects of a trip to Europe, Mr. Til-
den himself proclaimed from the steps of his mansion
at 15 Gramercy Park that he had been deprived of the
Presidency by a "political crime/' which the Ameri
can people would not condone "under any pretext or
for any purpose." 1 This opinion he iterated and re
iterated on all possible occasions. Of all those en
gaged in denouncing Republican wickedness and de
manding the "keen, bright sunlight of publicity" none
was more insistent than Mr. Manton Marble, former
editor of the New York World, author of the famous
"Reform" platform of 1876, and himself one of the
Democratic visitors to Florida. 2
In the hope of securing further evidence for polit
ical use, Mr. Clarkson N. Potter of New York, at the
instance of many leading Democrats, including, it
seems, Mr. Tilden himself,3 introduced in the House
of Representatives on May I3th, 1878, a resolution
calling for the appointment of a committee "to inquire
into the alleged fraudulent canvass and return of votes
at the last Presidential election in the States of Louis
iana and Florida." 4 The Republicans opposed the
resolution on the ground that, by reopening a question
once settled, it would harm the interests of the coun
try; and they quite justly urged that if such an in
vestigation must be undertaken it ought to be gen
eral in its scope and include a probing into the frauds
1 New York Herald, Oct. 28th, 1877.
2 See his letter to the Sun of Aug. 3d, 1878.
3 Charged by Elaine, II, p. 589.
4 As quoted at the beginning of the majority report of the
committee.
308 The Hayes-Tllden
and violence in Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama,
Oregon, and elsewhere. But, despite all their efforts
and also the opposition of a few Democrats, * the res
olution was at length carried; and the committee was
appointed. 2 It consisted of Clarkson N. Potter, Wm.
R. Morrison, Eppa Hunton, Wm. S. Stenger, J. A.
McMahon, J. C. S. Blackburn, and Wm. M. Springer,
Democrats ; of Jacob D. Cox, Thomas Brackett
Reed, and Frank Hiscock, Republicans ; and of Mr.
Benjamin F. Butler, political affiliations at this time
uncertain.
Conditions were not unfavorable for accomplishing
the purpose for which the committee was created. By
the President's policy towards the South many Repub
licans, both white and black, had been rendered his
bitter enemies; others felt injured because, in their
estimation, they had not been properly "rewarded ;"
yet others were anxious to make their peace with the
now dominant party in that section; from among all
these it proved easy to get any number of witnesses
willing, nay, even anxious, to testify in detail to any
amount of Republican rascality, both real and imag
ined. 3
In Florida one of the chief witnesses was Samuel B.
1 The Nation, XXV, p. 333.
2 The debates on the resolutions are given in the Record, 45th
Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 3438 et seq.
3 The Nation, XXVII, p. 217. In their report the Democratic
members of the committee said : "The character of persons en
gaged in conspiracies such as those in question in Florida and
Louisiana requires that their statements, whether in confession
or denial, should be received with suspicion. It was unavoidable,
from the character of those concerned, that the committee
should be exposed to mistake and imposition." — H. R. R. No.
140, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., p. 4. See also p. 3.
Disputed Election of 1876 309
McLin, ex-member of the returning board. This gen
tleman was in exactly the proper frame of mind to
+estify freely. After the inauguration of Hayes he
had been made associate justice of New Mexico ad
interim, but owing to the opposition of Senator Con-
over of Florida had not been confirmed by the Sen
ate; after vainly waiting for some months in the hope
ot receiving another appointment, he had decided that
duty demanded that he should tell the truth about the
election of the President who had "basely betrayed and
mercilessly destroyed the Republican party of the
South." Accordingly he had published an affidavit
in which he said:
"Looking back now to that time, I feel that there
was a combination of influences that must have oper
ated most powerfully in blinding my judgment and
swaying my action I was shown numerous
telegrams addressed to Governor Stearns and others
from the trusted leaders of the Republican party in
the North, insisting that the salvation of the country
depended upon the vote of Florida being cast for
Hayes Following these telegrams trusted
Northern Republicans, party leaders and personal
friends of Mr. Hayes, arrived in Florida as rapidly
as the railroads could bring them. I was surrounded
by these men, who were ardent Republicans, and
especially by friends of Governor Hayes. One gentle
man particularly, Governor Noyes of Ohio, was under
stood to represent him and speak with the authority
of a warm personal friend, commissioned with power
to act in his behalf. These men referred to the gen
eral destruction of the country should Mr. Tilden be
elected ; the intense anxiety of the Republican party of
21
310 The Hayes-Tilden
the North and their full sympathy with us. I can
not say how far my action may have been influenced
by the intense excitement that prevailed around me,
or how far my partisan zeal may have led me into
error — neither can I say how far my course was influ
enced by the promises made by Governor Noyes, that
if Mr. Hayes became President I should be rewarded.
Certainly these influences must have had a strong con
trol over my judgment and action."
In his testimony before the sub-committee which
examined him Mr. McLin elaborated upon the state
ments made in his affidavit. l He stated that certain
of the Republican visitors, and especially Mr. Noyes,
W. E. Chandler, and General Lew Wallace, had as
sured him that if Hayes were elected he (McLin)
would be well "taken care of." He also stated that
since the contest was over an election officer named
Joseph Bowes had confessed to him that at precinct No.
9 in Leon county he had stuffed the box with 74
"little jokers ;" that L. G. Dennis, 2 county chairman
of Alachua county, had boasted that he had secured the
election of Hayes by causing 219 votes to be added to
the returns of one of the precincts ; that he had learned
that in Jefferson county 100 Republican votes had been
added in a similar manner : and that he had heard of
other Republican frauds. From these facts McLin de
duced the conclusion that the electoral votes of Florida
had rightfully belonged to Tilden. Upon cross-ex-
1 For his affidavit see H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong.
3d Sess., II, p. 98. For his testimony, Ibid, and also pp. 116,
137, 150.
2 Dennis received a government position, but later lost it. He
then made a "statement." His evidence bore out McLin's on
the point referred to. He also made other revelations.
Disputed Election of l8j6 311
animation, however, he said that his decision had not
been swayed by offers of position, and admitted that
he had heard of other Democratic frauds. He also
made the interesting statement that while the case
was before the returning board he had been assured
by Mr. Manton Marble that should Tilden be elected
there would be no danger of McLin's dying poor. 1
The Louisiana testimony, many of the facts in which
have already been used in this book, bore on such
subjects as the fraudulent registration in New Or
leans, the "manufacture" of protests and affidavits, the
forgery and subsequent manipulation of the second
set of electoral certificates, the alleged promises made
by "visiting statesmen" to election officers, the Worm-
ley Conference, and the work of the MacVeagh Com
mission. 2
One of the chief witnesses in Louisiana was James
E. Anderson, ex-supervisor of the parish of East
Feliciana. Anderson had expected a reward for his
services and had been appointed consul to Funchal;
but representations regarding his character had been
made to the President by H. V. Boynton, and his
commission had been withheld.3 After several of his
1 McLin admitted in his testimony that Noyes had never
promised him a reward before the contest was decided. — H. R.
Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., II, p. 101. Chandler de
nied having made him any promise. — Ibid, I, p. 468. Wallace
admitted having told McLin he had no doubt Hayes would take
care of his friends. — Ibid, I, p. 514.
2 For a Democratic summary of the Louisiana testimony see
H. R. R. No. 140, 45th Con. 3d Sess., pp. 23-67. References are
given to some of the most important testimony. The Republican
view is given on pp. 84-93.
3 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., I, pp. 381, 384,
394.
312 The Hayes-Til Jen
attempts at blackmail had failed Anderson was ready
to make a confession. * One of his stories was to the
effect that he and E. L. Weber, supervisor of West
Feliciana, had refused to make protests until they had
received definite promises of lucrative offices. He
claimed that a written promise had been given them
by John Sherman, who was now secretary of the
treasury. He was unable, however, to produce the
original letter, and claimed it had been on the person
of Weber when Weber was killed by political enemies,
and had then disappeared. Sherman denied ever hav
ing written such a letter, though he admitted there
were some things in it which he might have written
if he had been asked. 2 There is some reason to be
lieve that it was forged by an eccentric adventuress
named Agnes D. Jenks, whose many examinations
before the committee were productive of much amuse
ment but of very few facts. 3 There was probably
more truth in some of Anderson's other charges, 4
though how much it is impossible to say, for he was a
self-confessed liar and later offered to make a counter-
confession. 5
Much testimony was taken to prove that the affi
davits to acts of violence and intimidation had been
falsely and fraudulently made. More than a dozen
negroes retracted either in whole or in part the affi-
1 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., I, pp. 19, 24.
2 Ibid, pp. 16, 768.
3 Ibid, pp. 318, 357, 389, 422, 519, 554, 560.
4 For Anderson's testimony see Ibid, pp. 1, 38, 64, 72, 161,
583, 926.
5 The Nation, XXVII, p. 264.
Disputed Election of 1876 313
davits signed by them. 1 Doubtless some of these re
tractions were in accordance with the truth, but there
is reason to believe that some of them were the result
of fear or of the expectation of pecuniary reward.
Two witnesses who were expected to retract refused
to do so, and said that they, with other witnesses,
had been carefully watched and coached by a Demo
cratic agent. One of them produced $35 which had
been given him as a part of his reward. The agent
later admitted giving the money, but took refuge in
the pretense of a "loan" and a "set-up job." 2 What
ever may be the truth about this particular matter,
it is certain that all the Democratic efforts did not
suffice to bring to life a single one of the negroes who
had been killed by the "bulldozers."
Even more effective than the testimony which has
been described were lists drawn up by the committee
of persons who had been connected with the canvass
in Louisiana and Florida and who had later received
Federal offices. Of the "visiting statesmen" Noyes
had been made minister to France, Kasson minister
to Austria, Stoughton minister to Russia, Lew Wal
lace governor of New Mexico, Coburn a commis
sioner of Hot Springs, and John Sherman secretary
of the treasury. Of the local politicians in the two
states, ex-Governor Stearns, Dennis, who had been
connected with the Alachua frauds, McLin, Wells,
T. C. Anderson, Kenner, Packard, and almost every
1 For some of this testimony see H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31,
45th Cong. 3d Sess., Ill, pp. 294, 306, 319, 373, 471.
2 Ibid, pp. 342, 345, 365, 370, 374, 385, 394; I, p. 1195.
314 The Hayes-Tilden
person engaged in making protests, getting evidence,
making returns, and counting the votes had received
offices, some of which were very lucrative. 1 There
was no conclusive proof that these appointments were
intended by the President or by any of his cabinet
officers as rewards for questionable services, but the
circumstances certainly lent themselves to that view.
The most charitable construction is, in the words of
Mr. Butler, "that post hoc is not always propter hoc." 2
The revelations resulting from the work of the Pot
ter Committee were spread broadcast over the land
by the Democratic press and gave promise of a boun
tiful political harvest. The Democrats were jubilant;
the Republicans correspondingly depressed. The Re
publican leaders foresaw that unless something could
be done to break the force of the disclosures their
party would meet with overwhelming disaster in the
approaching congressional elections. Furthermore,
the Democrats would in 1880 renominate Tilden, and
would, in truth, "right the Great Wrong." Of
course everything possible was made out of the
unquestionable fact that a great deal of the testimony
was unreliable and that the investigation was ex
tremely partisan and one-sided; but this, it was felt,
was not sufficient. Something more must be done.
1 For these lists see report of the majority in H. R. R. No.
140, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., pp. 22, 48-49.
2 Ibid, p. 100. Some of the less prominent Republicans were
unquestionably guilty of conferring rewards for corrupt prac
tices. The mistakes made by the President in this respect seem
to have resulted in part at least from following bad advice re
garding persons concerning whom he knew little or nothing.
When, as In the case of James E. Anderson, he became con
vinced of a man's dishonesty, he refused to go further.
Disputed Election of 1876 315
An opportunity was long in coming, but come it did
and in unexpected manner.
Back in January, 1877, the Western Union Tele
graph Company had been ordered to deliver to com
mittees of Congress all dispatches transmitted by Re
publican and Democratic leaders during the campaign
and the exciting days which followed it. Of these
dispatches, amounting in all to more than 30,000, many
were in cipher. Out of the dispatches in their pos
session the Senate committee had unearthed the Dem
ocratic conspiracy, already described, to purchase the
vote of a Republican elector in Oregon, — but other
wise the examination had not been searching enough
to discover anything of much importance. 1 After a
time all the dispatches, as was supposed, had been sur
rendered to the company and had been taken back to
New York and burned.
Unknown to the company, however, some of
the telegrams which had been in the hands of the
Senate committee had not been given up. About 750
had been abstracted, and in May, 1878, were in the
possession of Mr. George E. Bullock, who had been
messenger of the committee and protege of its chair
man, Senator Morton. In the month mentioned Bul
lock went as United States consul to Cologne and left
the dispatches in charge of Mr. J. L. Evans, who in
turn gave them to Mr. Thomas J. Brady, second as
sistant postmaster general. Not long afterwards, in
1 For the details of the Investigation by the House commit
tee and the telegrams examined by it see H. R. Mis. Doc. No.
42, 44th Cong. 2d Sess.
