Title: The life and times of John Kelly, tribune of the people
Author: McLaughlin, James Fairfax
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The life and times of John Kelly, tribune of the people" ***


  Transcriber’s Note
  Italic text displayed as: _italic_



[Illustration:

  _Accept for yourself my esteem
  and affection, yours truly_

  _John Kelly_]



  THE

  LIFE AND TIMES

  OF

  JOHN KELLY,

  TRIBUNE OF THE PEOPLE.

  BY

  J. FAIRFAX McLAUGHLIN, A. M.

  AUTHOR OF “SKETCHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER,” “A LIFE OF A. H.
  STEPHENS,” ETC., ETC.

  “I REGARD JOHN KELLY AS THE ABLEST, PUREST, AND TRUEST STATESMAN
  THAT I HAVE EVER MET WITH FROM NEW YORK.”—ALEXANDER H.
  STEPHENS.

  _WITH PORTRAITS IN ARTOTYPE._

  TAKEN AT 35, 50, AND 58 YEARS OF AGE.

  NEW YORK:
  THE AMERICAN NEWS COMPANY.
  1885.



  Copyright, 1885, by J. FAIRFAX MCLAUGHLIN.

  _All rights reserved._

  Electrotyped and Printed
  By the N. Y. ECONOMICAL PRINTING COMPANY,
  NEW YORK.



PREFACE.


The life of John Kelly, written without partisan bias, and to promote
no other object but the vindication of the truth of history, is
presented to the reader in the following pages.

The narrative is associated with three great epochs in American
history, in each of which John Kelly has acted a prominent and
conservative part. If he appears in the foreground of the picture which
the author has attempted to sketch of those epochs, it is because no
true history of them can be written without according to him such a
place. He was the champion of civil and religious liberty during the
era of Know-Nothingism, and contributed as powerfully to the overthrow
of the Know-Nothing party as any man in the United States, with the
single exception of Henry A. Wise, of Virginia, who slew the monster
outright.

In the fierce war between Barnburner and Hunker, and Hard Shell and
Soft Shell Democrats, which broke out in 1848, and continued to rage
throughout the State of New York with intense bitterness for eight
years, John Kelly, in 1856, played the conspicuous part of pacificator
both in the State and National Conventions of his party. The re-union
which then took place between the Hards and Softs resulted in the
nomination of Buchanan and Breckenridge at Cincinnati, who were
elected President and Vice-President of the United States.

The third epoch covers the contest with the Tweed Ring, and the
expulsion of the Ring from Tammany Hall in 1872, when the Reformers
were led by John Kelly. Grand Sachem Tweed had to give place to Grand
Sachem Augustus Schell; and Sachems Peter B. Sweeny, A. Oakey Hall, and
Richard B. Connolly were succeeded by Sachems Horatio Seymour, Samuel
J. Tilden and John Kelly. It was not merely a change, but a revolution.

To achieve the results reached in 1872, and in the few years
immediately following, a leader of consummate power was necessary.
Honesty, courage, and sagacity in the highest degree were required in
that leader. A man of action—not a visionary in the closet, was what
the times demanded. Upon John Kelly, who sought not the position, but
had it thrust upon him, then devolved the leadership of the Democratic
party in New York. The events of that period have passed into history,
and although there were some who at the time called Kelly a dictator,
posterity will be more apt to remember him as a benefactor.

For years the subject of this memoir has been the target of calumny and
misrepresentation. His whole life from childhood to the present hour is
here laid before the reader, as the best answer to his maligners.

  J. F. McL.



THE ILLUSTRATIONS.


The author has been at much pains to procure good pictures of Mr.
Kelly. The caricaturists have taken so many liberties with his face,
and presented it in so many ridiculous lights, that public curiosity is
felt in every part of the United States to know exactly how John Kelly
does look _in propria persona_. To gratify this curiosity the book has
been embellished by three excellent likenesses of Mr. Kelly, taken at
the ages respectively of thirty-five, fifty, and fifty-eight. To Mr.
Edward Bierstadt, whose picture of President Garfield has been much
admired, the reproduction in artotype of the pictures for this volume
was intrusted. Fine engravings were used to get the likeness, and the
artotypist has executed his work with great success.



CONTENTS.


  CHAPTER I.
                                                                   PAGE.
  Partisan Abuse.—Jackson also subjected to it.—The First
  detailed Narrative of Life of John Kelly, Author’s long
  Acquaintance with, Popular Misconception of his Character.—Anti-Kelly
  Crusade in the Press.—Compared to
  Nathaniel Macon.—Kelly a Safe Leader.                                3


  CHAPTER II.

  Birthplace and Parentage.—A Good Mother.—Anecdote of
  the Son.—Chastises a Larger Boy.—Narrow circumstances
  of his Youth.—School Days.—Loses his Father.—Employed
  by James Gordon Bennett in the _Herald_ Office.—At
  Night School.—The Future Man as Sketched
  in the Utica _Observer_.—Discusses Political Economy with
  Bonamy Price of Oxford.—Relations of the Boy with Mr.
  Bennett.—Their Friendship.—Leaves the _Herald_.—Apprenticed
  to Jacob B. Creamer.—Encounters a Factory
  Bully.—A Prosperous Young Man.—Loses his Mother.—Provides
  for his Sisters and Brother.—No Thought of
  Politics.—A Glimpse at his Future Life.—Interviewed by
  a _World_ Reporter.—Utica _Observer_ upon Hostility between
  Kelly and Tweed.—Tweed Talks of Kelly to _Herald_
  Reporter.—The Ivy Green.—David C. Broderick.—Kelly
  Fond of Athletic Sports.—Becomes Captain of
  Emmet Guards.—A Fire Laddie.—His Intrepidity.—His
  Life Threatened.—Fondness for Private Theatricals.—Plays
  Macbeth, Othello and Hamlet.—Essays Comic Role
  as Toodles, &c.—Religious Strife.—Persecution of Catholics.—The
  Incendiary’s Torch.—St. Patrick’s Cathedral
  Threatened.—Bishop Dubois.—Native American Riots.—An
  Outbreak Imminent in New York.—Bishop Hughes
  Calls on the Mayor.—Election Frauds.—A Battle at the
  Polls.—Kelly as Leader.—Ascendency Over Others.—Enters
  Upon His Public Career.—Kelly, Stephens, and
  Wise, an Anti-Know-Nothing Triumvirate.                              9


  CHAPTER III.

  Alexander H. Stephens Resolves to Withdraw from Congress.—Taunted
  With Cowardice by Know-Nothings.—Re-enters
  the Field as a Candidate.—Letter to Judge
  Thomas.—His Great Anti-Know-Nothing Speech at
  Augusta, Georgia.—His Re-election.—Perversion, After
  His Death, of the Sentiments and Language of His
  Augusta Speech.—The Virginia Campaign of 1855.—Letter
  of Henry A. Wise, of Accomac.—His Famous
  Alexandria Speech.—His Wonderful Anti-Know-Nothing
  Campaign.—A Contest of National Importance.—A
  Second Patrick Henry.—His Election a Death Blow to
  the Know-Nothings.—Large Number of that Party in
  the 34th Congress.—Sketch of Henry Winter Davis, the
  Maryland Know-Nothing.—John Kelly Meets Davis in
  Debate in Congress.—Their Speeches.—The Irish Brigade
  Attacked and Defended.—Kelly’s Speech Published on
  Satin.—Anecdote of Andrew Jackson and Col. Hayne.—The
  Debate Becomes General.—Kelly, Akers and Campbell
  Take Part in it.—Minnesota and the Naturalization
  Laws.—John Sherman, Muscoe Garnett and John Kelly
  in a Lively Debate.—Sherman Insists On the Order of the
  Day to Cut Kelly Off.—Elihu B. Washburne Demands
  that Kelly be Heard.—Objection Made.—Kelly Postpones
  His Speech.—His Influence in New York and Congress
  Exerted Against Know-Nothingism.—High Estimate of
  His Character Expressed by Lewis Cass, James Gordon
  Bennett and Alexander H. Stephens.—Kelly Urges
  Augustus Schell’s Appointment as Collector of New
  York.—Kelly at Washington.—How Received.—His Simplicity
  of Character.—Rugged Strength.—Attracts
  Friends On All Sides.—Devotion of His Constituents to
  the Man.—They Regard Him as Another Daniel
  O’Connell.—Large Personal following in New York.                    45


  CHAPTER IV.

  Review of Political Parties in the United States.—Federalists
  and Democrats.—Maximum and Minimum Theories
  of Hamilton and Jefferson.—Blue Lights at New London.—Decatur
  and Jackson.—Massachusetts the Birthplace
  of the Secession Doctrine.—Speech of Josiah Quincy.—Hartford
  Convention.—Essex Junto.—John Quincy
  Adams the First Protectionist President.—The Whigs.—Harrison.—Taylor.
  —Whig Party Buried in the Graves of
  Webster and Clay.—The Know-Nothing Dementia.—Federalists
  At Last Succeed.—Origin and Extraordinary
  Development of Political Abolitionism—The Jeffersonians
  Routed at every Point.—The Disciples of Hamilton
  Again in Possession of the Government.—Unfortunate
  Bolt of Martin Van Buren in 1848.—Tilden and Lucius
  Robinson Follow the Sage of Kinderhook.—Kelly Follows
  William L. Marcy and Horatio Seymour.—The
  Abolition National Conventions.—Webster Attacks the
  Free Soilers.—Benton on Van Buren.—Blair Invents
  Fremont for Wm. H. Seward.—Tilden and Kelly again
  in Harmony.—Robinson Governor.—His Extraordinary
  Crusade Against Tammany in 1879.—Hereditary Feuds.—Quarrels
  Between De Witt Clinton and Van Buren.—Between
  Wright and Marcy.—Between Tilden and
  Kelly.—Contrarieties of Races in New York.—Jackson
  and Calhoun Fall Out.—Kelly Thinks Slavery to be
  gotten Rid of by Emancipation.—The Fathers Thought
  the Same Way.—Ingalls on Brown.—Lucas on Randolph.—Pierce’s
  Administration.—Hards and Softs.—Kelly’s
  Statesmanship Displayed in Syracuse Convention of 1855.—Debate
  with “Prince John” Van Buren.—Kelly’s
  Sagacious Speech.—He lays down the Plan which
  brought the Rival Wings into Harmony at Cincinnati in
  1856.—Fatal Mistake of Pierce in choosing New York
  Leaders.—Marcy Desired Kelly.—Death of Marcy.—Buchanan
  elected President.—Kelly wins a National
  Reputation at the Syracuse Convention.                             102


  CHAPTER V.

  Narrative Resumed in Chronological Order.—Kelly Elected
  Alderman.—Strong Men in the Board.—His Standing as
  a Member.—Competitor of Mike Walsh for Congress.—Sketch
  of Mike Walsh.—Story of the Life of a Wayward
  Genius.—His Sad Death.—Kelly Elected to Congress.—Great
  Struggle for the Speakership.—The Candidates.—A
  Nine Weeks Fight.—Speeches of Joshua R. Giddings,
  Cullen, Kelly, Howell Cobb, &c.—Sharp Words Between
  Giddings and Edmundson.—The Debate Assumes a Sectarian
  Complexion.—Attack on the Catholics.—Kelly in
  Defense.—He is the Only Catholic in Congress.—His
  Speech Interrupted by Know-Nothings Demanding the
  Previous Question.—Important Letter of Lafayette, in regard
  to the Catholic Clergy Read by Kelly.                              142


  CHAPTER VI.

  Seward Summons Republican Leaders to Washington to Aid
  Their Party in Speakership Struggle.—Horace Greeley,
  Thurlow Weed and James Watson Webb Repair to the
  Seat of Government.—Alexander H. Stephens, John Kelly
  and Howell Cobb, with Stephen A. Douglas, Lewis Cass,
  C. C. Clay and Other Democrats Oppose the Republicans.—Kelly
  Names Aiken for Speaker.—Aiken would have
  Defeated Banks but for the Blunder of a Democrat.—Banks
  Chosen Speaker.—A Stormy Period in Congress.—Sketch
  of William H. Seward.—A Historic Quarrel.—It
  Destroys the Whig Party.—James G. Blaine, in his
  Recent Work, Fails to Mention this Quarrel.—Its
  Momentous Consequences.—Fillmore and Seward, Taylor
  and Preston.—A Death at the White House Leaves Seward
  and Scott Amid the Ruins of the Whig Party, and
  Places the Sceptre in Fillmore’s Hand.—Seward Founds
  the Republican Party.—Election of Banks Places Seward
  again in the Ascendant.—The Stormy Days of 1855-60.—Democratic
  Weakness.—Its Causes.—Impracticables.—Dissipation
  in Congress.—Fire-Eaters.—Altercations and
  Fist Fights in the House.—Sharp Debate between John
  Kelly and Humphrey Marshall.—Both Get Angry.—A
  Collision Avoided.—Kelly’s Popularity in the House.—Devoted
  Friendship of Stephens and Kelly.—Charity and
  Benevolence of Each.—An Estimate of Kelly by Stephens
  in a Letter to the Author.—Kelly’s Tribute to His Departed
  Friend.—Declares the Georgia Statesman the
  Purest Man In His Intentions he had ever met.                      174


  CHAPTER VII.

  A Review of Mr. Kelly’s Congressional Career.—His
  Speeches.—He Addresses the House upon the State of
  Parties in New York.—Historical Account of Democratic
  Divisions in that State.—Hunkers and Barnburners.—Hards
  and Softs.—Know-Nothings and Republicans.—Pierce’s
  Blunder in Choosing for Administration Leaders
  the Opponents of the Compromise of 1850.—Jefferson
  Davis Secretary of War.—Famine in the Cape de Verde
  Islands.—Twenty Thousand People on the Point of
  Perishing.—Archbishop Hughes Appealed to by Bishop
  Patricio.—The Archbishop Intrusts the Appeal to John
  Kelly, who Lays it before Congress.—Eloquent Speech of
  Mr. Kelly in behalf of the Sufferers.—A Vessel Ordered
  to Carry Food to the Afflicted Islanders.—Kelly Re-elected
  to Congress by an Immense Majority.—A Know-Nothing
  Riot in Washington in 1857.—The Mayor
  Powerless.—The President Calls out the Marines.—Congress
  Asked to Establish an Auxiliary Guard to Protect
  Life and Property.—Mayor Swan’s Baltimore Know-Nothings
  and Henry Winter Davis’s Plug Uglies.—George
  P. Kane, Marshal of Police Redeems Baltimore
  from the Rule of Assassins.—His Character and Services.—John
  Kelly Favors the Auxiliary Guard Bill.—His
  Speech Upon it.—He Rebukes Maynard of Tennessee for
  a Know-Nothing Sneer at a “Parcel of Irish Waiters.”—A
  Drunken Congressman Murders a Waiter at Willard’s
  Hotel.—Kelly Corrects Stanton of Ohio upon a Point of
  New York Political History.—The Empire Club in the
  Polk and Dallas Campaign.—Bill Poole’s Club.—Poole
  Killed.—Mr. Kelly Replies to General Quitman of Mississippi.—Pays
  a High Tribute to the Gallant Mississippian.—Describes
  the Riotous Scenes at the June Election in
  Washington.—The Bill Defeated.—Nichols and Washburne
  Attack the Bureau of Statistics in the State Department.—John
  Kelly Replies and Turns the Tables
  Upon the Attacking Members.—Edmund Flagg a Man
  With a Grievance.—Nichols Drops Flagg and Beats a
  Hasty Retreat.—The Naval Appropriation Bill.—A Disagreement.—Senate
  and House Appoint Conference Committees.—Kelly
  One of the Managers on the Part of the
  House.—His Speech on the Appropriation for the Brooklyn
  Navy Yard.—An Irish Tory’s Book, “The American
  Irish.”—John Kelly Traduced by the Author.—Bagenal’s
  Calumny Refuted.—Mr. Kelly’s Great Speech on the
  Homestead Bill, May 25, 1858.—Advocates Colonization
  in the West.—A Life-long Enemy of Monopolies.—Especially
  of the Railroad Land-Grabbers.—Demands that
  the Public Domain Shall Be Reserved for the People.—John
  Kelly’s Standing in Congress.—His Remarkable
  Ability Early Recognized.—His Rapid Rise in the House.—Confronts
  Seward in Speakership Struggle, and in that
  over Collectorship of the Port of New York.—Mr. Schell
  Advocated by Kelly and Made Collector.—Personal and
  Political Relations of Kelly and Schell.—A Beautiful
  Picture of Friendship.—The Two New Yorkers as Devoted
  Friends as Gales and Seaton of the National _Intelligencer_,
  or the Cheeryble Brothers of Romance.—Society
  in Washington in Former Days.—Frugality and Simplicity
  the Rule.—Some Ancient Magnates.—Marshall and
  Webster Go to Market with Baskets on their Arms.—Chancellor
  Bibb as a Fisherman, and John Quincy Adams
  a Swimmer in the Potomac.—John C. Calhoun Talks
  Philosophy with a Georgetown College Professor.—Monroe
  Dies Poor.—Clay Would Rather Be Right than President.—Webster
  an Old School Patriot.—Calhoun Loses
  Jackson’s Friendship Because Mrs. Calhoun will not Visit
  Mrs. Eaton.—Old School Manners Still Flourish During
  Kelly’s Terms in Congress.                                         207


  CHAPTER VIII.

  John Kelly Elected Sheriff of New York.—Difficult Duties of
  the Office.—He Masters Them.—The Sheriff’s Jury.—Rosewell
  G. Rolston.—His Opinion of John Kelly.—The Sheriff
  Becomes a Favorite Among Lawyers.—Kelly the Only
  Sheriff Ever Re-elected.—Nominated for Mayor.—Supported
  by Nelson J. Waterbury.—The _Herald_ upon Kelly
  and A. Oakey Hall.—The Tweed Ring.—Kelly and Tilden
  Oppose it Vigorously.—Kelly’s Health Fails.—Loses His
  Family by Death.—Goes to Europe.—Visits Holy Land.—Allegory
  On the Cross.—Kelly No Longer Interested in
  the Busy Trifles of Politicians.—Enjoys a Contemplative
  Life.—Rumors of his Retirement from the World.—How
  They Originated.—His Inner Life.—His Charities and
  Munificent Gifts.—Bishop Ireland upon John Kelly’s
  Noble Character.—His Conduct During the War Between
  the States.—Visits the Army of the Potomac.—Harsh
  Treatment and Sufferings of the Waring Family.—John
  Kelly Petitions for Justice and Mercy.—Stanton Obdurate.—Montgomery
  Blair Co-operates with Kelly.—Returns to
  New York from Europe.—Becomes Leader of Tammany
  Hall.—Greatest Work of His Life.—O’Conor, Tilden and
  Kelly Destroy the Tweed Ring.—Tammany Sachems for
  1871 and 1872.—The Story of a Great Revolution.—Death
  of His Two Daughters.—Declines Chairmanship of National
  Democratic Committee in 1872.—Mayor Havemeyer.—Commissioners
  Charlick and Gardner.—The
  Mayor’s Death.—Unfortunate Faction Fights in New
  York Politics.—Kelly the First Man to Bring out Tilden
  for Governor.—The Truth of History Vindicated.—Tilden
  Calls upon Kelly in 1876 Immediately Before
  the St. Louis Convention.—Kelly’s Pledges at the Convention.—The
  Election of Tilden. He Declares Tammany
  “the Right Wing of the Democratic Army.”—John
  Kelly Comptroller of New York.—Comments of the
  Press upon His Appointment.—His Second Marriage.—His
  Witty Speech at the Lotos Club Dinner.—The Presidential
  Election of 1884.—Kelly Holds His Forces in
  Hand Magnificently at the Decisive Point of the Battle,
  and Does for Cleveland What he had Done Before for
  Tilden.—A Democratic President at Last.—Kelly’s Health
  Impaired.—New York _Times_ on John Kelly’s Political
  Shoes.—Conclusion.                                                 244



INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.


John Kelly is the best abused man in America. Fifty or sixty years ago
Andrew Jackson was subjected to similar treatment. The hero of New
Orleans lived down the slanders which were hurled thick and fast upon
him by political opponents. Mr. Kelly will do the same thing, for the
people, though easily imposed upon for the moment by artful men, soon
correct their own misconceptions, and invariably render justice to
public characters. The malice which invents slanders is incapable of
transmitting them into history.