316 The Hayes-Til den
ways which it is unnecessary to describe, a portion of
them, either in the original or in the shape of copies,
were put into the possession of the New York Tri
bune. l
That newspaper, then as now hotly Republican, was
on the lookout for anything that gave promise of
helping to bring about the discomfiture of the Dem
ocrats. But as all the important dispatches were in
cipher, their possession for a considerable time resulted
in nothing. Nevertheless, the managers of the paper
proceeded, in the words of Mr. Whitelaw Reid, the
editor, "to play about them for a little while. First,
we threw a few of them out in editorials, trying to
make a little fun out of them, and attract attention
to them in the hope that somebody would turn up who
could decipher them. Nobody came forward, how
ever, and then we attacked them seriously." 2
The problem to which the managers of the Tribune
set themselves was a difficult one in the extreme,
for in sending the telegrams at least six distinct sys
tems of crytography, some of them very complicated,
had been used. At last, however, Colonel William M.
Grosvenor and Mr. John R. G. Hassard, by employing
methods more suggestive of Poe's Gold Bug than of
an event in real life, were able to discover the keys
to all but a few messages. Nor were their results
mere conjectures. So carefully was their work done
and so thoroughly were the keys tested that, save in
4*9",
2 Ibid, p. 111.
Disputed Election of l8jb 317
a few cases, the translations were absolutely exact. 1
And, as the translators had hoped, they found what
they were seeking. Some of the telegrams revealed
on the part of certain prominent Democrats conduct
decidedly inconsistent with the manner in which the
said Democrats had been "lifting up sanctimonious
eyes to heaven and thanking God that they were not as
these wicked Republicans."
The results were given to the world by the Tribune
in a way skilfully calculated to arouse the public in
terest to the utmost. Hints were dropped that revela
tions were coming; then an announcement was made
that the publication of the dispatches was about to
begin. On the 7th of October a detailed account of
how the translations had been made was published.
On the following day the most important dispatches
relating to Democratic negotiations in Florida ap
peared ; eight days later came the yet more sensational
ones relating to the negotiations in South Carolina.
The chief Florida dispatches thus published had
passed between Manton Marble and C. W. Wooley,
Democratic agents who had gone to Tallahassee,2
and Colonel W. T. Pelton, acting secretary of the
Democratic national committee. Colonel Pelton was
Mr. Tilden's nephew and lived with him at the Tilden
residence, No. 15 Gramercy Park, to which place many
of the telegrams were addressed.
1 For the dispatches and translations made by Prof. E. S.
Holden, U. S. Navy, for the Potter Committee, see H. R. Mis.
Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., IV, pp. 325-385.
2 In the dispatches Marble was known as "Moses" and
Wooley as "Fox."
318 The Hayes-Tilden
The following was one of the most significant mes
sages :
"Talla. 2.
"Col. Pelton, No. 15 Gramercy Park, N. Y. :
"Certificate required to Moses decision have London
hour for Bolivia of just and Edinburgh at Moselle
had a any over Glasgow France rec'd Russia of." l
The translation of this dispatch read thus :
"Have just received a Bolivia [proposition] to hand
over at any hour required Russia [Tilden] decision of
London [canvassing board] and certificate of France
[Governor Stearns] for Moselle [two] Glasgow [hun
dred] Edinburgh [thousand]. Moses [Manton Mar
ble]."
To this the following reply was returned :
"Telegram here. Proposition too fyigh ( ?)." 2
On the 3d, the same day on which the reply was
dispatched, Mr. Marble sent to Pelton another prop
osition for "giving vote of Republican of board or his
concurrence in court action preventing electoral vote
from being cast for half-hundred best United States
documents" [$50,000 in U. S. notes]. Mr. Wooley
also asked to be allowed to "give hundred thousand
dollars less half for Tilden additional board member." 3
Pelton replied to Wooley telling him to consult Marble
and act in concert with him ; to Marble he sent a dis
patch which could not be deciphered because four
1 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., IV, p. 176.
2 There was some doubt about the exact translation of this
dispatch. In his testimony, however, Pelton said : "I did send a
dispatch declining the proposition made."— /bid. p. 177.
3 Ibid, p. 179.
Disputed Election of 1 876 319
words had dropped out in transmission. At the re
quest of Marble the message was repeated, this time
correctly. x When translated it stood :
"Telegram here. Proposition accepted if done only
once. Better consult with Wooley and act in concert.
You can trust him. Time very important, and there
should be no divided councils." 2
But the returning board was just finishing its work,
and the delay proved fatal. 3 Marble therefore re
ported that the plan had failed, and added, "Tell Til-
den to saddle Blackstone ;" 4 while Wooley telegraphed,
"Power received too late." 5
Eight days after the publication of the Florida dis
patches the Tribune gave to the public those connected
with the contest in South Carolina. In that state
the chief Democratic negotiator was Smith Mead
Weed, a prominent Tilden Democrat of New York.
The dispatches revealed that on the very day he ar
rived in the state he transmitted two proposals for
bribing the returning board. The last of these Colonel
Pelton approved. 6 Negotiations were conducted for
six days; then Weed transmitted the following:
"Majority of board have been secured. Cost is
80,000, to be sent as follows: One parcel of 65,000
dollars, one of 10,000, and one of 5,000, all to be 500
and i ,000 bills; notes to be delivered as parties accept
1 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., IV, pp. 180,
241.
2 Ibid, pp. 242, 366.
3 Ibid, pp. 180, 352.
4 Ibid, pp. 243, 352.
5 Ibid, p. 351.
6 Ibid, pp. 132-133, 145-146, 181-182.
320 The Hayes-Tilden
and given up upon vote of land of Hampton being
given to Tilden's friends Do this at once and
have cash readv to reach Baltimore Sunday night.
Telegraph decidedly whether this will be done." l
Weed and Hardy Solomon, who was supposed to
represent the returning board, went to Baltimore, and
were met by Colonel Pelton. What took place there
the dispatches do not disclose. We only know with
certainty that Pelton returned to New York accom
panied by Weed, that Solomon also went to New York,
but that in neither place was the deal consummated.
The cause of failure will probably always remain a
matter of some doubt; the Democrats claimed that it
was because Tilden ordered Pelton home, the Repub
licans that it was because the returning board suddenly
concluded its labors in order to evade the supreme
court, or because its members had merely been playing
with the Democrats. 2
Not discouraged, however, Pelton later not only
continued the negotiations already described in Florida
but also entered into a new plot for capturing the
electoral vote of South Carolina. One feature of this
plot, which was a very complicated one, involved
locking up the Republican electors in separate cells
until after the legal day for casting their votes. 3
The publication of the dispatches created a tremen
dous sensation. They were read throughout the coun-
1 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., IV, p. 119.
2 For this matter see
i, 211, 215, 217, 275,
3 Ibid, pp. 378-379.
2 For this matter see Ibid, pp. 116, 117, 124, 139, 145, 156, 186,
209, 211, 215, 217, 275, 284, etc.
Disputed Election of 1876 321
try ; every one marvelled at the ingenuity of the trans
lators. Thousands of people made use of the keys and
tested the accuracy of some of the translations. The
Republicans jubilantly declared that Pelton had been
the agent of Mr. Tilden. The Democrats were at first
incredulous about the truth of the disclosures; some
claimed that the whole matter was a hoax. Then, when
the facts could no longer be denied, some of the party
organs displayed great indignation over the manner
in which the dispatches had been obtained; others
tried to minimize the importance of the revelations.
Mr. Tilden issued a skilfully drawn letter which
appeared to the general public to be a sweeping denial
of any prior knowledge of any of the dispatches or
of the South Carolina negotiations, or of any knowl
edge of the negotiations in1 Florida until some time
after their failure. * Nevertheless, Republicans con
tinued to shake their heads sagely ; while some of Mr.
Tilden's enemies in his own party expressed the opin
ion that even his denial would not save him the renom-
ination in 1880. 2 Mr. Manton Marble also issued a
letter in which he violently denied having sent some of
the least important of the dispatches attributed to him,
or having engaged in any corrupt undertakings. 3
The Republican press mentioned Mr. Marble frequent
ly, along with "moral means" and the "keen, bright
1 New York Herald of Oct. 18th. Mr. Tilden told the truth
so far as he went, but his letter conveyed an erroneous impres
sion. Compare The Nation, XVII, p. 250, with The Nation,
2 See Tribune for Oct. 9th et seq. for many extracts from
other papers, along this line.
3 See The Nation, XVII, p. 250.
322 The Hayes-Tilden
sunlight of publicity." The other important parties
refused to be interviewed.
Needless to say, the Republicans at once began to
demand that the Potter Committee investigate the
whole matter. But the Democratic leaders had no
desire to stir up the unexpected hornet's nest any
further. For some weeks after Congress met the
Democrats of the House avoided the subject with
great care. l But as the clamor increased rather than
diminished, that body on January 21, 1879, reluctantly
directed the committee to institute an inquiry. 2
The committee's first efforts were directed to exam
ining into the manner in which the dispatches had
come into possession of the Tribune and to attempting
to bring to light incriminating Republican dispatches.
With this latter aim in view the committee examined
in Washington some of the telegraph officials and a
number of Republicans, including W. E. Chandler,
ex-Postmaster General Tyner, and Second Assistant
Postmaster General Brady. But aside from dispatches
which had passed between the various Republican
agents in the Southern states and between these agents
and the party managers in the North on such matters
as the chances for success in the various states and the
transmission of money in comparatively small sums for
the payment of legitimate expenses, nothing of impor
tance was brought to light.3 The fact was that the Re-
1 Record, p. 610, speech of Conger of Michigan on Jan. 21.
2 Ibid, pp. 608-612.
3 Some of these dispatches had been explained by W. E.
Chandler and others two years before. — See H. R. Mis. Doc. No,
Disputed Election of 1876 323
publican dispatches remaining in existence were all in
nocuous. If there had ever been any of a different
character — and naturally the Democrats m^de what
they could out of the possibility 1 — they had been de
stroyed and proof of their having existed could not
be found.
After this vain attempt to make counter revela
tions a subcommittee proceeded to New York city.
This committee was composed of Messrs. Hunton,
Stenger, and Springer, Democrats; and of Messrs.
Hiscock and Reed (the later "Czar"), Republicans.
Among the persons examined in New York were
Mr. Weed, Mr. Pelton, Mr. Marble, and Mr. Tilden.
Neither Mr. Weed nor Mr. Pelton attempted to deny
the essential charges made against them by the Tri
bune, but they tried to justify themselves on the
ground that they merely intended to "ransom stolen
goods from thieves." Mr. Marble, having expatiated
so fully upon the exalted manner in which the Dem
ocratic campaign had been conducted, was somewhat
more guarded in his admissions. He acknowledged
certain of the telegrams attributed to him — he could
do no less, for they were in his handwriting — but
42, 44th Cong. 2d Sess. The dispatches were in cipher, but in
such "a feeble and worthless one" that almost anybody could
tell what they meant ; for example, "oranges" was substituted
for Florida, "cotton" for South Carolina, "warm" for favorable,
"cold" for hostile, etc. One object of the dispatches was to keep
the workers in the various disputed states encouraged.
1 It was claimed by Democrats that Mr. Orton, the president
of the Western Union allowed Republicans to remove incriminat
ing dispatches. — Bigelow, II, p. 171. Another story was to the
effect that Orton said the committees did not get all the dis
patches. — McCulloch, Men and Measures of Half a Century, p.
420.
324 The Hayes-Tilden
declared he had sent them merely as "danger signals." 1
His statement on this point was received with peals
of derisive laughter. 2
Two things were especially noteworthy about the
testimony of these witnesses. One was the remarkable
shortness of their memories. They were sure that
some of the dispatches were incorrectly translated, but
were unable to translate them correctly, for they had
both forgotten and lost the keys. Secondlv, they all
strove anxiously to prove the innocence of Mr. Tilden.
While Pelton and Weed admitted having met each
other in Baltimore with the intention of consummating
a deal with Hardy Solomon, supposed agent of the
South Carolina returning board, they claimed that
Pelton had been summoned back to New York by Mr.
Tilden, to whom a knowledge of the affair had been
imparted by Mr. Edward Cooper, treasurer of the
Democratic national committee. Upon this point their
testimony was supported by that of Mr. Cooper. 3
The climax of the investigation was the examination
of Mr. Tilden. 4 On the appointed day the parlor of
the Fifth Avenue Hotel in which the committee's
sessions were held was packed to the utmost with a
crowd anxious to see and hear the distinguished wit
ness who had so narrowly missed occupying the Pres
idential chair. At half-past eleven o'clock Mr. Tilden
1 For Weed's testimony see H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong.
3d Sess., IV, pp. 114-166; for Pelton's pp. 166-221; for Marble's
pp. 221-272.
2 H. R. R. No. 140, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., p. 73.
3 H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th Cong. 3d Sess., IV, pp. 156-157.
4 Tilden asked permission to be heard. However, he doubt
less would have been summoned.
Disputed Election of 1876 325
appeared, in company with his brother Henry and
ex-Secretary of State Bigelow. Mr. Tilden was
dressed in black, and his face wore the solemn, sphinx-
like expression habitual to him. Those who knew
him thought that he had aged greatly since his last
public appearance and that he looked ill and feeble.
"It was, indeed," wrote the Herald's reporter, "quite
a painful spectacle to see the slow, halting, lame walk
with which he passed the table and reached his seat.
His figure was stiffly drawn up and seemed incapable
of bending, as though he were suffering from a par
alytic contraction of the limbs. Not a muscle of his
face relaxed with animation or expression as he stiffly
extended his hand to Mr. Reed of Maine, who received
the salutation with something like a profound bow.