Fugitive and imperfect sketches of John Kelly’s career have appeared
from time to time in the newspapers. No detailed narrative of his life
has hitherto been submitted to the public. The writer of these pages
is conscious of the difficulty of portraying the character of a living
man. Appreciation of merit should not run into panegyric; condemnation
of faults should not be spared where faults are found. The advantages
possessed by the present writer to discharge the task he has undertaken
have been derived from an acquaintance with Mr. Kelly extending over
thirty years, and from participation in public affairs in which that
gentleman has been a conspicuous actor. Mr. Kelly has figured in
transactions which will form an interesting chapter in the history
of the present times. The testimony of a contemporary who preserves
a distinct recollection of the events he describes will always be an
aid to the historian of the next age, who must sift evidence in order
to get at the truth, and who should reject whatever falls below that
standard. There would not be so many fictions in American biography,
if those who have participated in the scenes would record their honest
recollection of them. The testimony of an eye-witness is in the nature
of primary evidence, and the historian can have no more helpful
auxiliary than such a reminiscent. The following pages are offered to
the public as the contribution to American biography of one who has
enjoyed unusual advantages of knowing the man he writes about.

Mr. Kelly is one of the few remarkable men the present political
generation has produced. The public has read so much about him both
of pure fiction and coarse abuse, that an outline sketch of his life
will no doubt prove acceptable to candid readers, and furnish, at the
same time, a corrective of current misrepresentations. It might seem
strange to those who do not stop to consider the causes of it, that
a life-long citizen of New York, who has acted a prominent part in
its affairs, should have come to be misunderstood by so many people.
But to those who look into the matter more closely the explanation is
not difficult to find. Mr. Kelly is a man of very positive character.
He has antagonized powerful men, and on several memorable occasions
thwarted their schemes of ambition and self-aggrandizement. He has thus
excited resentments, and in their disappointment his opponents have
sought revenge. Some of these gentlemen control great combinations of
corporate wealth, and possess enormous private fortunes. They have
not found it difficult to enlist a large section of the press into a
species of anti-Kelly crusade. The weapons of partisan warfare are not
very choice, and this crusade has been carried on without much regard
to the amenities of journalism, but with a resolute and persistent
attention to the main idea, namely, the elimination of Mr. Kelly as a
political leader, by proclaiming him to be the representative of one
of the worst elements of American politics. But this mode of attack,
while it may answer a temporary purpose, is always in the end a weak
one. Intelligent people become interested to know more of a man who
excites his opponents into storms of abuse, torrents of invective, and
hurricanes, as it were, of rage. Is it all real, or does it cover a
purpose? That becomes the question which the public soon ask, and its
answer is always favorable to truth, and fatal to the manipulators of
an artificial excitement, for intelligent people have an independent
way of getting at the truth the moment they suspect it is being kept
back, and get at it they will, and they do.

In this manner John Kelly’s political opponents have really done him a
service. The universal gaze has been directed towards the man, and the
monster painted by reckless partisans of other and rival politicians
has been found to be no monster at all, but a plain, quiet man, honest
and straightforward as old Nat. Macon himself—to whom he was once
likened by the late Alexander H. Stephens—of very original and rugged
order of mind, of powers of command scarcely equalled by any other
statesmen in the United States to-day, a foe to humbug, a terror to
corruptionists—one, in short, to inspire love and respect rather than
hatred and ill-will in the minds of disinterested people.

The writer thinks he knows John Kelly intimately and thoroughly.
His mind is powerful, without the acuteness of a Calhoun, or the
imagination of a Webster, but as far as he sees his objects he sees
with the eye of a statesman, and no judgment was ever sounder. Of ideas
in their simplicity men in general have but a partial cognition, an
apperception of consciousness, as philosophers term it, and not the
clear perception. But the perceptive faculty is Mr. Kelly’s pre-eminent
feature. He is deliberate in mental operation, trusting nothing to
fancy or imagination, and not distinguished for impulsive celerity of
action, but almost invariably sure in his conclusions. Thus it has
been sometimes, that his plans, when suddenly deranged in action by
unforeseen circumstances, were not rapidly reformed, and defeat came
upon him. But when he is in rest, and left to himself to devise and
map out movements, his judicious arrangement and skill in deciding
upon what is best to do have proved almost faultless. Incapable of
fear, he has seemed to some to go forward to his objects with blind
obstinacy. But those who think so have a superficial knowledge of the
man, for prudence is his controlling quality. Before he reaches a
decision, every circumstance and consideration is maturely weighed, all
suggestions are patiently heard, all doubts exert restraint upon him.
Indeed, his prudence has exposed him to the charge by more hot-headed
men of being a plodder, so carefully does he labor to mature plans. It
is only when he has reached a decision that his purpose becomes fixed
and immovable, and he goes through with it, no matter what obstacles
beset his path, or what less courageous friends may advise to change
his resolution. Mr. Kelly has, in fine, granite firmness, and there is
a broad distinction between firmness and doggedness.

Nature has given him a high temper, but reflection and habits of
self-command have reduced it to almost perfect subjection. If aroused,
however, and goaded to passion, he is one of the most tremendous men
in his wrath, and one of the most formidable in his mode of delivering
battle. A man of warm affections and commanding presence, his personal
magnetism is simply wonderful. His name, wherever he is well-known,
is never mentioned at public meetings without storms of applause
immediately breaking forth. His appearance at public gatherings is
always the signal for hand clapping and expressions of welcome of that
unmistakable sort only bestowed on a favorite. In this respect John
Kelly almost rivals Henry Clay, and since the death of the illustrious
Mill Boy of the Slashes no other man in America has had such an
enthusiastic personal following.

While his liberality is great it is unpretentious. Publicity in
well-doing is repulsive to his nature. His charity, which is almost
ceaseless, is consequently always silent. The solidest kind of man
in build and character, he delights in action more than words, and
is known in New York as the safe leader. His natural ascendency over
men is instinctively recognized. For these and kindred qualities his
influence in American politics is as potent as that of any other
statesman in public life, and the reader of the following pages will
find, it is believed, that this influence has been always beneficially
exerted.



CHAPTER II.

 HIS PARENTAGE AND EARLY LIFE—SCHOOL DAYS—EMPLOYED BY JAMES GORDON
 BENNETT—APPRENTICED TO JACOB B. CREAMER—DAVID C. BRODERICK—KELLY,
 CAPTAIN OF EMMET GUARDS—ATHLETIC SPORTS—HIS FONDNESS FOR PRIVATE
 THEATRICALS—RELIGIOUS STRIFE—A BATTLE AT THE POLLS—KELLY AS LEADER—THE
 KNOW-NOTHING PARTY.


John Kelly was born in the city of New York, April 20, 1822. The home
of his parents and spot of his nativity was in Hester Street near Mott,
in the old Sixth, afterwards changed into the Fourteenth Ward, famous
for its politicians. He springs from that stalwart race of men who have
played so conspicuous a part in the history of the United States—Tyrone
County Irishmen. From Tyrone County came Richard Montgomery, whom
Bancroft places second only to Washington as the military genius of the
Revolutionary War; thence also came Alexander Porter, the illustrious
Louisiana statesman, and one of the great lights of the United States
Senate in its palmiest days. Archbishop Hughes, who left his impress
on the age in which he lived as one of its most remarkable men, and
General James Shields, one of the heroes of two American wars, who
enjoyed the unprecedented distinction of having been elected to the
United States Senate at various times by three great States of the
Union, were both emigrants from Tyrone County, Ireland. Out of this
Milesian hive, seeking his fortunes in the New World in the early part
of the present century, came Hugh Kelly, father of the subject of
this memoir. He married Sarah Donnelly, of County Fermanagh, a small
county adjoining Tyrone. The marriage took place in Ireland. There were
seven children born to the parents, of whom John was the fourth. The
others were five daughters and a son, the last named after the father,
Hugh. Old New Yorkers, who were acquainted with the mother of John
Kelly, have informed the writer of this memoir that she was a woman of
remarkable force of character, a devout Christian, and a mother who
brought up her children in the love and fear of God. The children were
all vivacious, and very communicative among themselves in the family
circle, with the exception of John, who was quiet and thoughtful,
and a better listener than talker. On one occasion a neighbor paid a
visit to the Kellys, and brought news of an excursion, a pic-nic, or
some such affair, that pleased and greatly excited the little ones,
each of whom, save John, had something to say about it. At length the
neighbor looked over at John, who had remained a silent listener, and
exclaimed, “Look at John there, with his big head, taking it all in,
and not saying a word.” “Oh, yes,” said the mother, “that is his way;
he thinks a great deal more than he talks, but be sure he is not dumb.”
A New York newspaper once cynically characterized him as an ox, but
the dumb ox, to use the figure of Albertus Magnus, has given a bellow
which has been heard round the world. The devotion of Mrs. Kelly to
her elder son was peculiarly tender. At one time, when he was a small
boy, he had to cross the East River daily. The mother would often
accompany him to the boat in the morning, and always went to meet him
on his return in the afternoon. Other boys going and returning at the
same time observed that young Kelly’s mother never failed to be at the
landing in the afternoon to accompany her son home. The mischievous
boys sometimes cracked jokes at his expense, and teased him about his
mother’s apron strings. He stood the bantering well enough for a time,
but at length grew tired of it. One of the tallest and strongest of the
boys hearing that Kelly had threatened to thrash the next fellow that
annoyed him on the subject, took it into his head to try his mettle.
“Say, Kelly,” exclaimed this one, “how’s your mother? Boys, he’s got a
good mother, sure. She won’t let him go running about the streets with
the gang for fear he might learn something wicked, but comes for him
and takes her little boy home every night. Come along, Johnny, and be
tucked in your little bed. Bah!” A flushed face and clenched fist told
that Kelly would stand no more raillery of that sort. A smart battle
took place on the spot between the two youngsters, and ended in the
discomfiture of the larger boy. Kelly’s victory made him a favorite
among his companions, and they all soon came to look upon him as a
sort of leader, although he would not loiter with the crowd at street
corners of evenings, nor haunt the purlieus of the city where youth
loses its innocence, and flaunting vice slopes the way to ruin. Such a
mother is a guardian angel to her children, and Mrs. Kelly’s afternoon
escort to her son provoked no more jibes at the expense of the latter.
This incident affords an insight into the methods of his boyhood, and
shows how, under the fostering hand of his mother, the character of
the future man was moulded. The American sin of cursing and swearing
is first picked up by children running idly about the streets into all
sorts of company. John Kelly was never addicted to this bad habit, and
it may be doubted whether his most intimate friend of to-day ever heard
him utter a profane oath. The Psalmist’s aspiration to walk soberly and
chastely in the day before the Divine Face should be the aim of the
rising generation. With that object in view children should be kept out
of temptation in the pitfalls of a great city. After awhile, when the
habits of a promising youth are formed on the right side, temptation
assails him in vain, and whether it be from the cot of poverty or the
mansion of wealth, a hero steps forth for life’s battle, who may be
depended upon to make his way, and render a good account of himself.

In the case of young Kelly, it was from the cot of poverty he emerged.
His father’s and mother’s business of a small retail grocery store
afforded the family a modest but comfortable living. But while John
was still a small boy of eight years his father died, and the widow
and her elder son had to become the bread-winners—the former managing
the store, and the latter, when about ten years old, going out in
quest of employment. John had attended for some two or three years
the parochial school attached to old St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Mott
Street. Now he had to give up the school and go to work. It was a sore
trial to him, for he was ambitious of book learning, and the dream
of his life was to get a good education. But he started out with a
brave resolution to seek employment. For a long time the search was
tedious and unsuccessful. He had to take many surly replies from
ill-bred people, and often went home tired at night after a fruitless
day’s rounds, to begin the work over again in the morning. But he
told his disappointments to no one, unless indeed to whisper them to
the fond mother whose strong heart went out in such sympathy with
his own, and whose sound practical sense helped him to form some new
plan for the morrow. It is probable that the lesson he learned then
of “man’s inhumanity to man” during his first humble trials to make
his way in life was never forgotten. When the day came for himself to
mount to power, and to be called upon by many young and old seeking a
friendly hand to help them to their feet, John Kelly proved to be a
real philanthropist, uttering the gentle word, cheering the drooping
heart by the overflowing generosity and charity of his own, and never
allowing a human being to pass out of his doorway without feeling
better and stronger for having carried his sorrow to him.

One day John went into the _Herald_ office, then in its infancy,
and asked James Gordon Bennett whether he wanted an office boy. Mr.
Bennett scanned the boy over from head to foot without making a reply.
Seemingly satisfied with the first scrutiny, he began a conversation
with him, which continued for five or ten minutes. There was no better
judge of character than the elder Bennett, and he was always quick in
making a decision. “Come in here, my lad, and take off your hat and get
to work,” said he, and John Kelly found himself an employé forthwith of
the great editor. No two men have ever made their mark more thoroughly
in the metropolis of the United States than James Gordon Bennett and
John Kelly. Did the editor descry in that first glance at the boy the
latent powers which ultimately have made Kelly so distinguished? “It
is said,” remarked the editor of the _Utica Observer_, in a notice of
Mr. John Kelly in that paper, “that old James Gordon Bennett took a
great fancy to him. This speaks much in his praise, for the founder
of the _Herald_ was quick to see the possibilities of greatness or
usefulness in an undeveloped youth.”[1]

Evening schools then but recently had been established in New York, and
the youth was quick to avail himself of the advantages they afforded to
boys in his situation for acquiring an education. He became a regular
attendant at one of those night schools, was a diligent and close
student, and, like the great Sir Thomas More, “rather greedily devoured
than leisurely chewed his grammar rules.” The editor of the _Utica
Observer_, one of Mr. Kelly’s most energetic opponents and Governor
Robinson’s ablest advocate in the press, during the celebrated New
York gubernatorial struggle of 1879, declared of Kelly, in the heat of
that campaign, and in an article containing an attack upon him, “that
there is a great deal to admire in the character of John Kelly.” Of
his education the editor added: “His thirst for learning had not been
satisfied in his youth, and he proceeded by study to enlarge the scope
of his understanding. He became a good scholar in French, as well as in
English, and for twenty years he has devoted several hours of every
day to the pursuit of literature and science. If anybody has imbibed
the impression that Mr. Kelly is an ignorant man, he does not want
to confront that delusion with an actual examination of Mr. Kelly’s
acquirements. A Utica man who met him once in the presence of Prof.
Bonamy Price, of Oxford, says that he held his own in a discussion on
Political Economy with England’s foremost teacher of that science.”[2]
He proved to be an excellent office-boy, was always at his post, and
was as punctual as the clock in fulfilling engagements. He became
a great favorite with Mr. Bennett, and when, at length, as he grew
older he resolved to give up his employment in the _Herald_ office in
order to learn some regular business or trade, Mr. Bennett tried to
dissuade him from his purpose, and offered additional compensation
as an inducement for him to remain. But while greatly appreciating
his employer’s kindness, young Kelly replied that his mother and her
large family mainly looked to him, the elder brother, for support,
and that it had always been his intention to go into business on his
own account. The time had now come to carry out that purpose. Mr.
Bennett, in his brusque but kindly Scotch voice, gave John some parting
advice and wished him well, predicting that success awaited him in his
future career. The boy now apprenticed himself to Jacob B. Creamer,
a grate-setter and soap-stone cutter at 346 Broome Street, then on
the corner of Broome and Elizabeth, and speedily learned that trade.
He had grown to be a large boy, with the thews and sinews of a young
Hercules, and although he was not quarrelsome, he was high spirited
and courageous, and would brook no insult from anyone. In the factory
where he worked there was another young man, three or four years older
than himself, a dark complexioned powerful fellow, of a domineering
temper, with a reputation for fisticuffs. One day this person got
angry with Kelly and struck him. Kelly returned the blow. The men in
the establishment separated them, but the blood of both was up, and a
fight was agreed upon between them as soon as the bell should be rung
for dinner. They went into the factory yard and prepared for battle.
The hands about the establishment finding the boys meant to fight,
undertook to secure fair play in the encounter. Kelly was much shorter
than his antagonist, and no one supposed he had any chance to win. At
it they went pell mell, with a lively interchange of heavy thuds. The
older youth fought rapidly, and brought Kelly down several times with
furious blows. Fighting was not allowed while either of the boys was on
the ground, and in this way matters progressed for fifteen or twenty
minutes, Kelly getting the worst of it all the time, but showing great
endurance, and urging that no one should interfere. He had made thus
far but very little impression on his antagonist. He observed, however,
that one of his chance blows had caused the other to wince with pain.
From that moment he took all the punishment the larger boy could
inflict, and made the battle one of strategy, reserving himself to give
a blow in the same place, which he found to be the other’s weak spot.
The tide now began to turn, and it soon became evident to the onlookers
that the big swarthy fellow was no match either in courage or endurance
for Kelly. The latter, selecting the weak spot, laid his antagonist on
his back several times by well-directed blows. The last time he fell
both his strength and courage collapsed, and he bellowed out crying
that he was whipped and would fight no more. One of the men who had
witnessed the encounter with the closest attention from beginning to
end, and saw that Kelly had won it by superior intelligence, now rushed
up to him, and taking his hand exclaimed, “Well Johnny, my boy, you are
a born general sure, and you will yet be a great general over men when
you grow up to be a man yourself.” A few years ago an aged man entered
Mr. Kelly’s crowded office at 117 Nassau street, and sent in his name
with the rest. When his turn came he was admitted. “Do you not know me,
Mr. Kelly?” said the old man. “No,” was the reply, “I do not recall
you.” “Do you remember when you were a boy the fight you had with that
big swarthy fellow in Creamer’s factory yard, when one of the men told
you you would one day become a great general over men? Well, I was that
very man, and didn’t I tell the truth, sir?” Mr. Kelly remembered the
occurrence and his visitor too, immediately, whom he had not seen for
many years, and laughed heartily over the reminiscence of his youth as
he shook the old man’s hand.

He worked industriously at his new occupation, and is said to have
displayed mechanical skill of no mean order. In due time he set up in
business for himself, made friends rapidly, and secured an excellent
line of custom. He became a prosperous young man, and was remarked upon
for sobriety, modesty of deportment and attention to business. It was
not long before he found himself able to branch out on a more extensive
scale, for his friends were numerous and willing to lend him a helping
hand when the needs of his business made it expedient to ask credit.
While yet a very young man, his success was sufficiently assured to
justify him in establishing a soap-stone and grate factory at 40
Elizabeth street, and he also opened an office where he took business
orders, in a frame building on Broome street, next door to the church
over which Dr. Maclay at that time presided, and of which Dr. Cohen, in
subsequent years, became the pastor. Among his customers were Thomas
O’Conor, father of Charles O’Conor, the lawyer; John A. Dix, afterward
Governor of New York; Horace F. Clark, and many other influential
people. John Kelly had now become a prosperous man. His first care was
for the beloved mother who had shaped the days of his youth in the
ways he should walk, but who departed this life in the most edifying
sentiments of piety when he was quite a young man, scarcely twenty-one
years of age. His next care was for his younger brother and five
sisters, towards whom he acted as a father, and for whose education
and welfare he was now able to provide in a suitable manner. His own
early struggles for education had taught him to appreciate it highly
in others, and he secured to his brother and sisters advantages which
disciplined their youthful years and qualified them for the duties of
after life. Later on he took his brother into partnership with him, but
that brother and all his sisters, save one, Mrs. Thomas, who lives near
Mexico, in Oswego County, New York, died many years ago. Mr. Kelly,
as already mentioned, owed to his mother’s care the blessing of right
training in his youth, and the consequent formation of his character
in the practice of the Christian virtues. An old New Yorker who knew
his mother, has told the writer she was a thorough disciplinarian,
and taught her children to love the truth in all things, and that the
beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord. His mother died before
her son’s brilliant success began; she who had equipped him for the
battle stayed not to enjoy its triumphs.

At this period of his life John Kelly had not a dream of ever entering
upon a political career. In this respect he resembled another
distinguished New York statesman, the late Daniel S. Dickinson, who
began life as a mechanic, became a woollen manufacturer, and, beyond
being an earnest Democrat, passed several years with no inclination
whatever for the field of politics. It was true, however, that even
from his boyhood John Kelly displayed rare capacity to lead others, and
he now found himself, in spite of preoccupation in the manufacturing
business, constantly called on by neighbors seeking his advice and
instinctively following him. He was once asked by a newspaper reporter
if he ever sowed wild oats in his youth. “That may be called a leading
question,” he replied; “I was in a gambling-house once in my life,
but it was on business—not to gamble. And I never was in a house of
assignation in my life. I don’t know what the inside of such a house
is.” “It is charged against you,” the reporter said, “that you attend
church very regularly, and that you do it for effect.” “Well,” Mr.
Kelly said, “that’s a queer charge to make against any one. I had a
good careful mother who sent me to the Sunday-school regularly. I have
been to church regularly ever since. Under such training, no doubt, I
ought to be a great deal better Christian than I am. I suppose I have
been very wicked sometimes, and yet I can’t recall any time when I have
been wilfully bad.”[3]

“During Tweed’s ascendancy in New York politics,” said the well
informed Utica editor, in the article already quoted from, “Mr.
Kelly retired from Tammany Hall. Between him and Tweed the bitterest
hostility always existed. It is pleasant to believe that Kelly’s
superior virtue made him distasteful to the burly champion of
corruption. But that does not account for their feud. During the glow
of his guilty glory, Tweed’s ambition was to secure the endorsement of
men of unimpeachable character. By turning back a page in political
history, we might show how well he succeeded. But he could not make
terms with John Kelly, for Mr. Kelly would accept no position but that
of ruler. William M. Tweed swore a solemn oath that John Kelly never
should control Tammany Hall—and we all know what came of it.”

Shortly before his death, while he was a prisoner in Ludlow Street
Jail, Tweed was interviewed by a New York _Herald_ reporter, and gave
with undeserved freedom his impressions of the leading men he had known
in politics. “Whom,” said the reporter, “do you regard as the most
successful city politician of New York in the thirty years of your
experience?” “John Kelly,” said Tweed. “He was always a plodder—always
saving something and learning something. He stood well with the
Church—rather a high class man in the Church—and got his support there.
I never did but one thing for him; twenty years ago I helped him beat
Walsh for Congress.” “When you came to politics,” asked the reporter,
“did you ever remotely entertain the idea of such proportions as the
Ring afterwards assumed?” “No,” said Tweed. “The fact is, New York
politics were always dishonest—long before my time. There never was a
time when you couldn’t buy the Board of Aldermen, except now. If it
wasn’t for John Kelly’s severity, you could buy them now.”[4]

The reporter of the _World_, with an odd sort of unconscious humor in
his interview, not unlike Tweed’s commercial valuation of piety as an
investment, so naively suggested by the words, “rather a high class man
in the Church,” bluntly told Mr. Kelly that it was not only complained
against him that he attended Church, but that he aggravated the matter
by attending it very regularly. No wonder Kelly should have thought
that a “queer charge” to make against him.

An old citizen of New York, acquainted with him from his youth, is
authority for the statement that Kelly was as fully a leader of the
young men of his neighborhood when he first grew up, as he became of
the Tammany Democrats at a later day. He was of a social disposition,
and while always temperate in his habits, he would go occasionally,
after getting through with his day’s work, to the Ivy Green, a famous
hostelry in those days in Elm street, kept by Malachi Fallon, who went
to California in 1849, and which was afterward kept by John Lord. The
Ivy Green, like Stonehall’s in Fulton Street, was a popular gathering
place for politicians and their friends. John Clancy, Peter B. Sweeny,
Matthew Brennan, David C. Broderick, and many other active young
fellows, who afterwards became prominent in politics, were in the habit
of visiting the Ivy Green, and John Kelly would sometimes call there
for a chat with the boys. Less frequently, but once in a great while,
Kelly and Broderick, the latter being a warm friend of Kelly’s, also
dropped in at the Comet, another place of resort of the same kind, kept
by Manus Kelly on Mott street, where they would meet the same jolly
crowd that frequented the Ivy Green, and whither came quite often the
celebrated Tom Hyer, Yankee Sullivan, and other champions of the manly
art of self-defence. “But,” said the writer’s informant, “none of these
fighting men ever intermeddled with Kelly or Broderick. The best of
them would have had his hands full if he had done so.” Poor Broderick,
who afterwards became a United States Senator from California, finally
fell in a duel in that State.

Young Kelly was very fond of athletic sports. He was a good oarsman,
was often on the water, and pulled a shell with the best. There was a
crack company called the Emmet Guards in New York, when Kelly was a
young man. He was first lieutenant of this company during the captaincy
of James McGrath, upon whose death he was elected captain, and being
fond of military matters, he brought his company to a high state of
efficiency. Captain Kelly retained the command until he was elected
Alderman in 1853. The Old Volunteer Fire Department was then in its
zenith. He was a member of it, and one of its leading spirits. While
he was in the Fire Department an incident occurred which has exercised
a restraining influence over him through life. At a fireman’s parade,
while he was in line of March, a burly truckman attempted to drive
through the ranks. Kelly was near the horses and kept them back. The
driver sprang to the ground, and made a furious attack on the young
fire laddie. He received in return a blow from Kelly’s fist which ended
the battle by rendering the truckman insensible. He was borne to a
neighboring doctor’s office, and was resuscitated with much difficulty.
For two or three days the truckman was disabled. Kelly, who had acted
strictly on the defensive, nevertheless was greatly distressed for his
antagonist. He had been unaware of the almost phenomenal force of his
own blow, and his tremendous hitting power was first fully revealed to
him by the effect of his fist on the truckman. To one of his intimate
friends he declared that he deeply regretted this affair, but that,
perhaps, it had served a good purpose, for he was now unalterably
resolved never again as long as he lived to strike any man with all his
force, no matter what the provocation might be.

His herculean strength and known courage have sometimes been seized
upon by opponents for disparaging paragraphs in the newspapers, just
as the combativeness of Andrew Jackson, in his earlier days, was
often commented upon to his detriment. But as there was nothing mean
or domineering in the temper of Jackson, any more than there is in
Kelly, only the high and unconquerable spirit that felt “the rapture of
the strife,” Old Hickory did not suffer in popular esteem on account
of his early scrimmages. In 1828 Dr. James L. Armstrong, one of his
old opponents in Tennessee, gathered up and published as a political
nosegay a list of nearly one hundred pistol, sword and fist fights in
which Jackson had been engaged between the ages of 23 and 60. Jackson
replied to this by promising to cudgel Armstrong on sight. The courage
of some men is so conspicuous that they are recognized at once as
heroes. In his admirable life of Nelson, Southey relates many acts of
apparently reckless intrepidity on the part of the hero of Trafalgar;
but, as it was with Jackson, so was it with Nelson, his conduct was
not the result of real recklessness; it was not the courage of the
bull-dog, the maddened bull or the enraged lion, but rather the play
of a spirit which rose with the occasion, the exhibition of a will not
to be appalled by dangers common natures shrink from. It was such a
courage the poet had in view when he made Brutus say—

    “Set honor in one eye, and death i’ the other,
     And I will look on both indifferently.”

On several occasions in his career John Kelly has exhibited this
heroic quality. Through his agency, at a stormy political convention
in New York, when several of the most notorious partisans of Tweed,
while clutching to retain the power which had been wrested from their
fallen chief, were beaten at every point, a resort to brute force
was threatened, and several of the vilest desperadoes in the city
were despatched from the hall to waylay Kelly and take his life as he
passed along the street. Some of his friends divined the purpose of
the would-be-assassins, and admonished Mr. Kelly of their movements. A
carriage was sent for, and he was urged to get into it and be driven
home, in order to avoid the bravos. Augustus Schell, Horace F. Clark,
and several other friends tried to persuade him to enter the carriage.
Mr. Kelly replied that he generally went home by a certain route,
pointing to the street where the thugs were in hiding, and it was his
intention to go that way then. If anybody wanted to kill him, the
opportunity would be given, as he would neither seek nor avoid such
miscreants. “My friends,” he quietly remarked, “if you run away from
a dog, he will be very apt to bite you.” He went out of the hall and
approached the corner, keeping his eyes steadily fixed on the sinister
group gathered there like beasts of prey, passed on, and was not
molested. Determined to take his life, but deterred by cowardice when
Kelly confronted them, the villains made a plan to secrete themselves
in a small unoccupied frame house on Lexington Avenue, between 33d
and 34th streets, on the following morning, and to shoot him as he
went down town to business. An old man living in the neighborhood,
by the merest accident overheard a part of the muttered plot of the
conspirators, and saw them early next morning enter the deserted house.
He was a friend of Mr. Kelly, and suspected that he was to be attacked.
He went out, and meeting Mr. Kelly, told him of his suspicion, and
pointed out the house in which the men were concealed. John Kelly
crossed the street, and proceeded deliberately to enter the house and
room from which the Ring desperadoes in dumb astonishment watched his
approach. Thinking they had been betrayed—for it must have flashed upon
them that Kelly would not have the madness to do such a thing unless
he had assistance at hand—the terrified assassins fled from the rear of
the house as he entered at the front. He went into the room they had
just quit, and saw four men running through a vacant lot as fast as
their legs could carry them into the next street. Alone and absolutely
unassisted, save by the cool judgment and unflinching courage which
eminently distinguish his character, he adopted this hazardous line of
conduct as the most effective way of confounding a gang of murderous
ruffians, and stamping out their cowardly plots. He succeeded. The Ring
men beset his path no more.

Those acquainted with John Kelly are aware that there is a humorous
side to his character, and that he possesses mimic powers of a high
order. It is not generally known, but it is a fact however, that
when he first grew up to manhood he was one of the organizers of an
Amateur Dramatic Association, which had its headquarters in a hall
at the corner of Elm and Canal Streets, and which sent forth several
professional actors who afterwards attained eminence on the stage.
Charles Place, Samuel Truesdale, Mr. Godwin, John Kelly and other well
known citizens of New York were members of this company; and several
great tragedies, notably some of the now neglected ones of Shakespeare,
were essayed by these aspiring youths. “Many of Mr. Kelly’s friends,”
said a writer in September, 1880, in a New York weekly paper called
_The Hour_, “will be surprised to learn that he once, in the character
of Macbeth, sturdily challenged Macduff to ‘lay on’; that as the
sable-clad Hamlet he was accustomed to win applause as he expressed
the wish that his ‘too, too solid flesh would melt’; and that his
passionate outbursts as the jealous Moor in ‘Othello’, were wont to
bring down the house. Equally astonished will they be to hear that, in
the versatility of his genius, he was as much a favorite in ‘Toodles’
and other of Burton’s eccentric comedy parts as in the higher walk of
tragedy.”

In Kelly’s younger days religious persecution and hostility to
foreigners had begun to be shown in not a few localities. This
intolerant spirit, which had lain dormant in America from the days of
Washington to the end of Monroe’s administration, broke forth with
great fury in several parts of the country after the close of the
“era of good feeling.” The fathers of the Republic were liberal men
who kept this spirit at a distance. Archbishop Carroll of Baltimore,
the friend of Washington, was chosen by a unanimous resolution of
Congress, and in compliance with the desire of the clergy and laity
of all denominations, to deliver the first anniversary address upon
the father of his country after his death. The address was delivered
February 22, 1800, and is still preserved. Bishop Cheverus of Boston,
afterwards Cardinal Archbishop of Bordeaux, France, was the warm
personal friend of John Adams, and when the Bishop was about to build
a church in Boston, the first name on the list of his subscribers was
that of President Adams. When Bishop Dubois, the friend of Lafayette,
was driven into exile by the French Revolution, he found a place of
refuge in Virginia, a home in the private residence of James Monroe,
afterwards President, friends in his host and Patrick Henry, and,
having no church of his own, a chapel in the capitol at Richmond
which the legislature of Virginia placed at his disposal to be used
for the offices of religion. These halcyon days of Christian charity
and toleration in America were now about to be rudely interrupted. In
1831, the same Dubois, then Bishop of New York, had the mortification
to see his church of St. Mary’s, in that city, set on fire by an
incendiary and burned down. The first Catholic college in the State
of New York was built in the neighborhood of Nyack, on the Hudson, in
1833, by this prelate. Religious bigotry incited by Rev. Dr. Brownlee
and other enemies of the Catholics, soon applied the torch to the
structure and reduced it to ashes. In 1834 the Ursuline Convent at
Charlestown, Massachusetts, was burned and sacked. Two or three years
later an anti-Catholic mob formed the design of burning St. Patrick’s
Cathedral in New York. A pious churchman, Bishop Dubois was also a
man of courage. If the civil authorities would not stay the fury of
the mob, he determined to protect himself, and defend his church
from destruction. John Kelly, then a well grown youth and a favorite
of Bishop Dubois, was selected by him on account of his prudence
and extraordinary courage as a sort of _aid de-camp_ to Lawrence
Langdon, the leader of a large body of citizens who assembled in the
vicinity of the Cathedral for defense. The streets were torn up for a
considerable distance; paving stones, wagons and omnibuses were used
for barricades; armed men filled the Cathedral, and the walls of the
adjoining grave-yard glistened with swords and bayonets. The Bishop
enjoined the utmost forbearance upon his people, and gave them positive
orders not to begin the assault, and to avoid collision with the mob
until the Cathedral might be attacked. Conspicuous in carrying out the
orders of the leader, and in directing the movements of the defending
party, and maintaining constant communication between Langdon and
his followers, was young John Kelly of the Fourteenth Ward. The mob
approached through Broadway, a dense body extending for several blocks,
marching in solid line and filling the street from one side to the
other. They turned into Prince Street and approached the Cathedral.
Kelly carried the order at this moment for the defenders to lie down
in the grave-yard and keep perfectly quiet. It was night, and the mob
marched on until stopped by the barricades, when they found the whole
neighborhood in a state of siege. The ample preparations to receive
them disconcerted the church-burners, and the silence of the defending
party, of whose presence they had become aware, made the incendiaries
wary and apprehensive. They faltered and lost heart, and slunk away
in the direction of the Bowery, terrified from their wicked design by
the intrepid courage of one old Bishop. They passed along the sidewalk
adjoining the burial-ground in lines six deep, with frightful oaths
upon their lips, while the men in the city of the dead remained as
still and motionless as the tenants of the tombs below, but every
finger was on a trigger, and every heart beat high with resolve to
defend St. Patrick’s Cathedral and the graves of their fathers from
sacrilege and desecration. Driven by cowardly fear from the church, the
mob crossed to the Bowery, wrecking the houses of several Irishmen,
and the tavern called the Green Dragon, on the way, and finally their
fury was let loose on the private residence of Mr. Arthur Tappan, the
famous abolitionist, whose windows and doors they broke, and otherwise
injured his property. Thus by the prudence of the Cathedral defenders
in avoiding collision with the mob, a terrible sacrifice of life
was escaped, and young John Kelly, inspired by the counsel of the
Bishop and his own coolness and sagacity, played a prominent part in
preventing bloodshed and saving the Cathedral.

The prejudice against foreigners, an outgrowth of that aversion which
the old Federal party leaders manifested towards Frenchmen, Germans
and Irishmen, indeed to all foreigners except Englishmen, continued to
increase in bitterness after the close of the “era of good feeling.” A
political party was at last organized on a platform of disfranchisement
of the Irish and “the Dutch,” the latter being a commonly used misnomer
for the Germans. This party took the name of Native Americans. It
advocated laws prohibiting Irish and German emigrants from landing on
these shores, and practical denial of the right of suffrage, or of
holding office, to those already here. For some years this unwise and
unstatesmanlike policy of exclusion and proscription seriously checked
the tide of emigration from Europe. Had the Native Americans prevailed,
instead of the fifty odd millions of population in the United States
to-day, there would have been less than twenty millions, and the wealth
and greatness of the country would be diminished in like proportion.
Instead of being, perhaps, the greatest nation in the world, the United
States would occupy the position of a fourth or fifth-rate power,
a little but not much ahead of Canada on the north, and the South
American governments on the south.

As the greater number of the foreign population were Roman Catholics,
a sectarian element was infused into the new party, and with bigotry
superadded to a widespread jealousy of foreigners, the Native American
party soon signalized itself by burning down Catholic churches and
colleges, and by bloody chance-medleys and deliberate riots with German
and Irish adopted citizens. In the year 1844 these disturbances reached
a climax. A terrible riot occurred that year in Philadelphia, in which
many lives were sacrificed, and the Catholic church of St. Augustine
was laid in ashes by the mob. The scenes in that city bore resemblance
to some of the godless excesses in Paris during the reign of terror. To
be a foreigner was to brave death, to be a Catholic to court martyrdom
in free America.

It was at this juncture the Native American party in the city of New
York again threatened the destruction of St. Patrick’s Cathedral.
The New York _Courier and Enquirer_, and _Evening Express_ fanned
the passions of the people to white heat by appeals to sectarian and
race prejudices. But there was a man then at the head of the Catholic
Church in New York who possessed many of the qualities for which
Andrew Jackson was distinguished. Bishop Hughes belonged to the tribe
of the lions. He perceived that it was the favorite policy of the
Native Americans to make New York city an anti-foreign stronghold.
There, Catholics and adopted citizens were powerful; crushed there,
it would be an easy matter to prostrate them everywhere. In the month
of May, 1844, the Native American leaders in New York, invited their
brethren of Philadelphia, who had most distinguished themselves in the
deplorable events in that city, to visit New York, and to bring with
them emblems of the horrible scenes in Kensington at the time of the
burning of the church of St. Augustine, the better to fire the New York
heart. A delegation of Philadelphians promised to accept the invitation
and carry on the emblems. A public reception, and a procession through
the streets, were to take place. It became evident that the purpose of
this sinister movement was to re-enact in New York the scenes which
had just disgraced Philadelphia. Bishop Hughes took decisive action.
He admonished Catholics to keep away from public meetings and unusual
gatherings of the populace, and, to avoid in a special manner, all
disturbers of the peace. That great man, in looking over the city for
prudent and conservative persons to aid him in carrying out his policy
of forbearance, found no one on whom he more implicitly relied, and
who proved more effective in the emergency than John Kelly. Bishop
Hughes and John Kelly’s father were natives of the same county and
neighborhood in Ireland. Between the Bishop and his fellow countryman’s
son a warm friendship existed. They were both endowed with minds of
singular originality and power, both natural leaders of men, both
possessed a remarkable hold on the respect and affections of the
people. Among the Whigs, at this perilous juncture, Bishop Hughes
also found several powerful supporters, chief among whom were William
H. Seward, Horace Greeley and Thurlow Weed. As the time drew near for
the Native American demonstration, popular excitement and fears of a
terrible riot increased. Bishop Hughes now called on the Mayor of the
city, Robert H. Morris, and advised him not to allow the demonstration
to take place. “Are you afraid that some of your churches may be
burned?” the Mayor asked. “No, sir, but I am afraid that some of yours
will be burned,” the Bishop said; “we can protect our own. I came to
warn you for your own good.” “Do you think, Bishop, that your people
would attack the procession?” “I do not; but the Native Americans want
to provoke a Catholic riot, and if they can do it in no other way, I
believe they would not scruple to attack the procession themselves, for
the sake of making it appear that the Catholics had assailed them.”

“What, then, would you have me do?” asked the Mayor. “I did not come to
tell you what to do,” the Bishop said. “I am a Churchman, not the Mayor
of New York; but if I were the Mayor, I would examine the laws of the
State and see if there were not attached to the police force a battery
of artillery, and a company or so of infantry, and a squadron of horse;
and I think I should find that there were; and if so, I should call
them out. Moreover, I should send to Mr. Harper, the Mayor-elect, who
has been chosen by the votes of this party. I should remind him that
these men are his supporters; I should warn him that if they carry out
their designs there will be a riot; and I should urge him to use his
influence in preventing the public reception of the delegates.”[5]

This characteristic stand of Bishop Hughes had its effect. No public
reception of the church burners took place, but for nearly two weeks
the Cathedral was guarded every night, and the mob which threatened its
destruction was kept at bay. During those dark days Bishop Hughes found
John Kelly to be one of the most prudent young men in the Cathedral
parish, energetic in danger, conservative in conduct, and always
responsive to the call of duty. His manly bearing then may be said to
have laid the foundation of that enduring confidence in his judgment,
and respect for his character, which the Bishop ever afterwards felt
and expressed. Mr. Kelly was not a zealot, and there is not a tinge
of bigotry in his nature. He was then, as he is now, a true liberal,
and has always declared that religion and politics should be kept as
wide apart as the poles. But he is the foe of intolerance, and while
despising the arts of the demagogue, no man in New York has done more
to uphold foreign citizens in their rights, and to emancipate the
ballot-box from persecution on the one hand, and fraudulent voting on
the other.