Then Mr. Tilden gave his hand to Mr. Hiscock, the
other cross-examiner, and after saluting the Demo
cratic members took off his elegant, silk-lined overcoat,
stiffly turned round and seated himself at the table,
while settling at the same time a large handkerchief
in his breast pocket."
The examination lasted for two and one-half
hours, but was more remarkable as a contest of
wits than for sensational results. Mr. Tilden was too
old and experienced a lawyer to betray himself into
any admissions (granting he had any to make),
even at the hands of such able and relentless
inquisitors as Mr. Hiscock and Mr. Reed. He fol
lowed the line already laid down by the previous wit
nesses, asserted that he had in no case been privy to
22
326 The Hayes-Tilden
any negotiations such as those described, and declared
that where such negotiations had come to his notice he
had at once put a stop to them. With these denials
he intermingled emphatic expressions of a belief that
he had been cheated out of the Presidency. The only
point upon which the cross-examiners can be said to
have scored was upon his misleading letter of the
previous October. 1
Opinions varied greatly as to the outcome of the
investigations. The Democrats held, of course, that
Tilden had been completely exonerated. They pointed
to the fact that while, as they asserted, the returning
boards could have been bought for sums that would
have been mere bagatelles to Mr. Tilden, not a single
such deal had been consummated ; the boards had given
their decisions to Hayes, and had been rewarded by
offices. 2 The Republicans refused to admit that the
boards had been as purchasable as the Democrats had
believed, 3 and claimed that if the boards had been in
the market, the failure of the attempts to purchase
them had been due to other causes than reluctance of
Mr. Tilden's agents to engage in such transactions. 4
In their efforts to fix a guilty knowledge upon Tilden
they pointed out that he had always taken a close
1 For Tilden's testimony see H. R. Mis. Doc. No. 31, 45th
Cong. 3d Sess., IV, pp. 272-294.
2 See Bigelow, II, pp. 170, 174.
3 They said the boards had merely been drawing the Demo
crats on. Against the Democratic claim that the boards had
been purchased by the Republicans they argued that since the
members were Republicans, they naturally gave their decisions
for that party without reward.
4 Tribune and Times for Feb. 9, 1879, and days immediately
succeeding.
Disputed Election of 1876 327
interest in the details of his campaigns, that one of
the ciphers had been used in his business, that he had
misled the public in regard to the South Carolina nego
tiation, that after he knew of that attempted transac
tion he had not withdrawn his confidence from Pelton
but had left him in such a position that he was able
to make similar attempts in South Carolina once more
and also in Florida and perhaps elsewhere. 1 In the
absence of irrefragable proof on either side, the ver
dict of history will have to be that of "Not proven."
At present the weight of opinion seems to be that at
the worst he was not directly cognizant of the at
tempted bribery. He may have been entirely guiltless,
but it is difficult to escape from the feeling that he was
to a certain extent responsible.
But, while the measure of Mr. Tilden's participation
remained a matter of doubt, the political effect of the
cipher disclosures was enormous. The fact that the
Democratic candidate had not been able to clear him
self from suspicion militated against his chances as a
candidate in 1880, and was doubtless one reason why
the Democratic convention of that year accepted his
"renunciation" without protest. 2 Even to those who
believed him innocent it had been proved beyond the
possibility of doubt that prominent Democrats, who
were his close friends and one of whom was his nephew
1 Mr. Tilden also continued on the best of terms with Mr.
Marble and Mr. Weed. As late as Mr. Cleveland's first adminis
tration he attempted, but without success, to secure the ap
pointment of Weed as collector of the port of New York.
2 The Nation thought his renunciation freed the party of a
heavy load.— XXX, p. 463,
328 The Disputed Election of l8jd
had been guilty of attempting to purchase the Presi
dency for him; and it was pertinently asked whether,
taking his own statement, a man so easily hoodwinked
by those around him would prove any more successful
as a "Reformer" than Grant had been. And while the
revelations did not remove from the skirts of the Re
publican party the mud that was attached to them they
did open the eyes of independents to the fact that the
skirts of Dame Democracy were not a whit cleaner.
Unquestionably the publication of the dispatches had
some influence upon the congressional election which
came in the month following their appearance. When
the Tribune's statement of the case was substantiated
by the admissions made in the following February
before the Potter Committee, the "Great Steal," which
had promised so much for the Democracy, at once
ceased to be a living political issue. When the cam
paign of 1880 came, despite the fact that the Demo
cratic platform declared that issue to precede and
dwarf every other, the orators of the party were
utterly unable to interest the people in the subject. 1
The cry of "fraud" had lost its effectiveness; and
Garfield, one of the members of the Electoral Commis
sion, was triumphantly elected over Hancock.
1 Stanwood, History of Presidential Elections, p. 372.
CHAPTER XIV
LEGAL ASPECTS AND THE EQUITIES
Well-nigh thirty years have passed since the begin
ning of the electoral controversy which it has been
the purpose of this volume to describe. All the chief
candidates, most of the party managers, all but two of
the members of the Commission, are dead. The vast
majority of living Americans have no personal remem
brance of the great dispute. The rights and wrongs
of the controversy no longer play a part in politics.
It would seem, therefore, that the time has come when
the investigator may hope to frame a judgment on the
whole matter that will be free from prejudice.
As regards the election proper, it is manifest to any
candid mind that many regrettable things were done
by both parties. In the states of South Carolina and
Louisiana, for example, the white people had by a
long period of terrible misgovernment been brought
to such a pitch of desperation that they felt inclined
to use any means which would put their governments
once more into the hands of the intelligent and the
reputable. Having been forced to accept negro suf
frage sorely against their will, they naturally had little
compunction in attempting to eliminate as much of the
/\
330 The Hayes-Tilden
black vote as possible. In general this work was ac
complished by methods which, considering the exas
peration of the whites, were comparatively mild, but
which in exceptional instances resulted in outrages
horrible almost beyond belief. In Florida, also, while
the amount of corruption in the government had not
been great, the whites were almost equally eager to
carry the election. In Louisiana, and perhaps in
Florida, by methods which have been described in
detail in previous chapters, the Democrats succeeded
in their attempts to get a majority of votes into the
ballot-boxes. In South Carolina they failed so far as
the national ticket was concerned but succeeded on the
state ticket. Had there been a free election in these
states, there is every reason to believe that all would
have returned substantial majorities for Hayes. Here,
then, not to speak too euphemistically, was what may
be denominated "the first steal."
But in these states there were laws intended to
meet such emergencies as those just described. If
these laws had been properly applied, but little could
justly have, been said against such a procedure; for
assuredly there is nothing sacred about returns of
votes when the election in which such votes were cast
has been affected by violence and fraud. But, in
Louisiana at least, the law was so imperfect that if it
had been followed to the letter by the returning board
the majority rolled up by the Democrats would prob
ably not have been overcome. The returning officers,
however, were no sticklers for the letter of the law.
Disputed Election of 1876 331
By and with the counsel of Republican "visiting states
men" they proceeded in the most irregular manner
not only to throw out enough votes to secure the
election of the state and national tickets, which
would have been elected with a fair and free vote, but
also to manufacture majorities for congressional, leg
islative, and other candidates, who would have been
defeated under any circumstances. Reputable men in
the Republican party no doubt condoned such action
because their opponents were guilty of wrong prac
tices and because they deemed it necessary to fight the
devil with fire. 1 Herein they are to be condemned ;
for wrong should not be met by wrong but by
recourse to law, and free institutions are in grave
danger when citizens, however good their inten
tions, endeavor to correct one wrong » by another.
From the mere selfish point of view it may safely be
said that had the Republican party acquiesced in the
result, upon discovering that the law strictly applied
would not correct the wrongs committed by their op
ponents in the disputed states, they would not have
suffered in the end. But the temptation was too great
to be resisted. The situation was such that the lead
ers saw an opportunity to obtain, by violating the law,
a result that would be in a certain sense legal ; hence
ensued in Louisiana and perhaps in Florida what may
be designated as "the second steal," as a result of which
1 Conversely the Democrats condoned bulldozing and kindred
practices because of Republican misgovernment and because of
previous frauds by returning officers.
332 The Hayes-Tilden
the electoral votes of the two states remained in the
hands of the Republicans.
The situation after the electoral colleges had met
then amounted to this : In Louisiana and perhaps in
Florida there had been a ''double steal," as a result of
which the regularly declared electors of those states
had cast their votes for Hayes. To render matters yet
more complicated there had been attempted "steals"
in two other states. In South Carolina the attempt
had failed so far as the national ticket was concerned,
but the attempt had been productive of much disorder
and many irregularities, so that a claim could be made
that the vote of the state should not be received at all.
In Oregon also a most bare-faced attempt had been
made to override the law with such a result as greatly
to complicate the situation.
The controversy now entered the halls of Congress.
Had the outcome not hinged upon every one of the
points in dispute, Congress would doubtless have
evaded the difficulties of the situation as they had
evaded like difficulties in the past, either by throwing
out the votes of the states or perhaps by counting them
in the alternative. But if all the votes were not counted
and counted for the Republicans, then the choice of a
President would be thrown into the Democratic Hous_e.
Had the Republicans been the original offenders in the
states in dispute then unquestionably it would have
been equitable to throw out some or all of the votes
and secure this result. But with some justice the
Republicans could say: With a fair election these
Disputed Election of 1876 333
states would have cast their votes for Hayes, and it is
not right that Tilden should reap the reward, even
indirectly, of Democratic wrong-doing. To have
thrown out the votes of states under such circum
stances would have established a precedent which
might have led to dangerous temptation in the future.
The whole controversy therefore resolved itself intQ
the question of who should count the electoral votes.
Extreme Republicans said that the president of the
Senate should do the counting; extreme Democrats
said that the House must participate, and that no vote
should be counted against its consent; moderates on
both sides said that the votes must be counted by both
houses. Clearly the moderates were right. It was
not reasonable that a partisan president of the Senate
should decide the dispute ; nor was it reasonable that
a partisan House should be allowed to reject votes
when by so doing it would be able to elect the candi
date of its choice. Granted, however, that to both
houses belonged the coveted power, the way was still
beset with difficulties. How should they count? What
should be done in case of a deadlock between the two ?
Evidently some arrangement must be made which >
would obviate the difficulties. The result was the
Electoral Commission.
Without a shadow of doubt the act creating that
Commission was one of the wisest pieces of statecraft
ever evolved by an American Congress. To be sure,
the result of the Commission's work was a disappoint
ment to one party ; but any settlement of the dispute
334 The Hayes-Tilden
would have been productive of equal disappointment
and might have been attended with far more lamenta
ble consequences. The situation was, in fact, emi
nently one for compromise. Unlike the slavery issue,
it was comparatively unimportant, save to a hundred
thousand office-holders and to five hundred thousand
office-seekers, which party was victorious ; compromise
evaded no all-important questions which the future
would have to solve. To have resorted to anything
else than compromise would have been wicked and
criminal to the last degree. To the men therefore who
worked for compromise, to President Grant, to Mr.
McCrary, to Senators Edmunds, Thurman, and Bay
ard, to Mr. Hewitt and Mr. Hoar, is due the highest
praise. In this praise neither Mr. Hayes nor Mr.
Tilden has any right to share ; for Mr. Hayes favored
the declaration of the result by the president of the
Senate, while Mr. Tilden was wedded to the theory
that the House could throw out votes, and was always
resentful towards Senators Thurman and Bayard and
the other Democratic leaders who were instrumental in
helping create the Commission. So far as the two
parties as a whole are concerned, the plan adopted was
favored by more Democrats than Republicans. This
in part was due to the fact that the Democrats real
ized that tactically they were at a disadvantage ; while
the Republicans, confident of the strength of their
position, were unwilling, in the words of Morton, to
give to their "political opponents advantages and
chances which thev now have not."
Disputed Election of 1876 335
The question whether the Electoral Commission
Act was warranted by the Constitution is interesting
but not important. Most of the best constitutional
lawyers in both houses of Congress defended the
bill; it was passed by Congress by large majorities;
it was signed by the President; and a majority of the
judges of the supreme court consented to sit on the
Commission created by it. To all practical intents
and purposes, therefore, it was constitutional. And,
without going further into the question, it may be
remarked in passing that the Constitution has suffered
many severer wrenches than it did when the forty-
fourth Congress decided that under the "general
clause" the expression "and the votes shall then be
counted" conferred power to create an Electoral Com
mission.
The chief criticisms that have been made of the
Commission and its work are : i . That the Com
mission behaved in a thoroughly partisan manner. 2.
That some of the members allowed their partisanship
to betray them into taking positions inconsistent with
their formerly declared opinions. 3. That the Com
mission did wrong in refusing to go behind the counts
of the returning boards for the purpose of taking
evidence and overthrowing fraud. 4. That the deci
sions of the Commission in the various cases were
inconsistent with each other. 1
As regards the first and second charges there can
1 E. g., John Goode in American Law Review, XXXVIII, pp.
174-76, and Gibson, pp. 39-48. The ignorance of constitutional
law displayed by Gibson is something lamentable.