The Native American party finally developed into the notorious
Know-Nothing movement, the party of grips, and signs, and
dark-lanterns. In many of the election districts of New York no
foreigner dared approach the polls. The primaries were even worse,
and were conducted in defiant disregard of the election laws. In John
Kelly’s ward, which was a fair illustration of every other ward in the
city, any Irishman or German risked his life by going to the polls.
Gangs of repeaters and thugs, as far as they could, kept all foreigners
from the primaries. These tools of the Know-Nothing leaders would fill
the room where the election was held, take possession of the line,
crowd out their opponents by threats or violence, return again and
again, force their way, after passing the spot where the votes were
received, once more into the line, and repeat the farcical act of
voting a second and third time, keeping up the villany until relieved
by another squad of repeaters, who continued to enact the same scenes
until the close of the polls. A friendly police force connived at these
rascalities, and openly backed up the repeaters and ballot-box stuffers
whenever a determined citizen, in the exercise of his rights, resisted
expulsion from the line, or attempted to defend himself from assault.
So great became the terror these law-breakers inspired, that opposition
to them was practically at an end. This state of affairs was more
humiliating, since the majority of voters in the Fourteenth Ward were
known to be Democrats. John Kelly protested against these outrages as a
private citizen, and at a meeting of Democrats declared his intention
of attending the next primary election in the Fourteenth Ward, then
near at hand, and exercising his right of voting at all hazards. Those
who knew the man knew this was not an idle boast, but many tried to
dissuade him from the rash attempt, which, if persisted in, would
likely enough cost him his life.

The primary election was to take place in a hall, long since removed,
in the march of the city, which then stood on the corner of Grand and
Elizabeth Streets. The part of the room for the inspectors’ seats was
protected by a high partition, and a box desk, like a bank teller’s
window, with a hole only large enough for a voter’s hand to be put
through in handing his ballot, to the receiving inspector, was placed
at one side of the partition. A narrow path in the main room, fenced in
by high rails, to allow but one voter to approach at a time, afforded
the only means of access to the polls. When the voter handed in his
ballot, that was the last he saw of it, as the partition effectually
shut off observation from without. As a matter of fact it was the
practice of the inspector to throw the vote into a waste basket, on
the floor at his feet, if it was not of the approved sort. This mode
of taking the _vox populi_ had long been in practice, and was not
only an open evasion of the statute, which provided for the presence
of watchers for the several parties, whose legal right it was to see
that all had a fair opportunity to vote, but it was adopted with
the deliberate purpose of protecting the swindling inspectors from
detection while engaged in the nefarious work of making way with legal
ballots. On the day of the election John Kelly was early on the scene,
and was accompanied by a large number of the lawful voters of the ward,
who appointed him as their watcher at the polls. He and his friends
forced their way into the hall, and as the black hole, behind which
the frauds were practiced, was there in violation of the statute, it
was straightway demolished, in order to secure at least a semblance of
fairness to the voting about to take place. The Know-Nothings were at
first struck dumb with astonishment at this bold step on the part of
the Democrats. To defend themselves from violence was as much as the
latter had previously attempted. Rage soon took the place of surprise,
and a furious attack was made on those who had removed the box screen
from about the inspectors’ desk. John Kelly, who had been recognized
as a Democratic watcher, was also set upon by the gang of ballot-box
stuffers. A fierce scuffle ensued. But the Democrats outnumbered the
Know-Nothings, and drove them from the hall. The leaders of the latter
party, uttering vows of vengeance, declared they would soon return
with reinforcements, and make short work of Kelly and his party. They
repaired to the ship-carpenters’ quarters at the foot of Delaney
street, and soon the news of their discomfiture was spread abroad among
the thousands of mechanics in that part of the city. These mechanics
were, for the most part, engaged in ship building, for those were
the days when New York’s famous clipper ships whitened the seas and
brought back cargoes of commerce from all parts of the world. The
ship carpenters constituted a formidable body of athletic men, whose
influence at elections was cast on the side of the Know-Nothings. It
was not long before a body of these mechanics, over a thousand in
number, was drummed up in Delaney street and vicinity, and marshalled
by notorious Know-Nothing bullies, the crowd started for the hall in
Grand street to inflict condign punishment upon John Kelly and the
Fourteenth Ward Democrats, who had shown the unprecedented audacity of
interfering with the usual Know-Nothing methods of carrying elections
in that ward. In the meantime the Democrats had not been idle, but had
recruited their own ranks to prepare for the threatened attack. Soon
the two parties came into collision, and a desperate encounter took
place. But for a second time the victory remained with the Democrats.
The Know-Nothings, unaccustomed to serious opposition, were not
prepared for it now, and advanced in a promiscuous manner, expecting
to bear down opposition and to have everything their own way. The
Democrats presented a compact front, and fought in companies of ten
each. The hall was cleared a second time of the assailing party. A
great multitude was now gathered in the streets threatening to tear
down or burn the building, when the Democrats suddenly sallied forth
with the precision of veterans, and struck the Know-Nothing mob at a
dozen different points simultaneously. The mob being gathered from
all parts of the city greatly exceeded the Democrats in numbers, but
the sub-divisions of tens on the part of the latter worked so well
that their onslaught became irresistible. Soon the mob were flying
in all directions, some seeking refuge in stores, others in private
houses, and the rest were pursued into and through the Bowery with
great impetuosity. “The hour was come and the man.” None knew it better
than the Know-Nothing Dirk Hatteraicks of New York. The effect of that
day’s work in the Fourteenth Ward was felt all over the city of New
York for years afterwards, and its immediate consequence was to break
the backbone of Know-Nothingism in the ward in which it occurred.
Thereafter Democrats, whether native or foreign born, were not afraid
to appear at election places. The moral effect was salutary. The timid
were reassured, the indifferent were roused into interest in public
affairs, and fair elections became more frequent in New York city.
The one strong man who had worked this revolution was John Kelly. The
Irish and German population looked upon him as their deliverer, and
from that day forth the Know-Nothing power on the East side of the city
dwindled into insignificance, and no further attempts to stifle the
voice of the majority took place. Kelly became identified in the minds
of the adopted citizens of all nationalities, but especially of the
Irish, who were chiefly aimed at, as their champion. Henceforth it was
not possible for this strong man, this born leader of his fellows, to
follow the bent of his inclinations and remain in a private station.
He was elected to the Board of Aldermen, and next to the Congress of
the United States. The Know-Nothings, by their excesses in New York,
had raised up an adversary to their oath-bound secret organization who
was destined to accomplish as much in the Empire State for equal rights
to all citizens, native and foreign-born, as Alexander H. Stephens, in
a similar contest, wrought out in Georgia, and Henry A. Wise, by his
great anti-Know-Nothing campaign accomplished in Virginia.


FOOTNOTES:

[1] _Utica Observer_, Sept. 16, 1879.

[2] _Utica Observer_, Sept. 16, 1879.

[3] New York _World_, Oct. 18, 1875.

[4] New York _Herald_ October 26, 1877.

[5] Clarke’s Lives of the Deceased Bishops, vol. ii., pp. 111-112.



CHAPTER III.

 THE GREAT COMMONER OF GEORGIA—SPEECH OF A. H. STEPHENS—HENRY A. WISE
 OF ACCOMAC—HENRY WINTER DAVIS—HIS CHARACTER—JOHN KELLY MEETS HIM
 IN DEBATE—KELLY’S STANDING IN CONGRESS—HIS CHARACTER DESCRIBED BY
 LEWIS CASS, BY A. H. STEPHENS, AND JAMES GORDON BENNETT—THE ERA OF
 KNOW-NOTHINGISM—KELLY’S PART IN ITS OVERTHROW.


The future historian of the United States, when he comes to
treat of that extraordinary movement in American politics called
Know-Nothingism, will not do justice to the subject unless he
assigns the post of honor in the work of its overthrow as a national
organization to Stephens of Georgia, Wise of Virginia, and Kelly of New
York. A glance at the great work accomplished by these three men is all
that can be attempted in this memoir.

“True Americanism,” said Alexander H. Stephens in his memorable
Anti-Know-Nothing contest in Georgia in 1855, “as I have learned it, is
like true Christianity—disciples in neither are confined to any nation,
clime or soil whatever. Americanism is not the product of the soil;
it springs not from the land or the ground; it is not of the earth,
or earthy; it emanates from the head and the heart; it looks upward,
and onward and outward; its life and soul are those grand ideas of
government which characterize our institutions, and distinguish us from
all other people; and there are no two features in our system which so
signally distinguish us from all other nations as _free toleration_ of
religion and the doctrine of _expatriation_—the right of a man to throw
off his allegiance to any and every other State, prince or potentate
whatsoever, and by _naturalization_ to be incorporated as a citizen
into our body politic. Both these principles are specially provided
for and firmly established in our Constitution. But these American
ideas which were proclaimed in 1789 by our ‘sires of ’76’ are by
their ‘sons’ at this day derided and scoffed at. We are now told that
‘naturalization’ is a ‘humbug,’ and that it is an impossibility. So did
not our fathers think. This ‘humbug’ and ‘impossibility’ they planted
in the Constitution; and a vindication of the same principle was one of
the causes of our second war of independence. Let no man, then, barely
because he was born in America, presume to be imbued with real and true
‘Americanism,’ who either ignores the direct and positive obligations
of the Constitution, or ignores this, one of its most striking
characteristics. An Irishman, a Frenchman, a German, or Russian, can be
as thoroughly American as if he had been born within the walls of the
old Independence Hall itself. Which was the ‘true American,’ Arnold or
Hamilton? The one was a native, the other an adopted son.”[6]

Mr. Stephens had declined to be a candidate for Congress in 1855,
and the Know-Nothings taunted him with cowardice, because, they
said, if he should run he knew he was doomed to defeat. His letter
on Know-Nothingism to Judge Thomas, from which the preceding extract
is quoted, was denounced furiously by the Know-Nothings, who
loudly predicted that the letter would prove to be his political
winding-sheet. These taunts were published throughout the country, and
induced Mr. Stephens to change his mind, and re-enter the field as
a candidate for the Thirty-fourth Congress. In a speech at Augusta,
Georgia, in which he announced this purpose, he said: “I have heard
that it has been said that I declined being a candidate, because a
majority of the district were Know-Nothings, and I was afraid of being
beaten. Now, to all men who entertain any such opinion of me, I wish to
say that I was influenced by no such motive. I am afraid of nothing on
earth, or above the earth, or under the earth, except to do wrong—the
path of duty I shall ever endeavor to travel, ‘fearing no evil,’ and
dreading no consequences. Let time-servers, and those whose whole
object is to see and find out which way the popular current for the
day and hour runs, that they may float upon it, fear or dread defeat
if they please. I would rather be defeated in a good cause than to
triumph in a bad one. I would not give a fig for a man who would shrink
from the discharge of duty for fear of defeat. All is not gold that
glitters, and there is no telling the pure from the base until it is
submitted to the fiery ordeal of the crucible and the furnace. The best
test of a man’s integrity and the soundness of his principles is the
furnace of popular opinion, and the hotter the furnace the better the
test. I have traveled from a distant part of the State, where I first
heard these floating taunts of fear—as coming from this district—for
the sole and express purpose of announcing to you, one and all, and
in this most public way to announce to the other counties, without
distinction of party, that I am again a candidate for Congress in this
district. The announcement I now make. My name is hereby presented to
the district; not by any convention under a majority or a two-third
rule—but by myself.

“I know, fellow-citizens, that many of you differ with me upon those
exciting questions which are now dividing—and most unhappily, too, as
I conceive—dividing our people. It is easy to join the shouts of the
multitude, but it is hard to say to a multitude that they are wrong.
I would be willing to go into one of your Know-Nothing lodges or
councils, where every man would be against me, if I could be admitted
without first having to put myself under obligations never to tell
what occurred therein, and there speak the same sentiments that I shall
utter here this night. Bear with me, then, while I proceed.[7] It is to
exhibit and hold up even to yourselves the great evils and dangers to
be apprehended from this ‘new,’ and, I think, most vicious political
‘monster,’ that I would address you; and against the influences of
which I would warn and guard you, as well as the rest of our people.
While the specious outside title of the party is that ‘Americans shall
rule America,’ when we come to look at its secret objects as they leak
out, we find that one of its main purposes is, not that ‘Americans
shall rule America,’ but that those of a particular religious faith,
though as good Americans as any others, shall be ruled by the rest.

“But it is said the ‘proscription’ is not against a religious but a
political enemy, and the Roman Church is a political party, dangerous
and powerful. Was a bolder assertion, without one fact to rest upon,
ever attempted to be palmed off upon a confiding people? The Roman
Church a political party! Where are its candidates? How many do they
number in our State Legislatures or in Congress? What dangers are
they threatening, or what have they ever plotted? Let them be named.
Was it when Lord Baltimore, a Catholic, established the colony of
Maryland, and for the first time on this continent established the
principle of free toleration in religious worship? Was it when Charles
Carroll, a Catholic, signed the Declaration of Independence? But it
is said that great danger is to be apprehended from the Catholics
because of a ‘secret order’ amongst them, known as Jesuits. ‘No one,’
says a Know-Nothing writer, ‘knows, or possibly can know, the extent
of their influence in this country. One of them may eat at your
table, instruct your children, and profess to be a good Protestant,
and you never suspect him. Their great aim is to make their mark in
America. Perjury to them is no sin, if the object of it be to spread
Catholicism or acquire political influence in the country.’ Whether
this be true of the Jesuits or not I cannot say. But I submit it to
the consideration of candid minds how far it is true of the new order
of Know-Nothings, which is now so strenuously endeavoring to make its
mark in America, and to gain political influence in the country, not
only by putting down all foreigners, and all native-born citizens who
may be of Catholic faith, but also all other native-born citizens who
will not take upon their necks the yoke of their power. Do not hundreds
and thousands of them go about daily and hourly, denying that they
belong to the order, or that they know anything about it? May they
not, and do they not ‘eat at your table,’ attend your sick, and some
of them preach from your pulpits, and yet deny that they know anything
about that ‘order’ which they are making such efforts to spread in the
land? I do not say all of them do this; but is it not common with the
‘order,’ thus by some sort of equivocation and slippery construction,
to mislead and deceive those with whom they converse? There is
nothing worse that can be said of any man or any people indicating a
destruction of morals or personal degradation, than that ‘the truth
is not in him.’ It is the life and soul of all the virtues, human or
divine. Tell me not that any party will effect reformation of any
sort, bad as we now are in this land, which brings into disrepute this
principle upon which rests all our hopes on earth, and all our hopes
for immortality. And my opinion is that the Protestant ministers of
the Gospel in this country, instead of joining in this New England,
puritanical, proscriptive crusade against Catholics, could not render a
better service to their churches, as well as the State, in the present
condition of morals amongst us, than to appoint a day for everyone of
them to preach to their respective congregations from this text, ‘What
is truth?’ Let it also be a day set aside for fasting, humiliation and
prayer—for repentance in sackcloth and ashes—on account of the alarming
prevalence of the enormous sin of lying! Was there ever such a state of
general distrust between man and man before? Could it ever have been
said of a Georgia gentleman, until within a few months past, that he
says so and so, but I don’t know whether to believe him or not? Is it
not bringing Protestantism, and Christianity itself, into disgrace when
such remarks are daily made, and not without just cause, about Church
communicants of all our Protestant denominations—and by one church
member even about his fellow-member? Where is this state of things to
lead to, or end, but in general deception, hypocrisy, knavery, and
universal treachery?

“Was ever such tyranny heard of in any old party in this country as
that which this new ‘order’ sets up? Every one of them knows, and
whether they deny it or not, there is a secret monitor within that
tells them that they have pledged themselves never to vote for any
Roman Catholic to any office of profit or trust. They have thus pledged
themselves to set up a religious test in qualifications for office
against the express words of the Constitution of the United States.
Their very organization is not only anti-American, anti-republican,
but at war with the fundamental law of the Union, and, therefore,
revolutionary in its character, thus silently and secretly to effect
for all practical purposes a change in our form of government. And what
is this but revolution? Not an open and manly rebellion, but a secret
and covert attempt to undermine the very corner-stone of the temple of
our liberties.

“Whenever any government denies to any class of its citizens an equal
participation in the privileges, immunities, and honors enjoyed by all
others, it parts with all just claim to their allegiance. Allegiance
is due only so long as protection is extended; and protection
necessarily implies an equality of right to stand or fall, according
to merit, amongst all the members of society, or the citizens of
the commonwealth. The best of men, after all, have enough of the
old leaven of human nature left about them to fight when they feel
aggrieved, outraged and trampled upon; and strange to say, where men
get to fighting about religion they fight harder, and longer and more
exterminatingly than upon any other subject. The history of the world
teaches this. Already we see the spirit abroad which is to enkindle
the fires and set the fagots a blazing—not by the Catholics, they are
comparatively few and weak; their only safety is in the shield of
the constitutional guarantee; minorities seldom assail majorities;
and persecutions always begin with the larger numbers against the
smaller. But this spirit is evinced by one of the numerous replies to
my letter. The writer says: ‘We call upon the children of the Puritans
of the North, and the Huguenots of the South, by the remembrance of
the fires of Smithfield, and the bloody St. Bartholomew, to lay down
for once all sectional difficulties,’ etc., and to join in this great
American movement of proscribing Catholics. What is this but the
tocsin of intestine strife? Why call up the remembrance of the fires
of Smithfield but to whet the Protestant appetite for vengeance? Why
stir up the quiet ashes of bloody St. Bartholomew, but for the hope,
perhaps, of finding therein a slumbering spark from which new fires
may be started? Why exhume the atrocities, cruelties, and barbarities
of ages gone by from the repose in which they have been buried for
hundreds of years, unless it be to reproduce the seed, and spread
amongst us the same moral infection and loathsome contagion?—just as it
is said the plague is sometimes occasioned in London by disentombing
and exposing to the atmosphere the latent virus of the fell disease
still lingering in the dusty bones of those who died of it centuries
ago. Fellow citizens, Fellow Protestants, Fellow Americans—all who
reverence the constitution of your country—I entreat you, and I envoke
you to give no listening ear to such fanatical appeals.

“When the principles of the Constitution are disregarded, when those
‘checks and restraints,’ put in it as Mr. Madison has told us, for
‘a defence to the people against their own temporary errors and
delusions,’ are broken down and swept away, when the whole country
shall have been brought under the influence of the third degree of this
Know-Nothing order, if that time shall ever come, then, indeed may the
days of this Republic, too, be considered as numbered.

“I wish to say something to you about this third degree, the union
degree, as it is called. For under this specious title, name or guise,
the arch-tempter again approaches us, quite as subtly as under the
other of ‘Americans shall rule America.’ The obligation taken in
this degree is ‘to uphold, maintain and defend’ the Union, without
one word being said about the Constitution. Now, as much as we all,
I trust, are devoted to the Union, who would have it without the
Constitution? This is the life and soul of it—this is its animating
spirit. It is this that gives it vitality, health, vigor, strength,
growth, development and power. Without it the Union could never have
been formed, and without it it cannot be maintained or held together.
Where the animating principle of any living organism is extinguished,
this is death, and dissolution is inevitable. You might just as well
expect that the component parts of your bodies could be held together
by some senseless incantations after the vital spark has departed, as
that this Union can be held together by any Know-Nothing oaths when
the Constitution is gone. Congress is to be done away with, except in
so far as its members may be necessary, as the dumb instruments for
registering the edicts of an invisible but all-powerful oligarchy. Our
present Government is to be paralyzed by this boa-constrictor, which is
now entwining its coils around it. It is to be supplanted and displaced
by another self-constituted and secretly organized body to rise up in
its stead, a political ‘monster,’ more terrible to contemplate than the
seven-headed beast spoken of in the Apocalypse.

“I have seen it stated in the newspapers by some unknown writer, that
my letter to Col. Thomas will be my political winding-sheet. If you
and the other voters of the Eighth Congressional District so will it,
so let it be; there is but one other I should prefer—and that is the
Constitution of my country; let me be first wrapped in this, and then
covered over with that letter, and the principles I have announced this
night; and thus shrouded I shall be content to be laid away, when the
time comes, in my last resting-place without asking any other epitaph
but the simple inscription carved upon the headstone that marks the
spot—‘Here sleep the remains of one who dared to tell the people they
were wrong when he believed so, and who never intentionally deceived a
friend, or betrayed even an enemy.’”[8]

Thus spoke Alexander H. Stephens, Georgia’s greatest statesman, of
the pernicious tendencies of the Know-Nothing party. On that speech
he ran for Congress and was elected by three thousand majority.
Know-Nothingism was thus slain in Georgia. Since the death of Mr.
Stephens some scribbler with a talent for forgery has taken the
quotation marks from the paragraph about the Jesuits in the foregoing
speech, affixed Mr. Stephens’s name to it, and sent it on its rounds
through the press as the declared opinion of the dead statesman
concerning the followers of Loyola. Mr. Stephens quoted the paragraph
from a Know-Nothing writer, not to approve the attack on the Jesuits,
but for the opposite purpose of showing it applied to the Know-Nothings
themselves. No man in this country could use the weapon of retort
with more effect than Alexander H. Stephens, and his remarks on the
paragraph in question afford a favorable instance of his power in that
line. That this stupid calumny on the great man who battled so nobly
for the equal rights of Catholics and Protestants, Jews and Gentiles,
foreign born and native Americans, should have been palmed off on the
public, is less surprising than that it should have found its way into
certain Catholic newspapers, in the columns of at least one of which
the present writer read it shortly after the death of Mr. Stephens.

The ever memorable conflict in Virginia of 1855, between the
Know-Nothings and Democrats, was led on the part of the latter by
the gallant Henry A. Wise. That conflict was one of great national
magnitude. If the Know-Nothings, theretofore victorious, had then
succeeded, it is likely a civil war precipitated by religious
fanaticism would have followed, not to be conducted between the States,
as later unfortunately occurred, but between citizens of the same
cities, and towns and neighborhoods throughout the Union, with a fury
to make humanity shudder—in every sense of the word a civil war. The
Virginia election of that year was, therefore, watched with intense
interest by the whole American people, and a feeling of feverish
excitement was everywhere visible. Henry A. Wise, the uncompromising
enemy of the Know-Nothings, was named as the Democratic candidate
for Governor of Virginia. Never was such a canvass before. He went
everywhere, pouring out fiery eloquence in the Western Mountains, in
the Blue Ridge that milks the clouds, upon the Potomac, lovely River of
Swans, on the Rappahannock, the Piankatank, Mob Jack Bay, James River,
Elizabeth River, down to the North Carolina line; and wherever he went
this second Patrick Henry stirred the people’s hearts as they had not
been stirred before. One of the best stump speeches ever heard in this
country was made by Mr. Wise at Alexandria. He had declared hostility
to the Know-Nothings in a letter to a citizen of Virginia, written
September 18, 1854.

In that letter he said: “I am a native Virginian; my ancestors on
both sides for two hundred years were citizens of this country and
this State—half English, half Scotch. I am a Protestant by birth, by
baptism, by intellectual belief, and by education and by adoption. I
am an American, in every fibre and in every feeling an American; yet
in every character, in every relation, in every sense, with all my
head and all my heart, and all my might, I protest against this secret
organization of native Americans and of Protestants to proscribe Roman
Catholic and naturalized citizens. As early as 1787 we established a
great land ordinance, the most perfect system of eminent domain, of
proprietary titles, and of territorial settlements, which the world
had ever beheld to bless the homeless children of men. It had the very
house-warming of hospitality in it. It wielded the logwood axe, and
cleared a continent of forests. It made an exodus in the old world, and
dotted the new with log-cabins, around the hearths of which the tears
of the aged and the oppressed were wiped away, and cherub children were
born to liberty, and sang its songs, and have grown up in its strength
and might and majesty. It brought together foreigners of every country
and clime—immigrants from Europe of every language and religion, and
its most wonderful effect has been to assimilate all races. Irish
and German, English and French, Scotch and Spaniard, have met on the
Western prairies, in the Western woods, and have peopled villages and
towns and cities—queen cities, rivalling the marts of Eastern commerce;
and the Teutonic and Celtic and Anglo-Saxon races have in a day mingled
into one undistinguishable mass—and that one is American. The children
of all are crossed in blood in the first generation, so that ethnology
can’t tell of what parentage they are—they all become brother and
sister Jonathans. As in the colonies, as in the revolution, as in the
last war, so have foreigners and immigrants of every religion and
tongue contributed to build up the temple of American law and liberty
until its spire reaches to heaven, whilst its shadow rests on earth. If
there has been a turnpike road to be beaten out of the rocky metal, or
a canal to be dug, foreigners and immigrants have been armed with the
mattock and the spade and if a battle on sea and land had to be fought,
foreigners and immigrants have been armed with the musket and the blade.

“We can name the very hour of our birth as a people. We need recur to
no fable of a wolf to whelp us into existence. As a nation we are but
seventy-eight years of age. Many persons are now living who were alive
before this nation was born. And the ancestors of this people about
two centuries only ago were foreigners, every one of them coming to
the shores of this country to take it away from the aborigines, and to
take possession of it by authority either directly or derivatively of
Papal Power. His Holiness the Pope was the great grantor of all the
new countries of North America. Foreigners in the name of the Pope and
Mother Church took possession of North America, to have and to hold the
same to their heirs against the heathen forever. And now already their
descendants are for excluding foreigners, and the Pope’s followers
from an equal enjoyment of this same possession. So strange is human
history. Christopher Columbus! Ferdinand and Isabella! What would they
have thought of this had they foreseen it when they touched a continent
and called it theirs in the name of the Holy Trinity, by authority
of the keeper of the keys of Heaven, and of the great grantor of the
empire and domain of earth? What would have become of our national
titles to northeastern and northwestern boundaries, but for the plea of
this authority, valid of old among all Christian powers?”

Writing thus in September, 1854, Mr. Wise, although he had been a Whig
years before, was nominated for Governor by the Democrats in December
of the same year. In his famous Alexandria speech, before discussing
Know-Nothingism, he told the people some practical truths explanatory
of the decadence of the prosperity of Virginia, of the causes producing
it, and the remedies to be applied. “You have,” he said, “the bowels of
your Western mountains rich in iron, in copper, in coal, in salt, in
gypsum, and the very earth is so rich in oil that it sets the rivers in
flame. You have the line of the Alleghany, that beautiful Blue Ridge
which stands placed there by the Almighty, not to obstruct the way of
the people to market, but placed there in the very bounty of Providence
to milk the clouds, to make the sweet springs which are the sources
of your rivers. And at the head of every stream is the waterfall
murmuring the very music of your power to put spindles in motion. And
yet commerce has long ago spread her sails and sailed away from you;
you have not as yet dug more than coal enough to warm yourselves at
your own hearths; you have set no tilt-hammer of Vulcan to strike blows
worthy of gods in the iron foundries. You have not yet spun more than
coarse cotton enough, in the way of manufacture, to clothe your own
slaves. You have had no commerce, no mining, no manufactures. You have
relied alone on the single power of agriculture; and such agriculture!
Your sedge patches outshine the sun. Your inattention to your only
source of wealth has scarred the very bosom of mother earth. Instead
of having to feed cattle on a thousand hills, you have had to chase
the stump-tailed steer through the sedge patches to procure a tough
beef-steak. You are in the habit of discussing Federal politics; and
permit me to say to you, very honestly and very openly, that next to
brandy, next to card playing, next to horse-racing, the thing that has
done more harm to Virginia than any other in the course of her past
history, has been her insatiable appetite for Federal politics. She has
given all her great men to the Union. Her Washington, her Jefferson,
her Madison, her Marshall, her galaxy of great men she has given to the
Union. Richmond, instead of attending to Richmond’s business, has been
too much in the habit of attending to the affairs of Washington city,
when there are plenty there, God knows, to attend to them themselves.
* * “Puritanism,” said Mr. Wise, has disappeared, and we have in place
of it Unitarianism, Universalism, Fourierism, Millerism, Mormonism—all
the odds and ends of isms—until at last you have a grand fusion of all
those odds and ends of isms in the _omnium gatherum_ of isms called
Know-Nothingism. Having swept the North, the question was: How can this
ism be wedged in in the South? And the devil was at the elbow of these
preachers of ‘Christian politics’ to tell them precisely how.” [At this
point Mr. Wise was interrupted by cat-calls, derisive cheers and other
manifestations of the Know-Nothing element of the meeting.] “There were
three elements in the South,” continued the speaker, “and in Virginia
particularly, to which they might apply themselves. There is the
religious element, the 103,000 Presbyterians, the 300,000 Baptists, the
300,000 Methodists of Virginia. Well, how were they to reach them? Why,
just by raising a hell of a fuss about the Pope!

“Cæsar’s kingdom is political, is a carnal kingdom. And I tell you
that if I stood alone in the State of Virginia, and if priestcraft—if
the priests of my own Mother Church dared to lay their hands on the
political power of our people, or to use their churches to wield
political influence, I would stand, in feeble imitation it may be, but
I would stand, even if I stood alone, as Patrick Henry stood in the
Revolution, between the parsons and the people. These men, many of
whom are neither Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists,
Congregationalists, Lutherans, nor what not—who are men of no religion,
who have no church, who do not say their prayers, who do not read their
Bible, who live God-defying lives every day of their existence, are
now seen with faces as long as their dark-lanterns, with the whites
of their eyes turned up in holy fear lest the Bible should be shut
up by the Pope! You tell the people that Catholics never gave aid to
civil liberty; that they never yet struck a blow for the freedom of
mankind. Who gave you alliance against the crown of England? Who but
that Catholic king, Louis XVI. He sent you from the Court of Versailles
Lafayette, the boy of Washington’s camp, a foreigner who never was
naturalized, but who bled at the redoubt of Yorktown, when Arnold, a
native, like Absalom proved traitor.

“And, Sir, before George Washington was born, before Lafayette wielded
the sword, or Charles Carroll the pen for his country, six hundred and
forty years ago, on the 16th of June, 1214, there was another scene
enacted on the face of the globe, when the general charter of all
charters of freedom was gained, when one man, a man called Stephen
Langton, swore the Barons of England for the people against the power
of the King—swore the Barons on the high altar of the Catholic Church
at St. Edmundsbury, that they would have Magna Charta or die for it.
The charter which secures to every one of you to-day trial by jury,
freedom of the press, freedom of the pen, the confronting of witnesses
with the accused, and the opening of secret dungeons—that charter was
obtained by Stephen Langton against the King of England, and if you
Know-Nothings don’t know who Stephen Langton was, you know nothing sure
enough. He was a Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury. I come here not to
praise the Catholics, but I come here to acknowledge historical truths,
and to ask of Protestants—what has heretofore been the pride and boast
of Protestants—tolerance of opinion in religious faith.

“All that I have to say to the Democracy is that you want active,
earnest organization. Remember that if these Know-Nothings hold
together they are sworn compact committees of vigilance. Go to work
then. Organize actively everywhere. Appoint your vigilance committees,
but take especial care that no Know-Nothings are secretly and unknown
to you upon them. Be prepared. I have gone through most of Eastern
Virginia, and in spite of their vaunting I defy them to defeat me.
There are Indians in the bushes, but I’ll whack on the bayonet, and
lunge at every shrub in the State till I drive them out. I tell them
distinctly there shall be no compromise, no parley. I will come to no
terms. They shall either crush me, or I will crush them in this State.”

Mr. Wise, though his health was impaired, conducted his campaign with
extraordinary energy, travelling about 3000 miles, to every point
in the State, and speaking fifty times before the election. He was
triumphantly elected Governor of Virginia, receiving upwards of ten
thousand majority over his Know-Nothing competitor. The impartial
verdict of history is that Henry A. Wise did more to kill the
Know-Nothing party than any other man in the United States.

Many Know-Nothings were elected to Congress from the Northern States,
and a few from the Southern States. In the Senate and House of
Representatives there were seventy-eight members of that party in 1855.
Conspicuous among them all, on account of his prejudices no less than
his ability, was Henry Winter Davis, a member of the Thirty-fourth and
Thirty-fifth Congresses from Baltimore.

The celebrated controversy upon the floor of Congress between Davis
and John Kelly on the Know-Nothing question entitles the Know-Nothing
leader to some notice here.

Henry Winter Davis was born at Annapolis, Maryland, August 16, 1817,
and received his education at Kenyon College, Ohio, where he was
graduated in 1837. His father was an Episcopalian minister. Young
Davis was sent to the University of Virginia in 1839 by his aunt, a
Miss Winter of Alexandria, Virginia, and entered upon his preparatory
legal studies at that institution. He afterwards opened a law office
at Alexandria, where he struggled with poverty for some years, making
but little mark in that community, save as an occasional contributor
of political essays to the Alexandria _Gazette_, but applying himself
closely to his studies, and becoming an able lawyer. Reverdy Johnson
recognized his talents and advised him to remove to Baltimore, where
he would find a wider field for their display. Mr. Davis acted on this
advice, and made Baltimore his home. He had married a Miss Cazenove
of Alexandria, who soon died, and subsequently he married a daughter
of John S. Morris, a wealthy and prominent citizen of Baltimore. Mr.
Morris opposed the marriage on account of Davis’s peculiar political
views.

Henry Winter Davis was a man of genius, with a natural bent for an
opposition leader. In person he was handsome, in manners haughty and
reserved, in demeanor elegant; and he possessed the gift of a fine
oratory, both logical and persuasive. A morose temper and a cynical
and cold nature served to heighten the picturesque effect of his
character, and to make him delight in fomenting discord and violence.
“The ignorant Dutch and infuriated Irish, let them beware lest they
press the bosses of the buckler too far,” is said to have been a form
of expression he applied to Germans and Irishmen in the course of
one of his invectives on the stump in Baltimore. He soon became an
acknowledged leader of the Know-Nothings, and no man knew better how
to fire the rage and incite to acts of bloodshed the Plug Uglies of
that city. Had Davis lived during the era of the Alien and Sedition
Laws, his genius probably would have placed him at the head of that
conspiracy, and his name would have become famous in history. He was a
contemner of the sanctions of authority. The sacredness of institutions
handed down from generation to generation unimpaired by the ravages of
time, awakened no sense of reverence in the mind of this iconoclast.
Burke’s beautiful allusion to the bulwarks of civil society which have
been stamped with the “mysterious virtue of wax and parchment,” must
have appeared to him only as a figure of rhetoric or a ridiculous
fetich. How contemptuously he regarded the warning of Washington to his
countrymen in the Farewell Address against entangling alliances with
the nations of Europe is discovered in the following passage, found at
page 367, of a book written by Mr. Davis, called “The War of Ormuzd and
Ahriman in the Nineteenth Century.”

“They who stand with their backs to the future and their faces to the
past, wise only after the event, and refusing to believe in dangers
they have not felt, clamorously invoke the name of Washington in their
protest against interference in the concerns of Europe. With such it
is useless to argue till they learn the meaning of the language they
repeat.”

With many similar sophistries he declared it would be wise policy on
the part of the United States to take part in European controversies,
and pretended to find warrant in the Monroe doctrine for this radical
reversal of Washington’s maxim. But that Davis was a demagogue in
the offensive sense of the word is evident from the fact that the
very advice of General Washington against foreign influence, which he
scouted at in his book, was soon after relied upon by the same Davis as
his chief argument in Congress for the exclusion of foreigners from the
rights and privileges of citizenship. In the course of a Know-Nothing
speech, delivered in the House of Representatives, January 6th, 1857,
he said: “Foreign allies have decided the government of the country.
* * * * Awake the national spirit to the danger and degradation of
having the balance of power held by foreigners. Recall the warnings of
Washington against foreign influence, here in our midst, wielding part
of our sovereignty; and with these sound words of wisdom let us recall
the people from paths of strife and error to guard their peace and
power.” The insincerity of Davis is further shown from his conduct in
regard to the Republican party. He denounced that party in the speech
above quoted from, saying, among other things, “the Republican party
has nothing to do and can do nothing. It has no future. Why cumbers
it the ground?” In the course of a few years he became a Republican,
and notwithstanding his former denunciation of them, swallowing at a
single breath the most ultra tenets of that party. Consistent only in
his inconsistencies, he again prepared to bolt from the Republican
organization shortly before his death, and was the author of the
celebrated Wade-Davis Manifesto in 1864, against the renomination of
Abraham Lincoln. Once having been invited by a literary society of
the University of Virginia to deliver the annual address before that
body, he took up some eccentric line of political conduct before the
commencement day occurred, and compelled the society in self-respect
to revoke its invitation. He affected the Byronic manner, and the
contagion spread to other members of Congress. Roscoe Conkling, after
he entered the House of Representatives, is said to have become a
great admirer of Henry Winter Davis, and to have fallen into his
peculiarities of style as a public speaker. Mr. Conkling’s famous
parliamentary quarrel with Mr. Blaine soon after occurred.

Such was the man the Know-Nothings recognized as their leader in the
House of Representatives when John Kelly entered that body. In the
early part of 1857 Mr. Kelly replied to a sneering assault of Mr.
Davis on the Irish Brigade, and in the debate which followed not only
proved himself able to cope with the Know-Nothing leader, but in a
running debate with Mr. Kennett of Missouri, Mr. Akers of the same
State, and Mr. Campbell of Ohio, who entered the lists against him,
Kelly established his reputation as one of the best off-hand debaters
in Congress.

A few extracts from the speeches on the occasion, which are taken
from the _Congressional Globe_, will furnish an idea of the style of
the speakers, and the merits of the controversy. In referring to the
Presidential election of 1856, and the victory of the Democrats, Mr.
Davis said: “The Irish Brigade stood firm and saved the Democrats from
annihilation, and the foreign recruits in Pennsylvania turned the fate
of the day. They have elected, by these foreigners, by a minority
of the American people, a President to represent their divisions.
The first levee of President Buchanan will be a curious scene. He is
a quiet, simple, fair-spoken gentleman, versed in the by-paths and
indirect crooked ways whereby he met this crown, and he will soon know
how uneasy it sits upon his head. Some future Walpole may detail the
curious greetings, the unexpected meetings, the cross purposes and
shocked prejudices of the gentlemen who cross that threshold. Some
honest Democrat from the South will thank God for the Union preserved.
A gentleman of the disunionist school will congratulate the President
on the defeat of Mr. Fillmore. The Northern gentlemen will whisper
‘Buchanan, Breckenridge and Free Kansas’ in the presidential ear,
and beg without scandal the confirmation of their hopes. * * But how
to divide the spoils among this motley crew—ah! there’s the rub.
Sir, I envy not the nice and delicate scales which must distribute
the patronage amid the jarring elements of that conglomerate, as
fierce against each other as clubs in cards are against spades. * *
The clamors of the foreign legion will add to the interest of the
scene. They may not be disregarded, for but for them Pennsylvania was
lost, and with it the day. Yet what will satisfy these indispensable
allies, now conscious of their power? That, Sir, is the exact
condition of things which will be found in the ante-chamber—exorbitant
demands, limited means, irreconcilable divisions, strife, disunion,
dissolution—whenever the President shall have taken the solemn oath of
office and darkened the doors of the White House.

“The recent election has developed in an aggravated form every evil
against which the American party protested. Foreign allies have decided
the government of the country—men naturalized in thousands on the eve
of the election. Again in the fierce struggle for supremacy, men have
forgotten the ban which the Republic puts on the intrusion of religious
influence on the political arena. These influences have brought vast
multitudes of foreign born citizens to the polls, ignorant of American
interests, without American feelings, influenced by foreign sympathies,
to vote on American affairs; and those votes have, in point of fact,
accomplished the present result.”