336 The Hayes-Tilden
be no difference of opinion. The Commission did
divide upon party lines ; upon every important question
the vote was invariably eight to seven. Some of the
members did assume positions at variance with their
previous records. Senators Thurman and Bayard and
Mr. Abbott had in the past advocated the theory that
Congress has no power to go behind the decisions of
state authorities, but now took the stand that Congress
has that power. On the Republican side, Senator Mor
ton and Mr. Garfield had attacked the Commission bill
on the ground that it might be interpreted as conferring
power to go behind the returns ; l while Mr. Edmunds
and Mr. Hoar by previous utterances regarding the
Louisiana returning board had placed themselves in a
position somewhat at variance with the deference now
paid by them to that body's decisions. 2 Lastly, the
stand of some of the Republicans in advocating the
rejection of doubtful votes at previous counts is rather
difficult to reconcile with their insistence in this case
that all doubtful votes should be counted. 3
K-hJ* y\
The charge that the Commission did wrong in re
fusing to take evidence to show that returning officers
had fraudulently declared the result, is by no means
so well sustained. The taking of such evidence would
have been open to at least two serious objections. In
the first place, the taking of evidence on these points
1 But they did not «ay that the Commission would have such
power.
2 Technically they were perhaps not Inconsistent. In his crit
icism of Edmunds, Gibson fails to state that Edmunds was re
ferring to a returning board qreated by a former law.
3 The chief Republican inconsistency in the course of th«
struggle was in Congress, not in the Commission.
Disputed Election of l8j6 337
»
would have entailed an amount of labor so great that
months of time would necessarily have been consumed ;
for, as the Republicans correctly urged, such an inves
tigation must have extended not only to the acts of
the returning officers but also to the election itself
and to the intimidation and outrages which had pre
ceded it. In the second place, the Republicans un
questionably stood upon a sound constitutional princi
ple when they contended that Congress does not pos
sess the power to go behind the action of state can
vassing officers. That they took this stand was, how
ever, due rather to accident than to any anxiety on
their part to safeguard the rights of the states. x
The charges that the Commission was inconsistent
in its rulings are in part an outgrowth of a misappre
hension of the principle upon which the rulings were
based. For this misapprehension the reports of the
Commission to Congress are in part responsible ; they
are so roughly drawn as to make rulings appear incon
sistent which really are not at all so. Had the reports
been drawn in such a way as to reveal all the grounds
of the decisions, some of the criticisms of the Commis
sion could not have been made with any show of
reason. As it was, those who read the decisions were
likely to get the idea that the Commission claimed to
take the stand that evidence aliunde the papers opened
by the president of the Senate could not be received,
1 It is open to question, however, whether the Commission
might not properly have received some of the evidence tendered
to prove that the returning boards had not correctly represented
the states.
33 8 The Hayes-Tilden
whereas the Commission really followed the line of
cleavage between state and Federal powers.
Starting with the erroneous premise just mentioned,
Democratic writers have asserted that the Commission
was guilty of a glaring inconsistency in its rulings in
the Florida case. They point triumphantly to the fact
that the Commission refused "to go into evidence
aliunde the papers opened by the president of the
Senate in the presence of the two houses" to prove
that other than the Republican claimants were ap
pointed electors, and then did go into evidence aliunde
to prove that one of the electors was not ineligible. 1
These critics fail to see that the Commission did not
lay down the principle that it was not competent to
take "evidence aliunde the papers opened by the pres
ident of the Senate" upon any and all points ; that, on
the contrary, it merely held that it was not competent
to take such evidence upon one single point, namely,
"to prove that other persons than those regularly certi
fied to by the governor of the state of Florida, in and
according to the determination and declaration of their
appointment by the board of state canvassers of said
state prior to the time required for the performance
of their duties, had been appointed electors/' 2 This
decision was a sound one, for it was based on the
theory that the Commission had no right to trench
upon the sphere of state powers. But the examination
1 According to Senator Hoar, four of the Democratic members
of the Commission believed that the Republicans stood on solid
constitutional ground. — McClure's, XXIII, p. 84.
2 The italics are mine.
Disputed Election of 1876 339
into the eligibility of the elector was an entirely differ
ent matter; this examination could be entered into
because the question of his ineligibility was one which
lay within the sphere of Federal powers. Hence the
two rulings were not at all inconsistent.
Again it has been said that because the Commission
received evidence regarding the eligibility of the
Florida elector, refused it in the case of electors in
Louisiana, and received it in the case of Watts in
Oregon, here was another inconsistency. But the
seeming inconsistency is easily explained. Humphreys
in Florida was alleged to be ineligible under a Federal
statute. Four of the Louisiana electors were alleged
to be ineligible under a state statute; while the objec
tions against the eligibility of the other two related
to the time of the election in November, not to the
time of their re-appointment on the 6th day of De
cember. Watts was alleged to be ineligible under the
Federal statute. Clearly, therefore, the Commission
was competent to investigate the case of Humphreys
and the case of Watts but was not competent to inves
tigate the cases of the four Louisiana electors who
were alleged to be ineligible under a state statute ;
while as for Brewster and Levissee, since the objec
tions did not relate to the time of the appointment
under which they acted, the Commission did not need
to make an investigation.
Yet again it has been claimed that the Commission
refused to go behind the governor's certificate in
Louisiana and Florida but went behind it in Oregon.
34° The Hayes-Tilden
This claim completely misrepresents the truth of the
matter. In no case did the Commission hold that the
governor's certificate was conclusive ; on the contrary,
the Republican counsel and the Republican Commis
sioners held throughout that while the governor's
certificate was prima facie evidence, his action, having
been performed under a Federal statute, was subject
to review.
At the same time it must be said that in their action
in some phases of the Oregon case the Republican
eight probably sailed closer to the wind than on any
other occasion. If, however, we accept their interpre
tation of the nature of the" Oregon canvass and their
interpretation of the nature of an appointment — in
terpretations as capable of defense as any — we can
reconcile their rulings even in this case.
But even though the Commission's decisions were
based upon sound law, were they, it will be asked, in
accordance with the equities of the case ? The answer
to this question must always remain more or less a
matter of opinion, yet it is probable that as time
goes on the consensus of opinion will more and more
incline one way. It is entirely clear that in only two
of the four disputed states — namely, Florida and
Louisiana — did the Democrats have the shadow of an
equitable claim to a single electoral vote. Had there
been a fair and free election in those states, there can
be little if any doubt that the result in both would
have been favorable to Hayes. If there had been a
fair and free election throughout the South, there can
Disputed Election of 1876 341
£\
be little question that Mississippi, with its great
preponderance of blacks, and perhaps Alabama and
North Carolina, would have ranged themselves in
the Republican column, and that the much vaunted
Democratic majority of the popular vote — which,
after all, stood for absolutely nothing — would have
been overcome.
Something can be said in behalf of the ingenious
theory that it was not unjust that the Republicans
should retain control of the national government,
whereas the Democrats should get control of the con
tested Southern states. The arguments in behalf of
intimidation rested on the evils of negro rule. It
could therefore be urged that while there was some
justification for preventing a negro from voting for
a Republican candidate for state office, there was no
such justification for suppressing his vote for Repub
lican electors.
All things considered, it appears that both legally1
and ethically the decision was the proper one. That
a majority of the American people thought so
is shown pretty conclusively by the result of the next
Presidential election. Had they believed otherwise,
they would doubtless have resented the "Great Fraud"
in a manner not to be mistaken. But they realized
that the cries of the Democrats were but another illus-
1 Against the argument that the negroes ought not to have
voted nothing further need be said than that their right to do so
was guaranteed by "the law of the land." Furthermore, it should
not be forgotten that the negro population of the South grave
that section an added representation of about thirty-three in
the Electoral colleges.
23
342 The Hayes-Til den
tration of the pot calling the kettle black. They knew
that while Hayes was undoubtedly the beneficiary of
fraud, Tilden would just as truly have been the bene
ficiary of violence and murder. They decided that the
situation was one of those rare ones in which two
wrongs go to make a right; and, therefore, in 1880
they elected to the Presidency a member of the Elec
toral Commission.
But, while the outcome of the great controversy was
in the main a just one, the contest was unquestionably
attended by many deplorable incidents. No true pa
triot can contemplate without regret the terrible out
rages upon the blacks, the frauds committed by elec
tion officers, the violence of party feeling, the ques
tionable conduct of leaders on both sides, the attempts
to purchase returning boards and electors, the bargain
between the friends of Hayes and certain Southern
leaders, the prostitution of the civil service in reward
ing some of the most disreputable of the Southern Re
publicans, the partisanship,. displayed by the members
of the Commission, and many other phases of the
struggle. In fact, it seemed as if the whole cesspool
of political filth had been suddenly and vigorously
stirred and that it had given off its most noxious va
pors. Unfortunately, however, it may well be doubted
whether, after all, the election of 1876 was much more
productive of corrupt actions than some other elections
both -before and since. More of such actions came to
light, but probably because the searchlight was turned
on as in no other contest.
Disputed Election of 1876 343
-'-Yet there were other aspects which revealed in the
American people characteristics that are beyond praise.
A bitter contest which might have resulted in a conflict
that would have leveled the foundations of the Republic
had been settled without a resort to arms. A great
party had gone down to what most of its members
believed was a foul defeat. But the result had been
acquiesced in for the good of the country ; and though
the enmities engendered by the controversy were to
linger long in American public life, they were finally
to disappear without leaving any appreciable scar
upon the body-politic.
APPENDIX
THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION ACT
An act to provide for and regulate the counting of votes for
President and Vice-President, and the decision of questions
arising thereon, for the term commencing March 4, A. D. 1877.
Be it enacted, etc., That the Senate and House of Representa
tives shall meet In the Hall of the House of Representatives at
the hour of one o'clock, post meridian, on the first Thursday in
February, A. D. 1877, and the President of the Senate shall be
their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed
on the part of the Senate, and two on the part of the House of
Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened
by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers
purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certifi
cates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in
the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A;
and said tellers having then read the same in the presence and
hearing of the two houses, shall make a list of the votes as they
shall appear from the said certificates ; and the votes having been
ascertained and counted as in this act provided, the result of
the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who
shall thereupon announce the state of the vote and the names
of the persons, if any, elected, which announcement shall be
deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons elected President
and Vice-President of the United States, and, together with a
list of the votes, shall be entered upon the journals of the two
houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate, or paper,
when there shall be only one return from a State, the President
of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection
shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely,
and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed
by at least one Senator and one member of the House of Rep
resentatives, before the same shall be received. When all ob
jections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have
346 Appendix
been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw,
and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its
decision, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall
in like manner submit such objections to the House of Repre
sentatives for its decision, and no electoral vote or votes from
any State from which but one return has been received shall
be rejected except by the affirmative vote of the two houses.
When the two houses have voted they shall immediately again
meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision
of the question submitted.
SEC. 2. That if more than one return or paper, purporting
to be a return from a State, shall have been received by the
President of the Senate, purporting to be the certificates of the
electoral votes given at the last preceding election for President
and Vice-President in such State, unless they shall be duplicates
of the same return, all such returns and papers shall be opened
by him in the presence of the two houses when met as afore*
said, and read by the tellers ; and all such returns and papers
shall thereupon be submitted to the judgment and decision, as
to which is the true and lawful electoral vote of such State,
of a commission constituted as follows, namely:
During the session of each house on the Tuesday next pre
ceding the first Thursday in February, A. D. 1877, each house
shall by viva voce vote appoint five of its members, who, with
the five associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United
States, to be ascertained as hereinafter provided, shall consti
tute a commission for the decision of all questions upon or in
respect of such double returns named in this section. On the
Tuesday next preceding the first Thursday in February, A. D.
1877, or as soon thereafter as may be, the associate justices
of the Supreme Court of the United States, now assigned to the
first, third, eighth, and ninth circuits, shall select, in such man
ner as a majority of them shall deem fit, another of the asso
ciate justices of said court, which five persons shall be mem
bers of said commission ; and the person longest in com
mission of said five justices shall be the president of said com
mission. Members of said commission shall respectively take
and subscribe the following oath : —
"I , do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the
case may be) that I will impartially examine and consider all
questions submitted to the commission of which I am a mem
ber, and a true judgment give thereon, agreeably to the Consti
tution and the laws, so help me God."
Appendix 347
Which oath shall be filed with the secretary of the Senate.
When the commission shall have been thus organized it shall not
be in the power of either house to dissolve the same, or to
withdraw any of its members; but if any such Senator or mem
ber shall die, or become physically unable to perform the duties
required by this act, the fact of such death or physical inability
shall be by said commission, before it shall proceed further, com
municated to the Senate or House of Representatives, as the case
may be, which body shall immediately and without debate pro
ceed by viva voce vote to fill the place so vacated, and the per
son so appointed shall take and subscribe the oath hereinbefore
prescribed, and become a member of said commission ; and, in
like manner, if any of said justices of the Supreme Court shall
die or become physically incapable of performing the duties re
quired by this act, the other of said justices, members of the said
commission, shall immediately appoint another justice of said
court a member of said commission (and in such appointments
regard shall be had to the impartiality and freedom from bias
sought by the original appointments to said commission), who
shall thereupon immediately take and subscribe to the oath here
inbefore prescribed, and become a member of said commission
to fill the vacancy so occasioned.
All the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates
of the electoral votes of each State shall be opened in the alpha
betical order of the States as provided in section 1 of this act;
and when there shall be more than one such certificate or paper,
as the certificate and papers from such States shall so be opened
(excepting duplicates of the same return), they shall be read
by the tellers, and thereupon the president of the Senate shall
call for objections if any. Every objection shall be made in
writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argu
ment, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one
Senator and one member of the House of Representatives before
the same shall be received. When all such objections so made
to any certificate, vote, or paper from a State shall have been
received and read, all such certificates, votes, and papers so
objected to, and all papers accompanying the same, together
with such objections, shall be forthwith submitted to said com
mission, which shall proceed to consider the same, with the
same powers, if any, now possessed for that purpose by the two
houses, acting separately or together, and, by a majority of
votes, decide whether any and what votes from such State are
the votes provided for by the Constitution of the United States,
348 Appendix
and how many and what persons were duly appointed electors
in such State ; and may therein take into view such petitions,
depositions, and other papers, if any, as shall, by the Consti
tution and now existing law, be competent and pertinent in
such consideration, which decision shall be made in writing,
stating briefly the ground thereof, and signed by the members
of said commission agreeing therein ; whereupon the two houses
shall again meet, and such decision shall be read and entered
in the journal of each house, and the counting of the votes
shall proceed in conformity therewith, unless, upon objection
made thereto in writing by at least five Senators and five mem
bers of the House of Representatives, the two houses shall
separately concur in ordering otherwise, in which case such con
current order shall govern. No votes or papers from any other
State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made
to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally
disposed of.
SEC. 3. That while the two houses shall be in meeting,
as provided in this act, no debate shall be allowed, and no
question shall be put by the presiding officer, except to either
house on a motion to withdraw, and he shall have power to
preserve order.
SEC. 4. That when the two houses separate to decide upon
an objection that may have been made to the counting of any
electoral vote or votes from any State, or upon objection to a
report of said commission, or other question arising under this
act, each Senator and Representative may speak to such objec
tion or question ten minutes, and not oftener than once ; but,
after such debate shall have lasted two hours, it shall be the
duty of each house to put the main question without further
debate.
SEC. 5. That at such joint meeting of the two houses
seats shall be provided as follows : For the President of the
Senate, the Speaker's chair ; for the Speaker, immediately upon
his left ; for the Senators in the body of the hall, upon the right
of the presiding officer; for the Representatives, in the body of
the hall not provided for the Senators ; for the tellers, Secretary
of the Senate, and clerk of the House of Representatives, at the
Clerk's desk ; for the other officers of the two houses, in front
of the Clerk's desk, and upon each side of the Speaker's plat
form. Such joint meeting shall not be dissolved until the count
of the electoral votes shall be completed and the result declared ;
and no recess shall be taken unless a question shall have arisen
Appendix 349
in regard to counting any such votes or otherwise under this
act, in which case it shall be competent for either house, acting
separately in the manner hereinbefore provided, to direct a re
cess of such house, not beyond the next day, Sunday excepted,
at the hour of ten o'clock in the forenoon ; and while any ques
tion is being considered by said commission, either house may
proceed with its legislative or other business.
SEC. 6. That nothing in this act shall be held to impair
or affect any right now existing under the Constitution and laws
to question by proceeding in the judicial courts of the United
States the right or title of the person who shall be declared
elected, or who shall claim to be President or Vice-President of
the United States, if any such right exists.
SEC. 7. That said commission shall make its own rules, keep
a record of its proceedings, and shall have power to employ such
persons as may be necessary for the transaction of its busi
ness and the execution of its powers.
INDEX
ABBEVILLE, political rally at, 136.
Abbott, Josiah G., a member of
the Commission, 220 ; men
tioned, 336.
Abbott, Mr., nominates Joel
Parker, 33.
Adams, Charles Francis, Sr., at
tends Fifth Avenue Confer
ence, 15 ; favors Bristow, 17 ;
supports Tilden, 38.
Adams, Dock, complaint made
against, 131.
Address of Fifth Avenue Con
ference, 17.
Affidavit "mills," in Louisiana,
104.
Aiken, D. W., makes a violent
harangue to Democrats, 136 ;
violent utterances at Abbe
ville, 137.
Alabama, suppression of votes
in, 76 ; Senate orders an in
vestigation of election in, 174.
Alachua county, alleged frauds
in, 73, 310.
Allen, William, defeated by
Hayes, 15 ; supported by Ohio
Democrats for Presidential
nomination, 27 ; name present
ed to the convention, 33 ; vote
for, 34-35.
American Nationals, convention
of, 39.
Anderson, James E., confession
of, 311-312.
Anderson, Thomas C., member
Louisiana returning board,
98 ; takes Louisiana returns
to Washington, 115; convicted
of falsifying a return, 116 ;
released, 117 ; mentioned, 171.
Andersonvllle, horrors of harped
upon by Republicans, 40.
Antoine, C. C., nominated for
lieutenant-governor of Louis
iana, 87 ; declared elected, 294.
Archer Precinct No. 2, alleged
frauds at, 73.
Arkansas, question of counting
electoral votes of in 1873,
181-183.
Artillery companies, formed by
South Carolina Democrats,
136.
BABCOCK, Orville E., prosecu
tion of, 4.
Baker county, situation in, 68 ;
mentioned, 74.
Banks, General Nathaniel P.,
quoted, 144.
Barlow, Francis C., a witness
of the Florida count, 67 ; opin
ion regarding result in Flor
ida, 75.
Barnwell, frauds in, 150.
Bartholomew, Linn, nominates
Hartranft, 21.
Bayard, Thomas F., candidate
for Presidential nomination,
26 ; supporters of, 27 ; name
presented to convention, 33 ;
vote for, 34-35; appointed a
member of a Senate commit
tee, 193; thinks judges will
not be affected by party feel
ing, 202 ; speaks in behalf of
the Electoral Commission bill,
213 ; a member of the Com
mission, 220; mentioned, 225;
votes with Republicans on
Humphreys case, 236 ; speech
on Louisiana decision, 245;
credit due, 334 ; Inconsistency
of, 336.
352
INDEX
Beaufort, intimidation in, 145.
Beebe, George M., stands on a
desk in the House of Repre
sentatives, 277.
Bigelow, John, partisan view of
the Pinkerton case, 108 ; com
piles debates on electoral
counts, 199.
Black, Jeremiah S., damns the
Commission, 264.
Blackburn, Joseph C., an irre
concilable, 257 ; delivers swan-
song of the filibusters, 280.
Elaine, James G., candidate for
Presidential nomination, 11 ;
prospects of, 12, 13 ; illness of,
18 ; believes Bristow instigates
attacks on him, 19; name pre
sented in convention, 22 ; vote
for, 22-25 ; mentioned, 40.
Blair, Montgomery, works for
Tilden's nomination, 31;
speech on the South Carolina
case, 264.
Bloxham vs. Board of State Can
vassers, 66.
Bond, Judge Hugh L., releases
members of South Carolina
canvassing board, 154.
Booth, Newton, declines nomin
ation by Greenbackers, 39.
Boutwell, George S., speech on
the Louisiana decision, 245.
Boynton, H. V., induces Presi
dent not to commission J. E.
Anderson, 311.
Bradley, Joseph P., selected as
the fifth judge, 221; votes
against going behind the re
turns, 234 ; denounced by
Democrats, 234, 259.
Brady, T. J., a custodian of the
cipher dispatches, 315; exam
ined by Potter Committee, 322.
Brannan, Gen. John M., admit
ted to sessions of Florida re
turning board, 65.
Brewster, O. H., Louisiana elec
tor, objected to as ineligible,
114, 240; mentioned, 339.
Bristow, Benjamin H., candidate
for Presidential nomination,
11; by whom supported, 14;
destroyer of the Whiskey
Ring, 14 ; favored by Fifth
Avenue Conference, 17 ; sup
porters of at Cincinnati, 17 ;
calls on Blaine, 19 ; name pre
sented to the convention, 21 ;
votes received by, 22-25; men
tioned, 38.
Brooks, Alexander, Democratic
theory that he killed Pinkston,
107.
Brown, B. Gratz, candidate for
Vice-President, 2.
Brown, John Young, deprecates
violence, 176 ; receives letters
from Foster, 271 ; gives cop
ies to other persons, 272 ; pub
lishes, 298.
Brown, Joseph E., a "visiting
statesman" in Florida, ft4.
Bryant, William Cullen, signs
call for conference of inde
pendents, 15.
Buchanan, James, government
expeditures under, 4.
Buchanan, James, not in charge
at Washington, 171.
Bullock, Alexander H., signs
call for conference of inde
pendents, 15.
Bullock, George E., custodian of
the cipher dispatches, 315.
Burke, E. A., attends Wormley
Conference, 269; receives cop
ies of certain letters, 272.
Burnell, Henry, testifies concern
ing political outrages in Oua-
chita, 105.
Butler, Benjamin F., a dispen
ser of patronage, 5, 7 ; a mem
ber of the Potter Committee,
308.
Butler, M. C., demands that
Hamburg militia company
shall give up their arms, 131 ;
receives copies of the Foster
letters, 272.
CAINHOY, political riot at, 145.
Cameron, Simon, a dispenser of
patronage, 5, 7.
Campbellton Precinct, thrown
out by returning board, 71.
Canal Ring, overthrown by Til-
den, 29.
Canal Ring, mentioned, 41.
Cardoza, F. L., attempt to se
cure removal of, 127 ; renom-
inated, 135.
Carpenter, Judge, decision re
garding claims of Chamber
lain and Hampton, 292.
Cartwright, J. C., chosen elector
in Oregon, 162 ; election of
certified by Grover, 163 ; helps
INDEX
353
to organize electoral college,
164 ; votes for Hayes, 165.
Cary, Edward, writes editorial
in New York Times, 47.
Cary, Samuel F., runs for Vice-
President on Greenback ticket,
39.
Casanave, Gadane, member
Louisiana returning board, 98.
Centennial Exposition, 1.
Chamberlain, Daniel H., receives
telegram from W. E. Chand
ler, 51 ; career of, 126 ; inau
gurated governor, 127 ; refuses
to commission Whipper and
Moses, 128 ; is favored by Co-
operationists, 129; why op
posed by many Democrats,
130 ; attitude on Hamburg
massacre, 132 ; renominated,
135; describes Democratic
campaign methods, 136 ; order
ed rifle clubs to disperse, 143 ;
appoints election officers, 148 ;
declared elected, 291 ; attempts
to pardon a prisoner, 292 ;
receives a letter from Mat
thews, 295 ; goes to Washing
ton, 296; gives up the con
test, 297 ; title of, 301.
Chandler, William E., at Fifth
Avenue Hotel, 50-51; sends
telegrams to doubtful states,
51 ; goes to Florida, 54 ; ar
rives there, 64 ; attacks Pres
ident's Southern policy, 300 ;
alleged promises of, 310 ; ex
amined by Potter Committee,
322.
Chandler, Zachariah, manages
Republican campaign, 42 ;
sought by Mr. Reid, 50 ;
claims election of Hayes, 52',
mentioned, 173 ; replies to
Hewitt, 189.
Charleston, riot in, 141 ; intimi
dation in, 145; repeating in,
147.
Christiancy, Isaac P., speaks in
behalf of Electoral Commis
sion bill, 213.
Cipher dispatches, chapter on,
305.
Clarke, H. C., privy to forgery
of signatures to Louisiana
electoral certificates, 116.
Cleveland, Grover, signs an
electoral count bill, 305.
Clews Banking Company scan
dal, harped on by Democrats,
39.
Clifford, Nathan, mentioned, 198,
202 ; to be a member of the
Electoral Commission, 203 ;
meets with other judicial
members, 221 ; president of
the Commission, 224 ; votes
with Republicans on question
of Humphreys, 236.
Clymer, Hiester, nominates
Hancock, 33 ; a leader of the
filibusters, 258 ; denounces
Bradley, 260.
Cocke, William A., member Flor
ida returning board, 64 ; opin
ion concerning the board's
powers, 66 ; concurs in action
regarding Baker county, 70;
protests against exclusion of
Jasper Precinct No. 2, 71 ;
changes opinion regarding
precinct in Key West, 71 ; op
poses rejection of precincts in
Jackson county, 72 ; certifies
return made by Democratic
claimants in Florida, 77.
Coker, Simon P., murdered, 142.
Conkling, Roscoe, a dispenser of
patronage, 5, 7 ; candidate for
Presidential nomination, 11 ;
quarrel with Blaine, 12; sup
ported by the Administration,
13 ; name presented to con
vention, 21 ; votes received by,
23-25; opinion upon power of
Congress to go behind returns,
182 ; appointed a member of a
Senate committee, 193; agrees
to work for passage of the
Electoral Commission bill,
210 ; speaks in its behalf, 212 ;
why not chosen a member of
the Commission, 221.
Conover, S. B., receives telegram
from W. E. Chandler, 51.
Convention, Republican at Cin
cinnati, 17 et seq.; Democra
tic at St. Louis, 30 et seq; of
Prohibitionists, 38 ; of Green-
backers, 39 ; of American Na
tionals, 39 ; of Louisiana Re
publicans, 88; of Louisiana
Democrats, 88 ; of South Car
olina Republicans, 128, 135;
of South Carolina Democrats,
133.
354
INDEX
Cook, James, killed at Hamburg,
Cooper, Edward, corroborates
testimony of Pelton and oth
ers, 324.
Cooper, Peter, nominated by
Greenbackers, 39 ; burlesque
certificate from Louisiana cer
tifies that electoral votes of
that state are cast for, 239.
Co-operationists, favor support
ing- Chamberlain in 1876, 129 ;
defeated in Democratic con
vention, 133.