Mr. Kelly replied to the Know-Nothing leader. He said: “I rise for the
purpose of submitting as briefly as I can a few remarks in reply to
the very extraordinary speech of the honorable member from Baltimore
city. In the great abundance of his zeal to assail the President of
the United States, the gentlemen from Baltimore could not permit so
good an occasion to pass without hurling his pointless invectives
against my constituents, in terms and temper which demand a reply. * *
* His ambition seems restless and insatiable, for he cannot conclude
his speech without trying a bout with what he denominates the ‘Irish
Brigade.’ What particular class of our fellow-citizens this fling
was aimed at, I am at a loss to conjecture. There is a body known to
history under that appellation—a body of historical reputation, whose
deeds of bravery on every battle-field of Europe have long formed
the glowing theme for the poet’s genius and the sculptor’s art. But,
sir, they were too pure to be reached by the gentleman’s sarcasm—too
patriotic to be measured by his well conned calculation of the ‘loaves
and fishes’ which have unfortunately slipped through his fingers—too
brave to be terrified by the menaces or insults of those who would
justify brutal murder—the murder of defenceless women and helpless
children—the sacking of dwellings and the burning of churches, under
the insolent plea of ‘summary punishment.’ Sir, the Irish Brigade of
history was composed of patriots whom oppression in the land of their
birth had driven to foreign countries, to carve out a home and a name
by their valor and their swords. The brightest page of the history of
France is that which records the deeds and the names of the ‘Irish
Brigade.’ France, however, was not the only country in which the
Irish Brigade signalized its devotion to liberty, and its bravery in
achieving it. Sir, the father of your own navy was one of that glorious
band of heroes who shed lustre on the land of their birth, while they
poured out their life-blood for the country of their adoption. John
Barry was a member of the Irish Brigade in America—he, who when tempted
by Lord Howe with gold to his heart’s content, and the command of a
line-of-battle-ship, spurned the offer with these noble words: ‘I have
devoted myself to the cause of my adopted country, and not the value
or command of the whole British fleet could seduce me from it.’ He,
who when hailed by the British frigates in the West Indies and asked
the usual questions as to the ship and captain, answered: ‘The United
States ship Alliance, saucy Jack Barry, half-Irishman, half-Yankee.
Who are you?’ Sir, saucy Jack Barry, as he styled himself, was the
first American officer that ever hoisted the Stars and Stripes of our
country on board a vessel of war. So soon as the flag of the Union was
agreed on, it floated from the mast-head of the Lexington, Captain John
Barry. But Captain John Barry was not the only member of the ‘Irish
Brigade’ whose name comes down to us with the story of the privations
and bravery of our revolutionary struggle. Colonel John Fitzgerald
was also a member of that immortal band. Of this member of the ‘Irish
Brigade’ I will let the still living member of Washington’s own
household, the eloquent and venerable Custis speak:

“‘Col. Fitzgerald,’ says G. W. P. Custis in his memoirs of
Revolutionary Heroes, ‘was an Irish officer in the Blue and Buffs,
the first volunteer company raised in the South, in the dawn of the
Revolution, and commanded by Washington. In the campaign of 1778 and
retreat through the Jerseys, Fitzgerald was appointed aid-de-camp to
Washington. At the battle of Princeton occurred that touching scene,
consecrated by history to everlasting remembrance. The American
troops, worn down by hardships, exhausting marches and want of food,
on the fall of their leader, that brave old Scotchman, General Mercer,
recoiled before the bayonets of the veteran foe. Washington spurred
his horse into the interval between the hostile lines, reigning up
with the charger’s head to the foe, and calling to his soldiers, ‘Will
you give up your General to the enemy?’ The appeal was not made in
vain. The Americans faced about and the arms were leveled on both
side—Washington between them—even as though he had been placed as a
target for both. It was at this moment Colonel Fitzgerald returned
from conveying an order to the rear—and here let us use the gallant
veteran’s own words. He said: ‘On my return, I perceived the General
immediately between our line and that of the enemy, both lines leveling
for the decisive fire that was to decide the fortunes of the day.
Instantly there was a roar of musketry followed by a shout. It was the
shout of victory. On raising my eyes I discovered the enemy broken
and flying, while dimly, amid the glimpses of the smoke, was seen
Washington alive and unharmed, waving his hat and cheering his comrades
to the pursuit. I dashed my rowels into my charger’s flanks and flew to
his side, exclaiming, ‘Thank God, your Excellency’s safe.’ I wept like
a child for joy.’”

“This is what history tells us of another member of the ‘Irish
Brigade.’ Now, Sir, if the gentleman from Maryland will only suppress
his horror, and listen with patience, I will tell him what tradition
adds concerning this brave aid-de-camp of Washington—this bold and
intrepid Irishman. After peace was proclaimed and our independence
achieved—after the Constitution had been put in operation, and
Washington filled the office of chief-magistrate of the nation—he sent
for his old companion in arms, then living in Washington’s own county
of Fairfax, and invited him to accept the lucrative office of collector
of the customs for the port of Alexandria. This tradition will be found
to correspond with the records of the Treasury Department, on which may
be read the entry that Colonel John Fitzgerald was appointed collector
of the customs at Alexandria, Virginia, by George Washington, President
of the United States, April 12, 1792. Thus we find that the Father of
his country, were he now living, would come under the denunciations
of the gentleman from Maryland, and his Know-Nothing associates, for
conferring office on one of the ‘Irish Brigade.’

“The gentleman from Baltimore city professes great devotion to the
memory and fame of the illustrious Clay. He was the gentleman’s
oracle while living. Hear his eloquent voice coming up to us as if
from his honored grave. He, too, is speaking of the ‘Irish Brigade,’
and in his warm, honest and manly soul the only words which he can
find sufficiently ardent to express his feelings are ‘bone of our
bone, and flesh of our flesh.’ ‘That Ireland,’ exclaims the orator of
America in a speech delivered as late as 1847, ‘which has been in all
the vicissitudes of our national existence our friend, and has ever
extended to us her warmest sympathy—those Irishmen who in every war
in which we have been engaged, on every battle-field from Quebec to
Monterey, have stood by us shoulder to shoulder and shared in all the
perils and fortunes of the conflict.’ If anything, Mr. Chairman, were
wanting after this to ennoble the ‘Irish Brigade,’ and give it its
proper and constitutional position in the family of American freemen,
it is the obloquy of His Excellency Henry J. Gardner of Massachusetts,
and the Hon. Henry Winter Davis, of Baltimore.

“I now propose, Mr. Chairman, to address myself for a few moments to
the honorable gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akers), who is, I learn, a
minister of the gospel. While his friend from Baltimore city exhausts
all his powers upon the ‘Irish Brigade,’ he, with an equal stretch of
fancy, but a much vaster stride over space, obtrudes himself at a bound
into the cabins of the Irish peasantry, far away across the Atlantic.
Hailing from a State first settled by Catholics, whose chief city was
named by its pious founders after the sainted crusader King of France,
the gentleman from Missouri calls on you to hear the Irish priest
beyond the Atlantic holding converse with his enslaved parishioners.
Mr. Chairman, from boyhood to manhood, I have known more priests of
native and foreign birth than Mr. Akers ever saw. I have seen them at
the cradle of infancy; I have been with them at the death-bed of old
age; but, sir, my ears are only those of a man; I never heard a word
of the speeches the gentleman from Missouri puts into their lips. Is it
not known, sir, to every candid and impartial traveler who has visited
that beautiful but ill-fated Island that the only true, devoted, loyal,
self-sacrificing friend that the Irish peasant has in the land of his
birth is the Catholic priest? He stands between him and the oppression
of his haughty, blood-stained rulers; and when he cannot ameliorate his
condition he bears on his own shoulders his full share of the burden.
In suffering and misfortune he administers to him the consolations of
his religion and the counsel of a friend; he sympathizes with him in
all his trials, and when the minister of a strange faith, armed with
all the terrors of the law, sends his bailiffs and his minions to seize
the very bed on which his sick wife is preparing to meet the God of
her fathers—when under the maddening spectacle a momentary burning for
revenge perhaps seizes upon his agonized soul—the priest is by his side
whispering in his ear ‘Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord’; takes him by
the hand, provides with his last penny for the safe removal of the sick
and the helpless, and leaves them not until the hour of their trial
is passed—a trial that will continue to harrass and oppress the Irish
Catholic so long as the national Church of England prolongs a life of
debauchery and vice on the plunder and pillage of the Irish peasant.”

Mr. Kelly made a deep impression on the House. The Know-Nothing
members held a consultation while he was speaking, and decided that
he must be interrupted and overcome if possible by a running fire of
cross-questions. Luther M. Kennett of Missouri, formerly Mayor of St.
Louis, and Lewis D. Campbell of Ohio, Chairman of the Committee of Ways
and Means, were selected to open fire upon him. Mr. Kennett began by
saying, “Will the gentleman from New York allow me to interrupt him for
a moment?”

Mr. Kelly: “Certainly, sir.”

Mr. Kennett: “I see, Mr. Chairman, that my colleague to whom the
gentleman refers, is not in his seat. I will, therefore, with his
permission, say that I think he has unintentionally misinterpreted my
colleague’s remarks. The inference which I drew from the argument of my
colleague on this floor was that he was opposed to the consolidation of
political and religious questions and to the proscribing of any man on
account of his religious belief—and such are the principles and policy
of the American Party. My colleague said further that the American
Party was the first party that ever introduced that principle in their
political platform.”

Mr. Kelly: “I must insist, Mr. Chairman, with all deference to the
gentleman from Missouri, that I have not misunderstood the remarks of
his colleague. I listened to his speech, as I have already said, with
attention, and read it very carefully as it is printed in the _Globe_,
and as it now appears in that paper to speak for itself. While I admit
an apparent effort on the part of the gentleman from Missouri to _look_
liberal, I must be permitted to remark that he seems no way solicitous
to _talk_ liberal, and an unbiased perusal of the gross libel which he
has published in the _Globe_ concerning the Irish Catholic priesthood
will lead his colleague, however reluctantly, to the same conclusion.
But the gentleman only acts out the principles and ritual of the
midnight order, which conceals all it can, and denies everything.”

Mr. Kennett: “I will answer the gentleman more fully in my own speech,
and will here state that I am ready to answer any question he may
propound.”

Mr. Kelly: “Then I ask the gentleman did he or does he now give his
adhesion to the platform of principles adopted by the American Party in
Philadelphia in February, 1856? If so, does not the gentleman by his
own showing concur in the principle of proscribing Catholics because of
their religious belief? I allude to the fifth article of the American
platform.”

Mr. Kennett: “I will answer the gentlemen by referring him to the
platform laid down by the American Party of my State which proscribes
no man because of his religious belief. And now let me further say
that the gentleman is in error when he asserts that this debate was
commenced by my colleague. It was introduced by Mr. Bowie of Maryland,
in his animadversions upon his colleague, Mr. Davis.”

Mr. Kelly: “The gentleman certainly is in error, for Mr. Davis himself
in his wild foray against the ‘Foreign Brigade,’ unnecessarily and
unfoundedly attributed the defeat of his party in the last election to
the ‘religious influences’ which brought so many alien citizens to the
polls. The gentleman has not, however, yet answered my question.”

Mr. Kennett: “I am sorry I cannot suit the gentleman in my reply.
He says the Democratic party are a unit, that they everywhere fully
endorsed the Kansas-Nebraska bill; I say they nevertheless claim
the largest liberty in its construction, and that construction is
notoriously different in different sections of the Union among brethren
of the same political faith. Now, the American party also needed a
platform for the Presidential canvass, and that of February last was
put forth for that purpose. If it was not perfect, it was the best
we could get, and we had to take it, those of us that it did not
precisely suit, with the mercantile reservation, ‘Errors excepted.’
Was your President, the present occupant of the White House, elected
by a majority of American-born citizens? On the contrary, without the
foreign vote, which was cast for him almost unanimously, he never would
have been elevated to the position he now occupies.”

Mr. Kelly: “Suppose he was not elected by American-born votes (which
was very likely the case), were not the principles advocated by the
party which elected Mr. Pierce national principles, without the benefit
too of ‘Errors excepted’? Was there anything in the platform laid down
at Baltimore by the convention which nominated him violative of the
spirit or letter of the Constitution of the United States?”

Mr. Kennett: “I have not charged the contrary to be so. My point is
that the foreign-born vote holds the balance of power in our country,
that that vote is almost always on the Democratic side, and thus it
shapes the policy and action of the Government. This I consider wrong.”

Mr. Kelly: “I will say to the gentleman that the illiberal and narrow
policy parties have pursued in this country has contributed much to
drive both native and foreign-born Catholics in self-defense into the
Democratic party. That this is true is proved by the fact which you
know full well, Mr. Chairman [Mr. Humphrey Marshall], that the large
Catholic vote of Kentucky and Maryland had always been found with the
Whig party, until the Know-Nothing monster and its protean brood of
platforms drove them in self-respect as well as in self-defence into
the ranks of the national Democracy, where they have found repose and
peace under the broad shadows of the Constitution. I will add further,
that with the exception of two terms the administration of this
Government has been in the hands of the Democratic party. It appears to
me, therefore, that the fact that the foreign-born population, in the
exercise of the elective franchise being always found on the side of
the dominant party, is rather doubtful evidence that they are not as
loyal to the country as any other class of voters. The high state of
prosperity which the country has attained under Democratic rule would,
I should think, lead to quite a different conclusion.”

Mr. Kennett: “The Democratic party have been sharper and more
successful hitherto in bidding for their votes than we. Not that we
would not have won them too, had it been in our power. Office-seekers
are all in love with German honesty and the ‘sweet Irish brogue.’”

Mr. Campbell, of Ohio: “I have no desire to interrupt the gentleman
from Missouri, or to interfere with the very interesting colloquy
between him and the gentleman from New York. I have had something to
do with this matter of Americanism myself; something to do with the
tariff, and, like the gentleman from Missouri, I have been a Whig.
I think the greatest statesman of America was stricken down by a
religious influence.”

Mr. Kelly: “To whom does the gentleman refer?”

Mr. Campbell: “I refer to Mr. Clay of Kentucky. I well remember when
he was last a candidate—in 1844—that there was an individual on the
ticket with him—a distinguished gentleman, Theodore Frelinghuysen and I
know of my own personal knowledge that a priest of the Catholic Church
said that because Theodore Frelinghuysen was placed on the ticket for
Vice-President, therefore the influence of the Catholic Church of the
United States would be exercised against the ticket.”

Mr. Kelly: “Supposing this to be so, does the gentleman mean to argue
that because an individual Catholic priest used such a remark it is
sufficient ground upon which to condemn and disfranchise the four
millions of Catholics in this country?”

Mr. Campbell: “No, sir, by no means; nor would I interfere with their
religion, even though it was true that they had done so. The point I
make is this: That because Theodore Frelinghuysen was nominated on
the ticket with Henry Clay, who was recognized as one of the greatest
statesmen of his age, the influence of the Catholic Church—I mean
especially that of the foreign Catholic Church, I do not include the
American Catholic Church—was brought to bear against him; and wherever
you find a foreign Catholic vote in referring to the election of 1844
you will find, particularly in your large cities where the power was
wielded, that the power was exercised for the prostration of Harry of
the West, for the reason, as admitted to me in person by a priest of
your church, that Theodore Frelinghuysen was a leading Presbyterian
and President of the American Protestant Bible Society; and it is
against that spirit on the part of foreign Catholic influence in this
country, which has sought to control, through the power of its Church,
the destinies of this great nation that I make war.”

Mr. Kelly: “Allow me to say that I am a native-horn citizen of Irish
parents; and I wish to say to this House, and to the country, that no
such feelings actuate the Catholic Christians of this Republic. There
may be individual cases, but I deny that such influences have anything
to do with the Catholic population. And Mr. Clay himself, in writing a
letter on this very subject in the canvass referred to, made a public
acknowledgement that he had as much confidence in the Catholic people
as he had in any other religious sect in this Union. That letter was
published in a speech which I made in this House last session, and the
gentleman from Ohio can find it in the records of the House. To convict
the gentleman from Ohio, however, of misrepresenting Harry of the West
in this matter, I will again quote the same extract from the letter
referred to:

“‘Nor is my satisfaction diminished by the fact that we happen to be of
different creeds; for I never have believed that that of the Catholic
was anti-American and hostile to civil liberty. On the contrary, I have
with great pleasure and with sincere conviction, on several public
occasions, borne testimony to my perfect persuasion that Catholics were
as much devoted to civil liberty, and as much animated by patriotism as
those who belong to the Protestant creed.’”

“I have already quoted from Mr. Clay’s speech delivered in 1847, four
years afterwards, enough to show that his views and sentiments in
reference to foreign-born voters and religious creeds underwent no
change. But it was ever Mr. Clay’s misfortune to be damaged by his
friends. We have proof this evening that the fatality follows him to
the grave.”

In this debate, Mr. Kelly, who was the only Catholic in Congress,
sustained the concentrated charge of the leading Know-Nothing members,
and in the estimation of the House had the best of the argument over
them all. His speech was published and read throughout all parts of the
Union, and was received with manifestations of approval and pride by
Democrats generally, but especially by Catholics and adopted citizens.

In the celebrated Hayne-Webster debate in the Senate of the United
States on the Foot Resolution in 1830, Andrew Jackson, then President,
was so much pleased with Col. Hayne’s speech that he caused a number
of copies to be struck off on satin, and placed one of them on the
walls of his library in the White House.[9] The speech of John Kelly,
from which the preceding extracts are taken, was also published
on satin, and is still preserved in many households throughout the
country as a souvenir of the dark days of Know-Nothingism, and of the
gallant stand that was made in the House of Representatives against the
proscriptionists by the future leader of the New York Democracy.

During another debate in Congress—that of May 5, 1858—on the bill for
the admission of Minnesota into the Union, introduced by Alexander H.
Stephens, Chairman of the Committee on Territories, Henry Winter Davis
again attacked those he called “unnaturalized foreigners;” and Mr. John
Sherman, then a member of the House, and at present a Senator from
Ohio, and a recent aspirant for the Presidency, declared that “Ohio
never did allow unnaturalized foreigners to vote, and never will.” Mr.
Muscoe R. H. Garnett, of Virginia, made a fierce attack on the same
class, designating them as the “outpourings of every foreign hive that
cannot support its own citizens.” When these tirades were made, Mr.
Kelly rose to address the House in reply, but so bitter was the native
American feeling on the subject, and especially since his refutation of
the sectarian and anti-foreign speech of Davis in the preceding year,
that John Sherman resorted to every parliamentary quibble to cut off
Kelly’s speech. “Gentlemen here,” Mr. Kelly said, “directed many of
their arguments against emigration and against the naturalization of
foreigners. I intend to confine my remarks to that particular branch of
the subject.” At this point Mr. Sherman objected.

Mr. Sherman, of Ohio: “I rise to a question of order. The rule requires
that the debate shall be pertinent to the question before the House. If
the gentleman desires to make a speech upon the benefits of emigration
I hope he will make it in Committee of the Whole. Such debate is not in
order here.”

Mr. Kelly: “What I shall say will be pertinent to the issue before the
House.”

Mr. Sherman: “I insist on my question of order. I would inquire whether
the subject of emigration, which is manifestly the question which the
gentleman intends to discuss, is debatable on this bill? I do not wish
to embarrass the gentleman, but desire, if he wants to debate that
subject, that he shall do it in the Committee of the Whole on the state
of the Union.” This objection by Mr. Sherman to Mr. Kelly’s continuing
the discussion which he himself had just been indulging in, shows
that Kelly’s method of handling the subject was not relished by the
proscriptionists. Elihu B. Washburn, of Illinois, afterwards Minister
to France, here interposed in favor of fair play.

Mr. Washburn: “I hope by unanimous consent the gentleman from New York
will be permitted to continue his speech. He is upon the floor now, and
the matter of naturalization is involved more or less in the merits of
the question before the House.” But Mr. Sherman was ready with another
quibble.

Mr. Sherman: “If unanimous consent be given, I am willing to go
into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union and allow the
gentleman to speak, but I must object to it in the House.”

Mr. Wright, of Georgia: “I would remark that the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Jenkins) introduced this particular subject yesterday,
and occupied twenty-five minutes in its discussion.”

Mr. Kelly: “It is singular that gentlemen should make objection,
when it is a well-known fact that the whole discussion on this bill
has directed itself to that particular point. But I think there is a
disposition on the part of the House to let me go on.”

Several Members: “There is; go ahead.”

The Speaker: “Does the Chair understand that unanimous consent is given
to the gentleman’s proceeding?”

Mr. Lovejoy: “Not unless he is in order.”

Mr. Morris, of Pennsylvania: “I object; because if the gentleman is
allowed to proceed, other gentlemen must be allowed to speak in reply,
and thus we would have a general debate in violation of the rules of
the House, and I will not agree to violating the rules of the House.”

Mr. Kelly: “Inasmuch as there are objections I withdraw my appeal. I do
not desire to force myself upon the House.”