Corse, Gen. J. M., in movement
to seat Tilden by force, 188;
to be commander-in-chief, 194.
Cowgill, Clayton A., member
Florida returning board, 64.
Cox, Jacob D., a member of the
Potter Committee, 309.
Cox, M. J., part of in canvassing
votes of Baker county, 69.
Cox, S. S., speech of on the
Louisiana decision, 247; an Ir
reconcilable, 257.
Coyle, John F., a Democratic
visitor in Florida, 65.
Crapo, William W., speech on
Louisiana decision, 249.
Credit Mobilier, 3 ; harped on
by Democrats, 39.
Creoles, form large part of pop
ulation of Louisiana, 81.
Cronin, E. A., Oregon Democrats
claim election of, 159 ; election
of certified by Grover, 163 ;
receives certificate from tha
secretary of state, 164 ; ap
points Miller an "elector,"
votes for Tilden, and carries
the returns to Washington,
165; mentioned, 167; Commis
sion votes that his certificate
does not contain the vote of
Oregon, 255; denounced by
Republicans, 256.
Cumback, Will, withdraws Mor
ton's name, 24.
Curtis, George W., seconds nom
ination of Brlstow, 21 ; speech
of on Forefather's Day, 193.
Custer, Gen. George A., killed
by Indians, 1.
Courier, Evansville, declares
Tilden will be inaugurated,
DANA, Richard H., seconds nom
ination of Bristow, 21.
Davis, Judge David, receives
electoral votes in 1872, 2 •
mentioned, 198 ; discussion
concerning his politics, 200 •
mentioned, 202, 209 ; expected
that he would be a member
of the Commission, 218; elec
ted U. S. Senator, 219 ; refuses
to sit on the Commission, 221 ;
mentioned by Woodworth, 260
Davis, Edmund J., moves
amendment to Republican
platform, 20.
Democratic Veteran Soldiers'
Association, 188.
Dennis, J. B., excludes Demo
cratic claimants from South
Carolina legislature, 288.
Dennis, L. G., confessions of,
310.
Dennison, William, at Wormley
conference, 269.
Dinkgrave, J. H., murder of
109.
Dix, John A., defeated by Til
den, 29.
Doolittle, James R., a "visiting
statesman" in Louisiana, 95.
Dorman, John, assists Cox in
canvassing votes of Baker
county, 69.
Dorsheimer, William, works for
Tilden's nomination, 31.
Downs, D. L., objection to re
ceiving his vote as an elector,
279.
Drew, George F., Democratic
candidate for governor of
Florida, admitted to sessions
of Florida returning board,
65; petitions for a manda
mus, 77 ; votes received by,
78 ; inaugurated, 79.
Driggers, Elisha W., notifies
clerk of Baker county can
vass, 68 ; canvasses the vote
of that county, 69.
Driver, Randall, whipped, 109.
Dunn, T. C., put on Republican
ticket in South Carolina, 135.
Durell, Judge E. H., issues "mid
night restraining order," 86.
Duval county, irregularities in
return from, 74.
INDEX
355
EAST BATON ROUGE, a "select
ed" parish, 90 ; vote in, 118 ;
mentioned, 120 ; supervisors
throw out polls in, 113.
Easterlin's Mill, Democratic
club at adopts resolutions
against having business deal
ings with Republicans, 139.
East Feliciana, a "selected" par
ish, 90 ; violence in, 110 ; vote
of thrown out, 113 ; vote of,
118 ; mentioned, 120.
Eaton, Dorman B., attends Fifth
Avenue Conference, 15.
Edgefleld, frauds in, 148 ; pro
tests against, 150 ; thrown out
by returning board, 153 ;
ought to have been excluded,
156.
Edmunds, George F., suggests a
commission for counting the
electoral vote, 186 ; introduces
a resolution looking toward
compromise, 192 ; proposes a
committee of thirteen, 198 ;
does not consider Davis an
Independent, 201 ; reads draft
of a report to accompany the
Electoral Commission bill,
203 ; makes a speech in behalf
of the bill, 210; a member of
the Commission, 220 ; men
tioned, 225; mentioned, 334;
question of his consistency,
336.
Ellerton, race conflict in, 142.
Ellis, E. J., attends Wormley
Conference, 269 ; receives cop
ies of certain letters from
Brown, 272.
Elliott, R. B., put on Republi
can ticket in South Carolina,
135.
Emma Mine scandal, harped on
by the Democrats, 39.
Evarts, William M., counsel
before the Commission, 226;
indorses letter to Chamber
lain, 295.
Ewing, Thomas, signs minority
report at St. Louis, 33.
Express, the New York, makes
incendiary utterances, 169.
FERRY, Thomas W., allows An
derson to take back Louisiana
certificate, 115; mentioned,
173, 208 ; would declare Hayes
elected, 177 ; rumor that Sher
man would support him, 187;
will "shirk no responsibility,"
194; calls joint session to or
der, 223 ; action on the bogus
Vermont return, 274-275 ; an
nounces the final result, 282.
Field, D. D., elected to Congress
to represent Tilden, 191 ; coun
sel before Commission, 225;
an objector in the Florida
case, 226 ; submits an objec
tion in joint-session to count
ing the votes from Florida,
237 ; bill to regulate the suc
cession to the Presidency, 273.
Field, Judge Stephen J., men
tioned, 198 ; to be a member
of the Electoral Commission,
203 ; meets with other judi
cial members, 221.
Fifteenth Amendment, never
really accepted by the South,
58.
Fifth Avenue Conference, 16;
members of generally support
Hayes, 38.
Florida, rumors of intimidation
in, 44; chapter on, 57; inves
tigating committees sent to,
173, 174 ; case of before Con
gress and the Commission,
223-238; mentioned, 175, 307,
308, 309, 310, 330, 332, 338,
339.
Foord, John, present at Times
editorial council, 47.
Foster, Charles, outlines Hayes's
Southern policy, 268 ; gives
letters to Brown, 271-272.
Frazier, Willis, whipped, 109.
Frelinghuysen, Frederick T.,
name presented for Vice-Pres
idential nomination, 25 ; sug
gests plans for counting the
electoral votes, 186 ; appoint
ed a member of a senate com
mittee, 192 ; speaks in behalf
of Electoral Commission bill,
212 ; a member of the Com
mission, 220.
Friendship Church Precinct,
thrown out by returning
board, 71.
Frye, W. P., member of a con
gressional investigating com
mittee, 99.
356
INDEX
GARFIELD, James A., a "visiting
statesman" in Louisiana, 95 ;
speaks against Electoral Com
mission bill, 206 ; a member
of the Commission, 220 ; at
Wormley Conference, 269 ;
elected President, 328; men
tioned, 336.
Georgia, Senate orders investi
gation of election in, 174 ;
electoral votes of counted in
the alternative in 1869, 181.
Georgians, vote in South Caro
lina, 146.
Gibson, A. M., absurd view of
the Pinkston case, 108.
Gibson, Randall, presenjts an
objection against counting the
votes of Louisiana, 244.
Cleaves, R. H., presides over
South Carolina Senate, 288;
declared re-elected, 291.
Godwin, Parke, attends Fifth
Avenue Conference, 16 ; sup
ports Tilden, 38.
Gordon, John B., thinks Tilden
is certain of victory, 209 ; at
a secret conference, 269.
Grant, Gen. U. S., re-elected
President, 2 ; government ex
penditures under, 4 ; misgov-
ernment under, 5-6 ; praised in
Republican platform, 2 1 ;
writes to Gen. Harry White
concerning third term, 11; or
der to General Sherman, 55 ;
mentioned, 171, 208 ; reported
that he would declare him
self dictator, 172 ; Democrats
wish to impeach, 175; rumor
that he intended to imprison
Democrats, 187 ; anxious for
a compromise, 191 ; approves
Electoral Commission bill,
220 ; promises to preserve the
status quo in Louisiana, 271,
278; course of during the
crisis, 284 ; causes Hayes to
be secretly sworn in, 286-287;
credit due to, 334.
Grant parish, vote of thrown
out, 113.
Greeley, Horace, candidate for
President, 2.
Greenbackers, see Independent
Nationals.
Grosvenor, William M., deciph
ers cipher dispatches, 316.
Grover, L. F., governor of Ore
gon, 158 ; receives a telegram
from Hewitt, 159; issues a
certificate to Cronin, 163 ;
burned in effigy, 166 ; men
tioned, 254; denounced, 256.
Gwin, William M., works for
Tilden's nomination, 31.
HALE, Eugene, a "visiting states
man" in Louisiana, 95.
Hamburg Massacre, 131.
Hamilton county, action of re
turning board on, 70.
Hampton, Wade, nominated for
governor of South Carolina,
133 ; declared elected, 291 ; at
tempts to pardon a prisoner,
292 ; payment of taxes to, 293 ;
goes to Washington, 296 ; re
ceives the executive office,
297 ; mentioned, 304.
Hancock, Gen. Winfield S., talk
ed of for Presidential nomin
ation, 26 ; supporters of, 27 ;
name presented to convention,
33 ; vote for, 34-35 ; rumor
that he was to be transferred
to the west, 187.
Harlan, Gen. John M., nomin
ates Bristow, 21 ; member of
the MacVeagh Commission,
298.
Hartranft, John F., candidate
for Presidential nomination,
12 ; supporters of, 15 ; name
presented in convention, 21 ;
votes received by, 22-25.
Hassard, John R. G., deciphers
cipher dispatches, 316.
Hawley, Joseph R., name pre
sented for Vice-Presidential
nomination, 25 ; member of
MacVeagh Commission, 298.
Hayes, Rutherford B., candidate
for Presidential nomination,
15 ; name presented in con
vention, 21; votes received by,
23-25 ; nominated, 25 ; how
nomination of was received,
36 ; his letter of acceptance,
37 ; Florida electors cast their
votes for, 76 ; entitled to votes
of Florida, 76 ; vote for elec
tors supporting in Louisiana,
94 ; Louisiana electors vote
for, 114 ; has a majority in
South Carolina, 151, 152; elec-
INDEX
357
tors in South Carolina vote
for, 155; Oregon electors vote
for, 165 ; mentioned, 172 ; ex
pects to be inaugurated, 189 ;
mentioned, 208 ; opposed to
Electoral Commission bill, 210 ;
votes of Florida counted for,
238 ; votes of Louisiana count
ed for, 249 ; votes of Oregon
counted for, 257; attempts of
Democrats to exact pledge
from his friends, 268 ; his
friends guarantee that he will
allow the Republican state
governments in the South to
fall, 270; declared elected,
282 ; reaches Washington,
286 ; secretly sworn in, 287 ;
summons Hampton and Cham
berlain to Washington, 297 ;
sends a commission to Louis
iana, 298; Southern policy at
tacked, 300 ; wisdom of this
policy, 302, 304 ; called a us
urper, 306 ; policy of alienates
Southern Republicans, 308 ;
mentioned, 334, 342.
Hendricks, Thomas A., receives
electoral votes in 1872, 2 ; can
didate for Presidential nomin
ation, 26, 27 ; name presented
to convention, 33 ; vote for,
34-35; nominated for Vice-
President, 35 ; mentioned, 41 ;
returns indicate election of,
45 ; Democratic electors in
Florida vote for, 77 ; Democra
tic electors in Louisiana vote
for, 116 ; Cronin votes for,
165.
Herald, the New York. j?ives ad
vice to Democrats, 7 ; harps
upon "Caesarism," 10 ; gives
advice to Democrats, 169 ; de
plores pronunciamentos, 189 ;
quoted, 325.
Hewitt, Abram S., refuses to
purchase Louisiana returning
board, 111 ; sends telegram
to Oregon, 159; announces
election of Tilden, 189 ; has
an interview with Grant, 191 ;
appointed a member of a
House committee, 193 ; con
sults Tilden, 199 ; proposes a
plan, 203 ; delighted with Elec
toral Commission bill, 204 ;
controversy with Hoar, 259 ;
presents the bogus Vermont
24
return, 274; votes against
Knott's resolution, 278 ; men
tioned, 334.
Higginson, Thomas W., attends
Fifth Avenue Conference, 16.
Hill, Benjamin, refers to Demo
crats "invincible in peace and
invisible in war," 176 ; says
the South is for peace, 206.
Hill, Elias, whipped by Ku
Klux, 125.
Hiscock, Frank, a member of
the Potter Committee, 308 ;
mentioned, 324; cross-exam
ines Tilden, 325.
Hoar, George F., member of a
Congressional investigating
committee, 99 ; appointed a
member of a House committee,
193 ; suggests plan for a com
mission, 202 ; quoted, 204 ; a
member of the Commission,
220; controversy with Hewitt,
259 ; credit due to, 334 ; con
sistency of, 336.
Hopkins, Mark, attends Fifth
Avenue Conference, 15.
Household English Dictionary,
employed in sending cipher
dispatches to and from Ore
gon, 160 ; mentioned, 161.
Howard, William A., speaks for
Hayes at Cincinnati, 23.
Howe, Timothy O., describes in
timidation in Louisiana, 241.
Humphreys, F. C., objected to as
ineligible to be chosen an elec
tor, 224 ; had resigned posi
tion before the election, 229;
evidence taken regarding his
eligibility, 235 ; three Demo
crats vote that he was eligi
ble, 236 ; mentioned, 339.
Hunton, Eppa, appointed a mem
ber of a House committee,
193 ; mentioned, 203 ; speaks
in behalf of Electoral Com
mission bill, 205 ; a member
of the Commission, 220.
Hurd, Frank H., an objector in
the case of Florida, 262.
Hurlbut, Stephen A., speaks
against Electoral Commission
bill, 206.
353
INDEX
INDEPENDENT Nationals, conven
tion of, 38-39.
Indiana, goes Democratic, 42 ;
objections to receiving elector
al vote of in 1817, 179.
Indianapolis, Democratic meet
ing at, 195.
Ingersoll, Col. Robert G., nom
inates Elaine, 22.
JACKSON county, returning
board throws out precincts in,
71.
Jasper Precinct No. 2, thrown
out by returning board, 70.
Jefferson county, alleged irreg
ularities in conduct of the
election in, 74.
Jenks, Agnes D., may have writ
ten the Sherman letter, 312.
Jewell, Marshall, candidate for
Presidential nomination, 12 ;
name presented to the conven
tion, 21; votes received by, 25.
Jewett, D. J. M. A., issues in
structions to supervisors of
registration, 92.
Jillson, J. K., unable to make a
speech because of Democratic
interruptions, 138.
Johnson, Primus, murdered, 105.
Jones, A. O., excludes Democra
tic claimants from South Car
olina legislature, 288.
Journal, The Indianapolis, ad
mits Republican defeat, 45 ;
announces a change in the
outlook, 52.
Julian, George W., speech of on
8th of January, 195.
KASSON, John A., a "visiting
statesman" in Florida, 64 ; an
objector in the Florida case,
227.
Kelley, John, opposes Tilden at
Utica, 29 ; at St. Louis, 30, 34.
Kellogg, Stephen W., nominates
Jewell, 21.
Kellogg, William P., inaugurat
ed governor of Louisiana, 86 ;
takes refuge in custom-house,
87 ; appoints registration of
ficers, 92 ; privy to forgery of
signatures to electoral certi
ficate, 116 ; informs Morton
that one of the Louisiana cer
tificates is irregular, 242 ;
causes troops to occupy the
Louisiana state House, 294.
Kenner, Louis M., member Lou
isiana returning board, 98.
Kernan, Francis, works for Til-
den's nomination, 30 ; nomin
ates Tilden, 33.
Kent, Chancellor James, quoted
by Morton, 211.
Kerr, Michael, death of mention
ed, 173.
Key West, returning board ex
cludes precinct in, 71.
Kirkpatrick, Donald, nominated
by American Nationals for
Vice-President, 39.
Knights of the Golden Circle,
being revived in the Middle
West, 188.
Knott, J. Proctor, chairman of
House judiciary committee,
191 ; reports McCrary's reso-
• lution, 192 ; resolution of con
cerning the bogus Vermont re
turns, 276, 278.
Ku Klux, intimidate negroes in
Louisiana, 85 ; in South Car
olina, 124.
LAFAYETTE, supervisors throw
out polls in, 113.
La Fourche, sxipervisors throw
out returns in, 113.
Landry, intimidation in, 85.
Lane, Lafayette, a leader of the
filibusters, 258.
Laurens, frauds in, 150; thrown
out by returning board, 153 ;
ought to have been excluded,
156.
Le Moyne, J. V,, not satisfied
with the Democratic manage
ment, 259.
Leon county, alleged frauds in,
73.
Levisse, A. B., vote of objected
to, 114, 240; mentioned, 339.
Levy, W. M., attends Wormley
Conference, 269 ; advises Dem
ocrats to allow the count to
be completed, 277.
Liberal Republicans, nominate
Greeley, 2 ; reforms denied by,
3 ; tend to drift back into Re
publican party, 10; declare
for Hayes, 38.
Lincoln, Abraham, re-elected in
1864, 2.
INDEX
359
Lodge, Henry C., attends Fifth
Avenue Conference, 16.
Logan, John A., appointed a
member of a Senate commit
tee, 192 ; defeated for re-elec
tion, 218.
Logwood, Eaton, testifies con
cerning political outrages in
Ouachita, 105.
Lord, Scott, introduces resolu
tion condemning intimidation,
42, 43.
Louisiana, rumors from, 44 ;
chapter on election in, 81 ; in
vestigating committees sent to,
173-174 ; mentioned, 175 ; elec
toral votes of counted in 1869,
181; excluded in 1873, 181-
183 ; dual government in, 196 ;
case of before Congress and
the Commission, 238-249; set
tlement in, 294-295, 297-302;
mentioned, 329, 330, 332, 339,
340.
Lowell, James R., rumor that he
would vote for Tilden, 173.
McCLERNAND, General John C.,
permanent chairman Democra
tic national convention, 31.
McCormick, Cyrus, spoken of for
Vice-Presidential nomination,
35.
McCrary, George W., introduces
a resolution looking to a
compromise, 190; appointed a
member of a House committee,
193 ; introduces a resolution
197 ; speaks in behalf of Elec
toral Commission bill, 215 ;
an objector in the Florida
case, 227 ; credit due to, 334.
McEnery, inaugurated "govern
or" of Louisiana but is unable
to maintain his position, 86 ;
certifies returns sent in by
Democratic "electors," 238.
Mackay, Robert W., accused of
tampering with convention
lighting equipment, 22.
Mackey, E. W. M., elected speak
er by Republican legislature,
288 ; court declares he is not
speaker of the House, 291.
McLin, Samuel B., member of
Florida returning board, 64 ;
confession of, 308-311.
25
McMahon, John A., admits that
the Democrats are without
hope, 246.
McPherson, Edward, permanent
chairman of Republican con
vention, 20.
MacVeagh, Wayne, a member of
the Louisiana Commission,
298.
Maddox, Joseph H., enters into
an alliance with Pickett, 111.
Manatee county, thrown out by
returning board, 72.
Marble, Manton, a Democratic
visitor to Florida, 65 ; de
nounces Republican wicked
ness, 307 ; statement to Mc
Lin, 311 ; connection with ci
pher dispatches, 317-319, 321,
323.
Matthews, Stanley, counsel be
fore the Commission, 226 ; ar
gument in Florida case, 231 ;
at Wormley Conference, 269 ;
gives certain assurances re
garding the policy of Grant,
271; writes to Chamberlain,
295.
Maxey, Samuel B., denounces
Louisiana decision, 245.
Meacham, Robert, attempt to
assassinate, 59.
Merchants' Exchange, Democra
tic national convention meets
in, 31.
Michigan, vote of thrown to
Hayes, 23; objections to re
ceiving electoral votes of in
1837, 179; in 1877, 250.
Miller, J. N. T., created an "elec
tor" by Cronin, 164, 165.
Miller, Judge Samuel F., men
tioned, 198, 202 ; to be a mem
ber of the Electoral Commis
sion, 203.
Mills, Roger Q., introduces a res
olution that the House shall
proceed to elect a President,
280.
Mississippi plan, employed in
Florida, 58 ; employed in
South Carolina, 136 ; mention
ed, 211.
Mississippi, suppression of ne
gro vote in, 76; Mississippi
Senate orders investigation of
election in, 174 ; would have
gone Republican in a free elec
tion, 341.
360
INDEX
Missouri, objections made to re
ceiving electoral votes of in
1821, 179.
Moncure vs. Dubuclet, in case of
Louisiana supreme court holds
that decisions of returning
board are not subject to re
view, 117.
Monroe, negroes gather in to
vote, 110.
Morehouse, a "selected" parish,
90 ; vote of, 118 ; mentioned,
120.
Morrisey, John, works for Til-
den's nomination, 30.
Morrison, William R., spoken of
for Vice-Presidential nomina
tion, 35.
Morton, Oliver P., a dispenser of
patronage, 5, 7 ; candidate for
Presidential nomination, 11 ;
supporters of, 13 ; attacked by
New York World, 14 ; follow
ing at Cincinnati, 18 ; name
presented to convention, 21 ;
votes received by, 22-25;
brings in report upon Louis
iana election of 1872, 182 ; at
tempts to change method of
electing the President, 184-
185 ; moves that Twenty-Sec
ond Joint Rule shall not be re-
adopted, 186 ; appointed a
member of a committee, 192 ;
refuses to sign report accom
panying Electoral Commission
bill, 204 ; opposes the bill in
the Senate, 211-214; accused
by Conkling of trying to pro
voke a deadlock, 212 ; a mem
ber of the Commission, 220;
mentioned, 225 ; moves that
votes contained in No. 1 of
the Louisiana certificates be
counted, 242 ; would have
been made President if count
had not been completed, 273 ;
mentioned, 336.
Moses, F. J., elected governor
of South Carolina, 126 ; elec
ted circuit judge, 128; chief
justice of South Carolina, 149 ;
illness of, 292.
NATION, The, comments on Bris-
tow's supporters, 17; com
ments of on Republican plat
form, 37 ; opinion of South
Carolina Democratic platform,
134 ; suggests that a Repub
lican elector vote for Tilden,
173.
Nevada, objection to vote of an
elector of, 250.
New England Society, dinner of
on Forefather's Day, 193.
New, Jeptha D., speech on
Louisiana decision, 246.
New Orleans, society of, 81 ;
riots of 1855 in, 82; massacre
of 1866, 84; registration in,
93 ; a goal of "visiting states
men," 95 ; assistant supervis
ors throw out polls in, 113.
News and Courier, the Charles
ton, commends Chamberlain,
128 ; endeavors to induce Dem
ocrats to support Chamber
lain ; says Democrats can car
ry the state only by armed
force, 130 ; resolution in con
cerning employment of Repub
licans, 139.
Nicholls, F. T., nominated for
governor of Louisiana, 87 ;
promises fair treatment for
negroes, 271 ; declared elected,
294 ; transmits resolutions to
MacVeagh Commission, 299 ;
mentioned, 304.
Norris, Tilda, pardoned, 292.
North Carolina, goes from
Hayes to Blaine, 24.
North Carolinians, vote in South
Carolina, 146.
Northrup, Milton H., quoted, 200.
Noyes, E. F., a "visiting states
man" in Florida, 64 ; alleged
promises made by him, 309-
310.
O'BRIEN, William J., an irrecon
cilable, 257, 274.
"October States," results of elec
tion in, 42.
Odell, W. H., receives a major
ity of votes for elector in Ore
gon, 162 ; election certified by
Grover, 163; helps to organize
the electoral college, 164 ;
votes for Hayes, 165.
Ohio, Republican majority in at
October election, 42.
Oregon, chapter on contest in,
157; mentioned, 171; Senate
committee instructed to inves
tigate election in, 174 ; men-
INDEX
36i
tioned, 175 ; case of before
Congress and the Commission,
250-261; mentioned, 332, 339,
340.
Ottendorfer, Oswald, a "visiting
statesman" in Louisiana, 95.
Ouachita, a "selected" parish,
90; outrages in, 104-110; vote
in, 118: mentioned, 120.
PACKARD, S. B., receives tele
gram from W. E. Chandler,
51 ; nominated for governor of
Louisiana, 87; returning board
gives him a majority, 114 ;
declared elected, 294 ; gives up
the contest, 300 ; title of, 301-
302.
Palmer, John M., spoken of for
Vice-Presidential nomination,
35; a "visiting statesman" in
Louisiana, 95.
Panic of 1873, 3.
Parker, Joel, name presented to
Democratic convention, 33 ;
vote for, 34-35.
Patrick, J. N. H., takes a dic
tionary to Oregon, 160 ; sends
cipher telegram to Pelton,
161 ; money furnished him,
162.
Patterson, John J., a dispenser
of patronage, 5, 7 ; defeated by
Chamberlain in contest for
position as delegate to Cin
cinnati, 129.
Payne, Henry B., appointed a
member of a House Commit
tee, 193 ; announces that
House Committee will not
agree to six- justices plan, 200 ;
refuses to accept Davis as a
Democrat, 202 ; a member of
the Commission, 220.
Pelton, W. T., sends telegrams
to Oregon, 159; receives tele
gram from Patrick, 161 ; men
tioned, 191 ; connection with
the cipher dispatches, 317-323.
Pendl,eton, George H., defeated
by Hayes, 15.
Piatt, Don., counsels assassina
tion of Hayes, 284.
Pickett, John T., offers vote of
Louisiana returning board to
Democrats, 111.
Pierce, Edward L., moves
amendment to Republican
platform, 20.
Pierce, Henry L., wishes to
throw out the Louisiana re
turn, 248.
Pinkston, Eliza, testimony of,
105.
Pinkston, Henry, murdered, 106 ;
was a Radical, 107.
Plaquemine, frauds in, 82.
Platt vs. Goode, 67.
Poppleton, Early F., inquires
whether any other returns
have been received from Ver
mont, 274 ; resolution intro
duced by, 276.
Post Trader frauds, mentioned,
39.
Potter, Clarkson N., calls for a
Congressional inquiry, 307 ;
chairman of the investigating
committee, 308.
Potter Committee, chapter on,
o 05.
Presidential Counts, compiled
and published, 199.
Prohibition Reform Party, con
vention of, 38.
QUAY, Matthew S., rooms with
R. S. Mackay, 22.
RANDALL, Samuel J., a "visiting
statesman" in Louisiana, 95 ;
elected Speaker, 173 ; mention-
tioned, 191 ; announces mem
bers of a House committee,
193 ; stand against the Force
Bill, 258 ; firmness of, 276,
277 ; mentioned, 281.