Thus did the Know-Nothings wince under the lash of John Kelly of New
York. Had he chosen to insist, he would have been heard, for he was
now one of the leaders of the House, and the majority would have found
a way to secure him the floor. He was the most formidable enemy of
the Know-Nothings in the Northern States, for he knew how to act as
well as to talk. Dreamers and visionaries write fine theories, but
only great men reduce them to practice. Mr. Kelly’s youth and early
manhood were passed at a period when native American bigotry and
intolerance were burning questions in State and National affairs. He
had been taught by observation, and a study of the fathers of the
government, that the best service he could render his country was to
make war on Know-Nothingism. He had met the leaders of that party
in their strongholds in the city of New York, and vanquished them.
Before his day there were clubs and factions, and local leaders and
captains of bands—Bill Poole and his Know-Nothings, Isaiah Rynders and
his Empire Club, Arthur Tappan and his Abolitionists, Mike Walsh and
his Spartans, Samuel J. Tilden and his Barnburners, Charles O’Conor
and his Hunkers—but the born captain had not appeared to mould the
discordant elements to his will, and make them do the work that was
to be done. When John Kelly struck the blow at Know-Nothingism at the
primary election on the corner of Grand and Elizabeth streets, already
described, and drove out the ballot-box stuffers, the people of New
York instantaneously recognized a man behind that blow, and everybody
felt better for the discovery. When he ran against the celebrated
Mike Walsh for Congress, one of the most popular characters who ever
figured in New York politics, and beat him, the native American
proscriptionists were glad that John Kelly was out of the way, for
while they feared him in local politics, they persuaded themselves
that he would be swallowed up in obscurity among the great men at
Washington, and that he would be heard of no more. Given a big idea
lodged in the centre of a big man’s head, and be sure fruit will
spring from the seed. Kelly carried his idea with him to Congress, and
hostility to Know-Nothingism marked his career there, as it had done at
home.

When James Buchanan became President, John Kelly became one of
the leaders of the Administration party in Congress. He was then
thirty-four years old. One day General Cass, Secretary of State,
visited the Capitol, and in conversation with a friend said: “Look at
John Kelly moving about quietly among the members. The man is full of
latent power that he scarcely dreams of himself. He is equal to half a
dozen of those fellows around him. Yes, by all odds, the biggest man
among them all. The country will yet hear from Honest John Kelly.”
These words of General Cass, uttered in his imposing George-the-Third
style of conversation, shortly after were repeated to old James
Gordon Bennett, the friend of Kelly’s boyhood, and the editor took
early opportunity to mention Honest John Kelly in the _Herald_, and
frequently afterwards applied the same title to him. The appellation
struck the public as appropriate, and soon passed into general use.
The subject of this memoir has been called “Honest John Kelly,” from
that day to this. In a letter to the present writer, in 1880, the late
Alexander H. Stephens said: “I have stood by John Kelly in his entire
struggle, and have often said, and now repeat, that I regard him as the
ablest, purest and truest statesman that I have ever met with from New
York.”

Mr. Buchanan was urged by Mr. Kelly to appoint Augustus Schell
Collector of the Port of New York. Other members of the New York
delegation in the House, and both the New York Senators opposed the
selection of Mr. Schell. Mr. Seward was vehement in his opposition. But
John Kelly stuck with the tenacity of Stanton in the War Department,
or Stonewall Jackson in the battle-field. The President nominated
Mr. Schell Senator Clay of Alabama reported the nomination favorably
from the Committee of Commerce, William H. Seward and the others were
overborne, and Mr. Schell was confirmed by the Senate.

When Mr. Kelly entered upon his political career, to be a foreigner, or
the son of a foreigner, in New York, in the opinion of the intolerant
of both parties, was deemed a matter that required an apology, or at
least an explanation. In 1857 one of the leading representative men of
the Federal Administration in New York was John Kelly, and those who
had been persecuted and oppressed before were recognized and advanced
equally with all others in the city and State of New York; and the
vanishing Know-Nothings at last realized that the absent Kelly had
dealt them heavier blows from Washington than he ever delivered in New
York. In these later and happier days men are no longer ashamed to be
called the sons of Irishmen, and at the festive board of the Irish
societies the notable ones of the country gather to make eloquent
speeches and drink rousing toasts. But while some men forget, true
Irishmen and true descendants of Irishmen have not forgotten their
Horatius at the bridge in the brave days of old. John Kelly, were he
a man of vanity, in contrasting the auspicious scenes of to-day with
those of the dark days of 1844 and 1854, and in viewing his own part in
effecting the change, could not fail to find much cause for pride and
complacent reflection; but vanity is not his weakness.

[Illustration: _John Kelly_

(AT THE AGE OF 35 YEARS.)]

Mr. Kelly went to Washington in the winter of 1855 to succeed the
brilliant Mike Walsh in the House of Representatives. How did the
weighty statesmen receive him? He went into their midst a big-boned,
heavy-browed, brawny stranger, with his far-seeing eye, and firm solid
step, and as he strode in among the Solons of Washington they all felt
an instantaneous conviction from his conversation and bearing that in
the society of the most eminent men of the Republic John Kelly was
exactly where he was entitled to be. He flattered no great man by the
least symptom of being himself flattered by his notice. He measured his
strength in discussion with the most celebrated men in Congress, and
feared the face of none. At their social gatherings he responded to the
brilliant _bon mots_ of the wits of the capital by quiet strokes of
humor, and anecdote, and story, that sent bursts of merriment through
the circle, delighting the sensible, and penetrating even those who
encased themselves in triple folds of aristocratic reserve.

There is nothing artificial about him, but he has been always, and was
so particularly in those days, the child of nature, with no shadow
of pretension or affectation in his manners. He was not simply a man
lifted up from the ranks of toil to be noticed by the world’s favored
ones, but he was endowed with that greatness of soul which always
distinguishes its possessor above his fellows, whether his lot be cast
in the highest or lowest situation of life. It is not strange that New
York has felt, and will continue to feel, the moral influence of this
man as long as he continues to take part in its affairs, loved by the
masses for his lion-like courage, and by friends who meet him face to
face in retirement for his almost womanly gentleness, while for obvious
reasons he is hated and vilified by those who do not appreciate such
qualities. And this courage and gentleness and unruffled equanimity
come all in a breath, perfectly natural and free, for they come of
their own accord. His composure under all circumstances has often
been remarked upon, and in the hurly-burly of New York politics, and
the headlong rush of the tide of life in the great metropolis, John
Kelly is as sedate and recollected as the ascetic in his cloister. But
there is nothing of sourness in his temper. Reflecting much at all
times, he possesses the rare gift of thinking while he is talking,
and when he is expressing one idea his thoughts never outrun the
present sentence, as do those of nine-tenths of people, to frame words
for the next one. He does not, in short, think of what he is going
to say next, but of what he is saying now. Among the finer shades
of character that distinguish one man from another it is extremely
difficult to define that untranslatable something which gives to each
person his individuality; but this intentness of Mr. Kelly upon the
immediate subject under consideration, both as listener and talker, is
wonderfully attractive, and constitutes one of the subtle forces of his
character as a political leader. This faculty of concentration belongs
exclusively to original minds. Self-reliant, and borrowing nothing
from others as to style or conduct, he gets at the point without
labored approaches, and acts great parts with a happy carelessness.
When others have been cast down and worried with care over affairs in
which Mr. Kelly was more interested than themselves, his elastic spirit
has not given way. Loving thus the sunshine, he affords a conspicuous
example of the truth of the inspired words, “a merry man doeth good
like a medicine.” Nothing has ever dispelled his cheerfulness. Defeat,
deprivation of office, desertion by those he trusted, and who owed all
they were to him, have neither embittered him, cast him down, daunted
his courage, nor shaken his faith in himself. Domestic afflictions such
as few men ever know—the death of his entire family—have come upon
him, and while the keen shaft scarred the granite, his constancy has
remained, and neither head nor chastened heart succumbed to misanthropy
or rebellion against Providence. Surely something more substantial than
wit, or genius, or equable temper was required to sustain John Kelly in
the trials he has borne. The natural can only accomplish the natural,
but a good man draws from supernatural fountains to replenish the
well-springs in the arid plains of the desert, and Christianity, not
for holiday show but daily use, must have been this man’s sheet-anchor.

Those acquainted with Mr. Kelly will be proper judges of the fidelity
or shortcomings of this picture. They who have read the absurd
delineations of him in some of the newspapers, and accept them without
more inquiry as reliable, may reject this description of his character
as contradictory of their preconceived notions on the subject. There is
a third class of witnesses—an increasing class—perhaps more impartial
than the two former ones, whose testimony on the point is important.
These are strangers who have formed violent prejudices against the man
after reading certain newspapers, but who on becoming acquainted with
him repudiate their own opinions as rash and preposterously unjust.

“Oh!” but say his enemies, “this is not a fair test; Kelly is plausible
and fair-spoken, and has great personal magnetism. Strangers when
they meet him fall under his spell.” The objection is a weak one, for
these strangers never relapse into their former absurd opinions after
they have gone away, and withdrawn themselves out of his spell. Let
such strangers decide as to the faithfulness or unfaithfulness of the
picture sketched here. A case of the kind occurred at the Cincinnati
Democratic Convention in 1880. A delegate to the Convention from the
State of Rhode Island was very severe on John Kelly. He had been
reading an unfriendly newspaper. He denounced him as a boss, and
uttered many just sentiments on the evils of bossism. While he was
speaking John Kelly and Augustus Schell passed by, and the former was
pointed out to him. “Is that Kelly?” said he. “Well, he doesn’t look
much like a New York rough, or bar-room bully anyhow. I have been told
he was both.” An introduction followed, and a conversation took place
between the delegate and the subject of his recent execrations. “I am
greatly obliged to you,” said the Rhode Island delegate to the author
of this memoir, who gave the introduction, after Mr. Kelly had parted
from him and re-joined Mr. Schell. “I honestly detested John Kelly, as
a low, ignorant ward politician, who had conducted a gang of rowdies
to this Convention to try and overawe it. So I had been told again
and again. Now I don’t believe a word of it. I never talked to a more
sensible man, and modest gentleman than John Kelly. This opens my eyes
to the whole business.”

In the course of this chapter particular attention has been directed to
Mr. Kelly’s war on Know-Nothingism as his chief claim to distinction
and the gratitude of his country during his younger days. He became
identified with the cause of equal rights in the minds of adopted
citizens of various nationalities, especially of the Irish, and
contributed as much, after Henry A. Wise, towards the overthrow of
the Know-Nothing party, as any man in the United States. The adopted
citizens were proud of their champion, and the place which he gained
in their affections became so deep that, like Daniel O’Connell in
Ireland, he could sway them by his simple word as completely as a
general at the head of his army directs its movements. Mr. Kelly never
abused this confidence, and consequently has retained his influence
to the present day. Many have marvelled at his hold on the people of
New York, as great when out of power, as when he has had the patronage
of office at his disposal. Among the causes which have conspired to
give him the largest Personal following of any man of the present
generation, his patriotic services in the old Native American and
Know-Nothing days must be reckoned among the chief. Such a hold Dean
Swift had upon Irishmen in the eighteenth century. Nothing could break
it, nothing weaken it, the King on his throne could not withstand the
author of the Drapier’s Letters in his obscure Deanery in Ireland. It
is fortunate John Kelly is a just and honest man, unmoved by clamor,
not to be bribed by place or power, nor seduced by the temptations of
ambition; for were it otherwise, his sway over great multitudes of
men might enable him to lead them to the right or left, whichsoever
way he might list, a momentous power for good or evil. The politician
who ignores this man’s influence, the historian who omits it from his
calculation of causes, has not looked below the surface of things, and
knows nothing of the real state of affairs in the city and State of
New York.

Alexander H. Stephens was acquainted with John Kelly for over a quarter
of a century; came into daily contact with him for four years on the
floor of Congress; served with him for two years on the Committee of
Ways and Means in the House; and his estimate of Mr. Kelly’s character,
referred to at a former page, is entitled to respectful consideration
from every man in the United States, especially on the part of those
who know nothing about him except what they have read in partisan
newspapers. “I have often said, and now repeat,” declared Georgia’s
great Commoner, “that I regard John Kelly as the ablest, purest and
truest statesman that I have ever met with from New York.”


FOOTNOTES:

[6] Cleveland’s Life of A. H Stephens, p. 469.

[7] The greater number of those he was addressing were Know-Nothings.

[8] Cleveland’s Life of A. H. Stephens, p. 472, _et seq._

[9] The Carolina Tribute to Calhoun (Rhett’s oration), p. 350.



CHAPTER IV.

 RISE OF POLITICAL ABOLITIONISM—MARTIN VAN BUREN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
 OF THE ABOLITIONISTS—JOHN KELLY’S BRILLIANT COURSE IN THE SYRACUSE
 DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION OF 1855.


The rise and fall of the Know-Nothing party took place when John Kelly
was yet a young man. The old Federal party and its several legitimate
successors, more especially the Whigs and Know-Nothings, had not been
fortunate in their conflicts with the Democratic party. Founded by
Mr. Jefferson, the latter party always had been distinguished for
two central ideas—a strict construction of the Constitution, and
adherence to the minimum scale of governmental powers. The Federalists
had destroyed themselves as a national organization by opposition
to the war of 1812. General Jackson declared he would have hung the
men who burned blue lights at New London, when Commodore Decatur was
blockaded there by the British fleet.[10] These blue lights were said
to be signals to the enemy of the movements of the American forces.
The exposure by John Quincy Adams of the machinations at Boston of
John Henry, the British emissary and spy, who was sent from Canada
to instill treason in New England and bring about the secession of
the Eastern States,[11] had hardly less effect in sealing the fate
of the Federal party than the Hartford Convention, whose object was
the dissolution of the Union. Massachusetts—not South Carolina—was
the birthplace of the secession doctrine.[12] The extinction of the
Federal party was followed by the “era of good feeling.” Then came
the disruption during the administration of John Quincy Adams, who
having first propitiated Jefferson and Madison by making war on the
Hartford Convention and the Essex Junto, in the end showed he was a
Federalist at heart by reviving the principles which had distinguished
his father’s administration, and opening the way for the formation
of the Whig party by fastening the protective system on the country,
and deducing implied powers from the Constitution not found in
that instrument. The inevitable tendency of these revived ideas of
federalism was towards the centralization of all powers, whether
delegated or not, in the General Government. The Whig party, though led
by the brilliant Henry Clay, was no match for the Democratic party.
Twice it succeeded in wresting the government from the Democrats, but
on each occasion the result was due to Democratic dissensions, and to
the furore excited over the name of a military chieftain—Harrison in
1840, and Taylor in 1848. With Clay and Webster the Whig party died,
and was succeeded by Know-Nothingism. Mr. Kelly’s part in the overthrow
of the American or Know-Nothing party was dwelt upon in the last
chapter.

But the old Federal party, so unsuccessful with the Hartford
Convention, and in its opposition to the second war with England; so
short-lived in its regained supremacy under the Whigs; and so easily
overthrown under its bigoted organization of Know-Nothingism; was at
length about to adopt a new course, and to acquire a new vitality in
its war with the party of the Constitution, the Jeffersonian Democracy,
destined to place it in control of the government for a quarter of
a century, and to revolutionize the institutions of the country, if
not the principles of the Constitution itself. Agitation over negro
slavery furnished the anti-Jefferson party with this new lease of
life. That agitation became the burning question in American politics
while Mr. Kelly was in Congress. A maximum of government was now to
be employed, and the disciples of Mr. Jefferson, divided and routed,
were soon to behold the Hamiltonian school of politicians in absolute
control of every department of the Federal Government.

The commanding influence of New York in the affairs of the United
States was never more conspicuously displayed than at the time of the
dissolution of the Whig and organization of the Republican parties.
Dissensions among the Democrats of New York proved a potent factor in
this process of decay and rejuvenation among their opponents. Prior to
1848 the Abolitionists had no strength as a party organization. Mobbed
in Boston, New York and other cities, denounced by Daniel Webster as
“infernal Abolitionists,” and by Henry Clay as “mad fanatics,” they
struggled in vain for long years to effect a lodgment in American
politics. A rapid glance at the origin of political Abolitionism will
not be without interest to the historical student. Forty-four years
ago, January 28-29, 1840, an anti-slavery convention was held at
Arcade, then in Genessee County, New York. Reuben Sleeper of Livingston
County presided. Among the delegates were Myron Holley and Gerrit
Smith. At this conclave a call was issued for a national convention,
to be held at Albany April 1, 1840, to discuss the expediency of
nominating Abolition candidates for President and Vice-President of
the United States. At the time and place appointed the first national
convention of the anti-slavery party was held. Alvan Stewart presided,
and the Liberty Party, after a long discussion, was organized. The
convention was composed of delegates from six States. James G. Birney
and Thomas Earle were nominated for President and Vice-President. They
received a little less than 7,000 votes at the polls, the Harrison and
Tyler tidal wave sweeping everything before it. In 1844 the Liberty
Party again placed its candidates in the field—James G. Birney for
President and Thomas Morris for Vice-President—who polled nearly
60,000 votes, and defeated Henry Clay. The politicians were not slow
to perceive that the Abolitionists at last held the balance of power
between the two national parties of Whigs and Democrats. But no one
then dreamed that Martin Van Buren, who had achieved all his successes
in life as a Democrat, whom the South had made President in 1836,
and whom John Randolph described as the “Northern man with Southern
principles,” would place himself at the head of the Abolitionists in
1848, and thereby defeat his own party at the Presidential election
of that year. In this surprising defection of Mr. Van Buren from the
Democratic party, Samuel J. Tilden likewise struck his colors and
went off with the Little Magician into the camp of the Abolitionists.
Lucius Robinson also bolted with Tilden. John Kelly followed the lead
of William L. Marcy and Horatio Seymour, and supported Cass and Butler,
the nominees of the National Democracy.

A convention of the Liberty Party was held at Macedon Locke, Wayne
county, New York, June 8, 9 and 10, 1847, at which the Abolitionists
nominated Gerrit Smith and Elihu Burritt for President and
Vice-President. Burritt declined, and at a convention held soon after
at Rochester, New York, Charles C. Foote was nominated in Burritt’s
place. The politicians now began to put in their fine work. The
national committee of the Liberty Party and their outside advisers had
their own plans with which the nomination of Gerrit Smith conflicted.
They accordingly called another convention of the Liberty Party to
meet at Buffalo, October 20, 1847. The Macedon convention thereupon
separated from the Liberty Party, and took the name of Liberty
League. Both wings were in agreement in maintaining that slavery was
unconstitutional. William Lloyd Garrison and his followers, while
not endorsing the Liberty Party in all things, held that a rising
of the slaves in the Southern States would be no “insurrection.” In
this view the Abolition editors concurred, as did also the Liberty
Party conventions in Massachusetts and other Eastern States, those
held in various parts of New York, and those convened in Ohio and
other Western States. The Liberty League occupied the same ground
in regard to slavery, with this difference: they took position on
other public questions which the Liberty Party excluded from the
scope of its operations. Gerrit Smith, who was one of the single idea
Abolitionists, in fact their leader, was placed in nomination for the
Presidency at the Buffalo Liberty Party Convention of October 20,
1847. His candidature would have received the hearty support of the
Liberty League, for its members knew that a servile insurrection was
what he desired. Thirteen years later Gerrit Smith supplied John Brown
with the money to carry out his notorious Harper’s Ferry raid, the
revelation of which fact in Frothingham’s biography of Gerrit Smith
led to the suppression of the book by the friends of the latter. The
managers of the convention passed over Mr. Smith, and for the first
time went outside of their own ranks for candidates. John P. Hale,
of New Hampshire, and Leicester King, of Ohio, were nominated for
President and Vice-President. These nominations were only temporary.
In 1848 the Barnburners of New York were in open revolt against the
Democrats, bolted at the National Democratic Convention of Baltimore,
and held a convention of their own at Utica. The anti-slavery Whigs
of Massachusetts and the followers of Joshua R. Giddings and Salmon
P. Chase in Ohio were ready to unite with the Abolitionists of the
Liberty Party. A conference was held by the leaders of these various
discordant factions, secessionists from the two old parties, which
led to the call for the celebrated Buffalo Convention of August 9,
1848. In that Convention was born the Republican party of to-day. The
Liberty Party was swallowed up, Hale and King withdrew, the name of
Free Soil party was assumed, and two men never before considered as
distinctive Abolitionists, Martin Van Buren and Charles Francis Adams,
were nominated for President and Vice-President. “A party has arisen,”
said Daniel Webster with vitriolic humor in a speech at Abington,
Massachusetts, October 9, 1848, “which calls itself the Free Soil
party. I think there is a good joke by Swift, who wished to ridicule
some one who was making no very tasteful use of the words ‘_natale
solum_’:

    “‘_Libertas, et natale solum!_
      Fine words. I wonder where you stole ’em.’”