Ransom, M. W., appointed a
member of a Senate commit
tee, 193.
Redfleld, H. V., explains the pur
poses of the South Carolina
Democrats, 139.
Reed, Thomas B., a member of
the Potter Committee, 308 ;
mentioned, 324; cross-exam
ines Tilden, 325.
Reid, John C., erroneous state
ment concerning, 46 ; at Fifth
Avenue Hotel, 49-51.
Reid, Whitelaw, testimony of re
garding cipher dispatches, 316.
Resumption Act, passed, 6 ; at
titude of Republican conven
tion toward, 20; opposition of
certain Democrats to, 33.
362
INDEX
Richardson's School House Pre
cinct, alleged frauds at, 73.
Richmond, Democratic conven
tion at, 195.
Rhodes, Merrimon, killed by a
rifle club, 109.
Rifle clubs, activity of in Louis
iana, 90 ; outrages by in Oua-
chita, 105, 107 ; picket ap
proaches to Monroe, 110 ; ac
tive in South Carolina, 136 ;
ordered to disperse, 143.
Rivers, Prince, complaint made
before against members of a
militia company, 131 ; mal
treated by mob, 132.
Robbins Precinct, Republican
frauds at, 147 ; thrown out by
returning board, 150.
Robinson, Governor Lucius, in
augural address of contains an
argument written by Tilden,
194.
Ruger, General T. H., comman
der of troops in South Caro
lina, 289.
SABRE CLUBS, formed by South
Carolina Democrats, 136.
St. Patrick's Hall, Democratic
legislature of Louisiana meet
In, 294.
Salary Grab, 3 ; harped on by
the Democrats, 39.
Sanborn Contract, 3.
Sargent, Aaron A., introduces
resolution to elect a new pres
ident of the Senate, 272.
Schell, Augustus, chairman Dem
ocratic national committee,
calls convention to order, 31.
Schurz, Carl, signs call for a
conference of independents,
15; writes the Address of the
Conference, 16.
Scott, R. K., elected governor of
South Carolina, 126; Cham
berlain refuses to commission
as Judge, 128.
Scott, William L., supports Til-
den, 30.
Seelye, Prof. Julius H., attends
Fifth Avenue Conference, 16 ;
opposes counting the votes of
Louisiana, 248.
"Sewing machine circulars" sent
out in New Orleans in effort
to detect illegal registration,
93.
Sheridan, General Philip, char
acterizes Wells as a dishonest
man, 98 ; rumor that he would
be used to bulldoze New York.
187.
Sherman, John, a "visiting
statesman" in Louisiana, 95 ;
moves an investigation Into
election of 1872 in Louisiana
and Arkansas, 181 ; rumor
that he would supplant Ferry,
187 ; defends the Louisiana
decision, 245 ; at Wormley
Conference, 269 ; alleged to
have given a written promise
of reward, 312.
Sherman, Gen. W. T., is directed
to hold troops in readiness to
quell disturbances, 43.
Simpson, William D., declared
elected, 291.
Smith, Avery, supports Tilden,
30.
Smith, Green Clay, nominated
for president by the Prohi
bitionists, 38.
Smith, John, burlesque certifi
cate from Florida signed by,
238.
Solomon, Hardy, alleged agent
of South Carolina returning
board, 320, 324.
Sons of Liberty, see Knights of
the Golden Circle.
South Carolina, Republican del
egates from vote for Blaine,
24; troops sent to, 44; chap
ter on contest in, 122 ; Investi
gating committees sent to,
173-174; mentioned, 175; dual
government in, 196 ; case of
before Congress and the Com
mission, 261-274; settlement
in, 287-293, 295-297, 301; men
tioned, 329.
Spofford, Henry Martyn, pleads
for publicity of returning
board's proceedings, 100.
Springer, William M., appointed
a member of a House commit
tee, 193; mentioned, 198; con
siders Davis an Independent,
201; an irreconcilable, 257;
attempts to delay the count,
258, 274; wild behavior of,
275.
Stearns, Marcellus L., telegraphs
that a train has been "ku-
kluxed," 54 ;. issues a procla^
mation to prevent Georgian*
INDEX
363
from voting In Florida, 63 ;
admitted to sessions of Florida
returning board, 65 ; votes re
ceived by, 78.
Stewart, G. T., nominated for
Vice-President by Prohibition
ists, 38.
Stoughton, E. W., a "visiting
statesman" in Louisiana, 95.
Straight-outers, desire to nomin
ate a candidate against Cham
berlain, 129 ; are victorious,
130, 133.
Strong, Judge William, to be a
member of the Electoral Com
mission, 203 ; meets with other
judicial members, 221.
Sun, the New York, opposes re
sort to violence, 170.
Swayne, Judge Noah H., men
tioned, 198, 202.
TALLAHASSEE, troops ordered to,
55.
Tammany, opposes Tilden, 29,
30.
Tangipahoa, supervisors In throw
out polls, 113.
Thompson, Richard W., nomin
ates Morton, 21.
Thurman, Allen G., defeated by
Hayes, 15 ; spoken of for the
Presidential nomination, 27 ;
opinion upon power of Con
gress to investigate choice of
electors, 181 ; appointed mem
ber of a committee, 192 ; sug
gests plan for an electoral tri
bunal, 202 ; to assist in com
pleting an address to accom
pany the Electoral Commis
sion bill, 203; delighted with
Electoral Commission bill,
204 ; speaks in its behalf, 213 ;
a member of the Commission,
220 ; mentioned, 225 ; votes
with Republicans on Hum
phrey's case, 236; illness of,
254; credit due to, 334; in
consistency of, 336.
Tidal wave of 1874, 3, 4.
Tidwell, Charles, testifies that
Henry Pinkston was a Radi
cal, 107.
Tilden, Samuel J., second choice
of C. F. Adams for President,
17 ; probable Democratic nom
inee for President, 26 ; career
of, 28-29 ; suggested for Pres
idency by Utica convention, 30 ;
name presented to convention,
33 ; nominated, 34 ; how nom
ination of was received, 36 ;
letter of acceptance, 38 ; di
rects his campaign, 39 ; at
tacks on his character and
political record, 40-42 ; returns
indicate election of, 45 ; Dem
ocratic electors In Florida vote
for, 77 ; electors supporting re
ceive majority of votes cast in
Louisiana, 94 ; they cast their
votes for, 116 ; defeated In
South Carolina, 151 ; Demo
cratic "electors" in South
Carolina vote for, 155; Cronin
votes for, 165; alleged plot to
cheat him out of the Presi
dency, 168 ; uncertainty re
garding his intentions, 191 ;
sets forth his arguments in
the inaugural address of Gov
ernor Robinson, 194 ; declines
to approve a compromise plan,
199-200; mentioned, 208; res
olutions drawn up by adopted
by the House, 214 ; not a rev
olutionist, 285 ; speech of de
nouncing the "fraud;" 307 ;
wishes an investigation, 307 ;
connection with the cipher dis
patches, 320-321, 323-327;
mentioned, 334, 342.
Times, the New York, exposes
Tweed Ring, 29; attacks Til
den, 41 ; events in office of,
46-47; editorial in, 47.
Trifane, The New York, pub
lishes the cipher dispatches,
316-323.
Trumbull, Lyman, a "visiting
statesman" in Louisiana, 95;
thinks Congress does not have
power to go behind returns,
182.
Tucker, J. R., an objector in the
Florida case, 226 ; objects to
receiving one of the votes of
Michigan, 250.
Tweed Ring, exposed by The
Times, 29 ; mentioned, 41.
Twenty-Second Joint Rule, pass
ed, 180; mentioned, 182, 212,
215, denounced by Morton,
184; not readopted by the
Senate, 186.
Tyner, James N., examined by
Potter Committee, 322.
3^4
INDEX
UNION League Club, blackballs
Bristow, 14.
Union party, 2.
Utlca, Democratic state conven
tion at suggests Tilden for
Presidency, 30.
VAN BUREN, Martin, mentioned,
28.
Venezuela scandal, harped on by
Democrats, 39.
Vermont, bogus certificate from,
274-279.
Vernon, returns from falsified,
116.
Virginia, attempt to make ob
jections to one of the votes of,
279.
Visiting statesmen, journey
Southward, 56 ; in Florida, 65 ;
in Louisiana, 95.
Voorhees, Daniel, signs minority
report at St. Louis, 33.
WALLACE, Lew, a "visiting
statesman" in Florida, 64 ; al
leged promises made to McLin,
310.
Wallace, William A., presents
an objection to counting the
votes of Louisiana, 244 ;
speech on the Louisiana deci
sion, 245.
Waite, Judge M. R., to be ex
cluded from a proposed tri
bunal for counting the votes,
197 ; administers the oath to
Hayes, 287.
Walker, James B., nominated for
President by American Na
tionals, 39.
Warmoth, H. C., elected govern
or of Louisiana, 84 ; goes over
to Democrats, 86.
Washington, troops ordered to,
172 ; Hewitt issues statement
at, 189, Watterson speaks in
a Democratic meeting at, 195 ;
Hayes reaches, 286 ; South
Carolina claimants visit, 296 ;
Potter Committee examines
witnesses in, 322.
Washington, George, precedent
established by regarding third
term, 11.
Watterson, Henry, temporary
chairman Democratic national
convention, 31; a "visiting
statesman" in Louisiana, 95 ;
talks of a hundred thousand
Kentuckians, 195 ; speech of
on Louisiana decision, 247 ; at
Wormley Conference, 269 ;
told to bring on his hundred
thousand, 282.
Watts, John W., ineligile to be
chosen an elector, 157 ; re
ceives a majority of votes,
162; declared ineligible by
Grover, 163 ; present at meet
ing of the electoral college and
resigns, 164 ; reappointed and
votes for Hayes, 165 ; question
of his incumbency, 251-253;
question of his resignation,
254; decision of Commission
regarding, 256 ; mentioned,
339.
Weber, E. L., custodian of al
leged Sherman letter, 312.
Weed, Smith M., privately con
cedes Republican victory in
South Carolina, 155; connec
tion with the cipher dispatch
es, 319-320, 323-324.
Weekly Constitution, the Mon-
ticello, resolutions in concern
ing employment of Republi
cans, 60.
Wells, David A., attends Fifth
Avenue Conference, 15.
Wells, J. Madison, president of
Louisiana returning board,
98 ; opinion on vacancy in re
turning board, 101 ; "in the
market," 111 ; offers to count
in Democratic state ticket for
$200,000, 112; mentioned, 171,
260.
West, Senator J. R., receives let
ter from Wells, 111.
Western Union Telegraph Com
pany, delivers dispatches to
Congressional committees, 315.
West Feliciana, a "selected"
parish, 90; vote in, 118; men
tioned, 120.
West Virginia, goes Democratic,
42.
Wheeler, William A., nominated
for Vice-President by Republi
cans, 25 ; Florida electors cast
their votes for, 76 ; member of
a Congressional investigating
committee, 99 ; Louisiana elec-
INDEX
365
tors vote for, 114 ; South Caro
lina electors vote for, 155;
Oregon electors vote for, 165 ;
Louisiana votes counted for,
249; declared elected, 282.
Whipper, W. J., elected a cir
cuit judge but is refused a
commission, 128.
Whitely, William G., nominates
Bayard, 33.
White Camelia, active in Louis
iana, 84.
White League, uprising of, 86-
87 ; members of seize public
buildings, 294.
White, Horace, signs call for
conference of independents, 15.
White, Judge P. W., decides in
favor of Democratic electors
in Florida, 79.
Whittemore, B. F., attempts to
prevent renomination of
Chamberlain, 135.
Willard, Judge A. J., associate
justice in South Carolina, 149 ;
action in Norris case, 292.
Willard, George, appointed a
member of a House commit
tee, 193.
Williams, Abram, whipped, 109.
Williams, Charles G., replies to
Blackburn, 280.
Williams, James D., nominates
Hendricks, 33.
Wiltz, Louis A., nominated for
lieutenant-governor of Louisi
ana, 87 ; declared elected by
Democrats, 294.
Wisconsin, objections to receiv
ing electoral votes of in 1877,
279.
Wood, Fernando, wishes to im
peach Grant, 176 ; opposes fil
ibustering, 274 ; denounced as
the "high priest of the Re
publican party," 280.
Woodford, Stewart L., candi
date for Vice-Presidential
nomination, 25.
Woodworth, Laurin D., quoted,
260.
Wooley, C. W., a "visiting
statesman" in Florida, 65 ;
connection with the cipher dis
patches, 317, 318.
Woolsey, Theodore, signs a call
for conference of indepen
dents, 15.
World, the New York, incen
diary statements, 169; advis
es impeachment of Grant, 175.
Wormley Conference, 269 ; men
tioned, 277.
Wright, Judge J. J., associate
justice in South Caroina, 149 ;
action in Norris case, 292.
DEPARTMENT
in Librar
LOAN PERIOD 1
HOME USE
4
ALL bUUKS MAY BE RtLALLbD AFTER 7 DAYS
6 month ,^m0nth lo,ans ™y be renewed by calling 642-3405
ith loans may be recharged by bringing books to Circulation Desk
and recharges may be made 4 days prior to due date '
DUE AS STAMPED BELOW
1 8 1977
DISCC
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
BERKELEY, CA 94720
LD 21A-50m-8 '61
(Cl795slO)476B
.General Library
University of California
Berkelev
U.C.BERKELEY LIBRARIES