Thomas H. Benton, the Jackson Democrat and friend and champion of Van
Buren in the long struggle between the latter and Calhoun, added his
condemnation to that of Webster, the New England Whig. Of the Free
Soil party, which was launched on its stormy career at the Buffalo
Convention, Benton says in his “Thirty Years’ View”: “It was an
organization entirely to be regretted. Its aspect was sectional,
its foundation a single idea, and its tendency to merge political
principles in a slavery contention. And deeming all such organizations,
no matter on which side of the question, as fraught with evil to the
Union, this writer, on the urgent request of some of his political
associates, went to New York to interpose his friendly offices to
get the Free Soil organization abandoned; but in vain. Mr. Van Buren
accepted the nomination, and in so doing placed himself in opposition
to the general tenor of his political conduct in relation to slavery. I
deemed this acceptance unfortunate to a degree far beyond its influence
upon persons or parties. It went to impair confidence between the North
and the South, and to narrow down the basis of party organization to
a single idea; and that idea not known to our ancestors as an element
in political organizations. Although another would have been nominated
if he (Van Buren) had refused, yet no other nomination could have
given such emphasis to the character of the convention and done as
much harm.”[13] The vote in 1848 was as follows: Taylor and Fillmore,
1,360,752; Cass and Butler, 1,219,962; Van Buren and Adams, 291,342.
Mr. Van Buren was assisted very warmly in this crusade against the
National Democratic party by Samuel J. Tilden and Lucius Robinson, and
having effected his object in joining the Abolitionists, the defeat of
General Cass, he turned his back on his new allies in a single year and
returned to the Democratic fold. But the “harm” predicted by Benton had
been done, and the prodigal’s return could not undo it. It was by such
exploits that Mr. Van Buren won the title of “Fox of Kinderhook.”

Four years later, in 1852, the Free Soil party again held a national
convention, and nominated for President and Vice-President John P. Hale
of New Hampshire, and George W. Julian of Indiana. They polled 157,685
votes at the election.

At the succeeding Presidential election the Whig party was dead, and
the seed sown at the Buffalo Convention of 1848 by the Free Soilers had
flowered in the interval into its natural fruit—the Republican party,
a sectional organization founded on the single idea of opposition
to slavery. The mission of this party was proclaimed by its leader.
William H. Seward, to be an “irrepressible conflict” between a solid
North and a solid South. John C. Fremont and William L. Dayton were
nominated for President and Vice-President by the Republican National
Convention of 1856. Francis P. Blair, Mr. Van Buren’s old friend of
the _Globe_, was the political inventor of Colonel Fremont. Buchanan
received 1,838,169 votes, Fremont 1,341,264, and Fillmore 874,534.

Mr. Tilden was now back in the Democratic party, and acting in
harmonious accord with Mr. Kelly. Not so Mr. Lucius Robinson.
This gentleman, whose famous gubernatorial contest with Mr. Kelly
twenty-three years later attracted national attention, and operated
disastrously on the fortunes of Mr. Tilden, now left the Democrats
and joined the Republican party. At a Fremont convention held at
Syracuse, New York, July 25, 1856, resolutions denouncing the
Democratic conventions, State and National, were adopted. The committee
reporting these resolutions, of which Lucius Robinson was a member,
also submitted an address which was adopted. “Mr. Buchanan,” it was
said in this address, “the candidate of the Cincinnati Convention,
stands pledged to make the resolutions of that convention his rule
of practice. Such a candidate, under such circumstances, we cannot
support. Mr. Fremont, who has been nominated by the Republicans,
is an acceptable choice. In his hands the Presidential office
will be vigorously and justly administered. We have, therefore,
nominated him for the Presidency, and his associate Mr. Dayton, for
the Vice-Presidency, and will use every honorable effort to secure
their election, that we may rescue the Presidential office from the
degradation into which it has fallen, and the politics of the country
from the corruption which is fast undermining our best institutions.”
Mr. Robinson’s committee also arraigned President Pierce for the
“deplorable misrule of the present administration.”

For twenty years Lucius Robinson continued to be an active Republican.
In 1876 when Mr. Tilden insisted on that gentleman’s nomination as
Democratic candidate for Governor of New York, Mr. Kelly called Mr.
Tilden’s attention to the record of his candidate, and advised against
his nomination. As Mr. Tilden still insisted, and was himself the
Democratic candidate for President, Mr. Kelly gave Mr. Robinson his
support, in order not to weaken the national ticket. Robinson was
elected Governor. His administration will long be memorable for the
proscriptive policy adopted by the Governor against a respectable
and powerful wing of the Democratic party. He surrounded himself
with an inner council, or star chamber, and stretched the Executive
prerogative of arraigning and removing Democratic officials to the
verge of tyranny. It soon became evident that no Democrat, howsoever
irreproachable in the walks of life, who did not belong to the
Governor’s faction, and who might be reached by Mr. Robinson, could
count on his safety in office, or feel himself secure for an hour from
the vengeance of the Executive. To follow John Kelly, or to adhere to
the Tammany Hall Democracy, became an atrocious crime in the estimation
of Lucius Robinson. The revolt against Robinson which soon took place,
cleared the moral atmosphere wonderfully, and proved that the spirit of
manhood which De Witt Clinton half a century earlier infused into the
politics of New York, when he rebelled against a similar tyranny, was
still to be relied upon in an emergency.

The rise of political Abolitionism presents a curious study, and this
rapid outline of its genesis has been deemed necessary. Mr. Kelly at
the juncture now reached was in a position to take an important and
conservative part in the great anti-slavery controversy, about which so
many angry passions have been lashed, and whose true history has not
yet been written. The Democratic party of the State of New York has
always been a quarrelsome family. De Witt Clinton and Van Buren were
leaders of rival factions; Wright and Marcy renewed the controversy;
and Tilden and Kelly, in the present generation, inherited the local
feuds and marshalled the contending hosts of their party in the State.
Settled first by the Dutch, New York was more rapidly colonized by
the Puritans, and later by the Irish and Germans. Contrarieties of
race sped the growth and power of the Empire State, but produced those
antagonisms among its people, which have been more intense there than
in any other State in the Union. Clinton, sprung from Irish stock,
was at war with Van Buren, who, although of Dutch blood, became the
leader of the New York Puritans. In the days of Jackson and Calhoun the
quarrel was revived over the disputes in which those two celebrated
national leaders, theretofore devoted friends, were embroiled by
Martin Van Buren about the year 1830. Calhoun was supplanted in
Jackson’s affections, and Van Buren, thanks to Peggie O’Neil, succeeded
to the Presidency. But Calhoun’s retributive blows in 1840 and 1844
prostrated Van Buren, and destroyed his ascendency in the Democratic
party. Stripped of dear bought power, Van Buren resolved on revenge,
and in 1848 turned on the National Democratic party itself, of which
Mr. Calhoun was then the powerful leader. Persons of a retrospective
imagination may indulge in day dreams over what might have been the
destiny of the United States, and over what other and happier story the
Muse of History might have related, had Martin Van Buren restrained his
feelings, and not rushed headlong into the camp of the Abolitionists.
Pursuing the same pleasing train of reflection, they might say—if the
Van Buren bolt had not occurred, the supreme calamity of disunion
and war, which Henry Clay and Daniel Webster by the most marvellous
exercise of statesmanship averted in 1850, might not have taken place
in 1860. But this is all idle speculation, like the saying that if
Richard Cromwell had possessed the genius of his father, he would have
fixed the Protectorate in his family, which Count Joseph de Maistre
brushes away with the pithy remark, that “this is precisely the same as
to declare, if the Cromwell family had not ceased to rule it would rule
still.”[14]

John Kelly was trained in the school of William L. Marcy, who, in
consideration of his pre-eminent abilities, was chosen Secretary
of State by General Pierce, and as the New Hampshire organ of the
President, the Concord _Patriot_ declared, because Mr. Marcy had
“completely succeeded in re-uniting the Democracy of New York.” Mr.
Kelly occupied a similar position to that taken by Horatio Seymour
in relation to African slavery. Regarding slavery as an evil, Kelly
believed, if the principles of Jefferson should be allowed to work
out their legitimate results without infraction of the compromises of
the Constitution, that the Southern States themselves in time would
adopt the policy of emancipation. This was the sentiment Washington
and Jefferson[15] had often expressed, and which John Randolph put
in practice by emancipating his four hundred slaves. Charles Fenton
Mercer, a Virginia statesman whose zeal for the negro was no less
ardent than that of Dr. Channing, the Boston philanthropist, devoted
his life to the extinction of slavery in Virginia. In 1836 John Letcher
and Charles James Faulkner championed a bill for gradual emancipation
in the Legislature of the same State. The Emancipationists did their
share in the interest of the black man, long before the Abolitionists
began their agitation. In estimating the influence of the two forces
upon the destinies of the negro race, greater sobriety of statement
than that of partisans will be required for the purposes of history.
Whether the views of Senator Ingalls of Kansas on John Brown are
more correct than those of Mr. Daniel B. Lucas of West Virginia on
John Randolph, or whether the verdict of posterity will pronounce
both eulogists at fault, it is beyond the power of any man of this
generation satisfactorily to decide. “Scholars,” Ingalls says,
“orators, poets, philanthropists play their parts, but the crisis comes
through some one whom the world regards as a fanatic or impostor, and
whom the supporters of the system he assails crucify between thieves or
gibbet as a felon. It required generations to arouse the conscience of
the American people to the enormous iniquity of African slavery. The
classical orators, the scholarly declaimers and essayists performed
their work. They furnished the formulas for popular use and expression,
but old John Brown, with his pikes, did more in one brief hour to
render slavery impossible than all the speechmakers and soothsayers had
done in a quarter of a century, and he will be remembered when they and
their works are lost in dusty oblivion.”[16]

“In regard to African slavery,” Lucas says, “which has played
so important a part in our political history, Randolph was an
Emancipationist as distinguished from an Abolitionist. This distinction
was a very broad one; as broad as that between Algernon Sidney and
Jack Cade. It was the difference between Reason and Fanaticism. On
this subject Randolph and Clay concurred; both were Emancipationists,
and both denounced the Abolitionists, as did also Webster and all
the best, wisest and purest men of that day. Randolph was right in
his denunciation of the Abolitionists. They were a pestilent class
of agitators who, for the most part, with little or no stake in the
community, mounted their hobby-horses, Hatred and Fanaticism, and
rode them, like Ruin and Darkness, the steeds of Lucifer in Bailey’s
“Festus,” over the fairest portion of our Republic. An exhaustless
empire of land has enabled the nation to survive this substitution of
the methods of Abolition for those of Emancipation; but the eternal
truth remains the same, that the one was legitimate and the other
internecine; and to justify the Abolitionists, because Emancipation
followed their efforts would be to justify the crime of the Crucifixion
because Redemption followed the Cross.”[17]

The Democratic party in New York, after the Buffalo Convention, became
divided upon the subject of slavery, and the Wilmot Proviso tended to
widen the breach. Barnburners who trained under Van Buren, and Hunkers
who followed the lead of Marcy, although all claimed to be Democrats,
were more bitter against each other than against those of the opposite
party. The election of Franklin Pierce in 1852, upon a platform which
proclaimed the inviolability of the Compromise Measures of 1850, served
to soften the asperities existing in the Democratic party of New York.
Before that time, Marcy and Seymour, both Hunkers, had declared “that
opinions upon slavery should not be made a test” of party loyalty.
Daniel S. Dickinson, then a Democratic extremist, who afterwards became
a Republican extremist, took opposite ground, and refused to unite with
the Barnburners. This led to the division of the New York Democracy
into “Hards” and “Softs.” And it is here, after these divisions had
taken shape, that John Kelly came forward, and acted an interesting and
conspicuous part in this great sectional controversy. His action and
influence in the Soft Shell Conventions of August 29, 1855, and January
10, 1856, although he was not a delegate to the latter Convention,
proved him to be a statesman of commanding abilities.

The New York Soft Shell Democratic Convention of 1855 was composed of
gentlemen who represented three distinct factions in the Democratic
party.

First, of those who had not recanted their Free-soil sentiments of
1848, and were still simon-pure Barnburners, utterly opposed to any
compromise with slaveholders, or the admission of another State
into the Union with the institution of slavery recognized in its
constitution.

Secondly, of those who had previously occupied the same ground as
the first class, but who now enjoyed the patronage and favor of the
Pierce administration in New York, and who had abandoned their Buffalo
platform, and accepted the principles of the Missouri Compromise of
1820, prohibiting slavery in all territories, except Missouri, lying
north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude.

Thirdly, of those who accepted the Webster-Clay Compromise of 1850 as a
settlement “in principle and in substance” of the slavery question in
all the territories, and who, therefore, acquiesced in the legislation
of 1854 in re-affirmation of that memorable compromise.

The Union had been saved by the Compromise of 1850. Franklin Pierce
had been elected on a platform squarely endorsing it. The Whigs had
not given to it as hearty an endorsement in their platform, but rather
evaded the issue. Pierce went to the people on this vital question,
and beat Scott overwhelmingly. The verdict approached unanimity, only
four States in the Union giving their electoral votes for Scott. The
Congressional legislation of 1854, known as the Kansas-Nebraska bill,
was supplementary to, and in strict conformity with the principles
of the Compromise of 1850, and left the question of slavery in those
territories entirely to the people thereof to settle for themselves,
with no interference from without. This was the ground taken by Henry
Clay in his last great effort to pacify the sections on a basis just
and honorable to each. It was the ground on which Daniel Webster
took his stand so patriotically in his celebrated 7th-of-March
speech in 1850. The only man who maintained the same position in the
New York Soft Shell Democratic Convention of 1855 was John Kelly,
notwithstanding the unparalleled approval the compromise received
at the hands of the people in Pierce’s election. John Van Buren,
who had been in company with President Pierce at the White Sulphur
Springs in Virginia—an administration favorite of anti-administration
proclivities—hastened back to New York, and appeared as a delegate at
Syracuse, to defend, as it was reasonably supposed, the measures of
Pierce in a convention composed of Democrats who enjoyed the patronage
of the administration. But Prince John, as Mr. Van Buren was called,
displayed his usual fickleness in this business, and went far in his
dalliance with the Abolitionists, to undermine the administration in
whose sunshine he was basking, and to render the renomination of that
excellent President, Franklin Pierce, practically hopeless. Without
exactly joining the Abolitionists of the Syracuse Convention in an
unqualified crusade against slavery, he kicked over the traces of the
Kansas-Nebraska bill, repudiated the compromise of 1850, and in order
to find a middle ground to stand on went back to the obsolete Missouri
Compromise of 1820. Dean Richmond, Sandford E. Church, and others
followed Van Buren’s lead in this matter, and voted for a resolution he
submitted taking this position. The Abolitionists of the Convention,
like General James W. Nye and Ward Hunt, pronounced the Van Buren
resolution “mere patchwork,” and wanted to go further in condemnation
of Franklin Pierce. There was only one man in the convention who stood
up to rebuke the slippery conduct of Mr. Van Buren, and to defend
the National Democracy from its false friends. This gentleman was
Congressman John Kelly, the subject of this memoir.

Prominent among the delegates who took part in the Convention were
Dean Richmond, chairman of the Democratic State Committee; Sandford
E. Church, afterwards Chief Justice of the New York Court of Appeals;
John Kelly, Congressman elect; John Cochrane, Surveyor of the Port of
New York; Lorenzo B. Shepard, John Van Buren, Robert Kelly, President
of the Convention; James W. Nye, Timothy Jenkins, Wm. Cassidy, Ward
Hunt, Andrew H. Green, Israel T. Hatch, who was nominated for Governor,
Thomas B. Alvord, Peter Cagger, Dennis McCarthy and Benjamin Wood.
Although the Convention was called to nominate candidates for State
officers, the debate took a wide range, and the Kansas-Nebraska
troubles became the subject of an angry discussion.

The New York _Herald_ of September 2, 1855, contained in its Syracuse
correspondence a spirited sketch of the brilliant debate in the
Convention, and of the exciting scenes to which it gave rise. A
disruption at one time seemed inevitable. “The excitement,” said the
_Herald_, “had been wrought up to fever heat. There were dire menacings
of a bolt. Both divisions of the army seemed ready simultaneously to
throw off their allegiance, and go over to the double enemy. Mr. John
Kelly of New York, had thrown out awful menacings of defection in favor
of the National Democracy, if the Convention should fail to endorse the
administration; and Ex-Lieutenant Governor Church, Jenkins and Hunt, of
Oneida, and the good-humored member from Suffolk, General Nye, seemed
to be just as ready to march off with their hosts to the Republican
party. The remnant of the faction, if any were left, might have divided
themselves among the Whigs or Know-Nothings, leaving only the Custom
House, marshalled by John Cochrane, as the sole corporal’s guard of
the Administration. Such a dreadful contingency was to be avoided at
all hazards and sacrifices. The recess was utilized in endeavoring
to harmonize conflicting views, and to beat down the extravagant
requirements of the extremists of either section. There was, therefore,
intense interest manifested in the proceedings of the evening session,
and when the Convention re-assembled at 7 o’clock P. M., the hall was
crowded to its greatest capacity.”

In the preliminary stages of the Convention two sets of resolutions
had been submitted. Those of the regularly appointed committee were
reported by William Cassidy. In these the Pierce administration
was endorsed, and the National Democracy sustained. Minority or
supplementary resolutions taking directly opposite grounds were offered
by Timothy Jenkins, a pronounced Free-soiler.

Jenkins, in a radical Barnburner speech, denounced the territorial
legislation known as the Kansas-Nebraska bill, arraigned the President,
and demanded a restoration of the Missouri Compromise. He was answered
by John Cochrane in defence of the President, but as Mr. Cochrane had
been a violent Barnburner in 1848, his argument was handicapped by
his record. Besides, he was Surveyor of the Port of New York, and the
newspapers had often referred to a letter said to have been written
by Franklin Pierce to the bolting Barnburners’ meeting in the Park
in 1848, at which the standards of party rebellion against Cass
and Butler and the National Democracy were first raised. If General
Pierce wrote such a letter it was suppressed, but Mr. Cochrane’s
opponents claimed that he was the recipient of this “scarlet letter,”
as the _Herald_ styled it, and as he subsequently obtained one of the
President’s fat offices, uncharitable comments were made upon General
Pierce’s motives in the transaction. But it is scarcely credible, in
view of Pierce’s antecedents, that he could have committed himself to
the Van Buren bolters of 1848. His record in the United States Senate,
and in New Hampshire, had been that of a Jeffersonian Democrat of the
strict construction school.

John Van Buren addressed the Convention after Mr. Cochrane, but as
he too had been a Barnburner, and the Rupert of debate among the
bolters of 1848, his effort now to throw oil on the troubled waters
proved a failure. Besides, it was a very halting effort. He moved that
all resolutions in relation to the Administration, Kansas-Nebraska
legislation, and Slavery be laid on the table, but did not press the
motion to a vote, and shortly after withdrew it. The motion to withdraw
was more consonant with Mr. Van Buren’s real sentiments than the one
to table the disturbing resolutions. The Convention was now face to
face with Mr. Jenkins’s anti-Democratic programme, and Mr. Van Buren
showed a disposition to support it. It was at this juncture that Mr.
John Kelly rose to stem the tide of Sewardism that was sweeping over
the Convention. With an intuitive understanding of a scene which was
constantly shifting, but whose inevitable end, if not now stopped,
he foresaw would be the elevation of William H. Seward to a position
little short of that of dictator of the destinies of the Union, John
Kelly pointed out the perilous levity of Mr. Van Buren’s conduct, and
made a patriotic appeal to the Convention to close up its ranks and
redeem the State from Know-Nothingism, and the sectional Republican
party. “The firebrand of discord,” said Mr. Kelly, “which gentlemen
of the old Barnburner persuasion are now on this floor throwing into
the ranks of the Democratic party, would have even worse consequences
than their course had produced in 1848, when they defeated General
Cass for the Presidency, and enabled the Whigs to slip into control
of the Legislature, and elect Mr. Seward United States Senator to
succeed a Democrat. The fate of the Union now trembled in the balance,
and dissensions in this Convention would go far to destroy the
National Democracy, and place the sceptre of power in the hands of
the arch-agitator, William H. Seward. Mr. Van Buren’s constituents,”
continued Mr. Kelly, “will approve of the resolutions of the Committee
in favor of the National Democracy, though that gentleman may not do
so. I admire Mr. Van Buren’s personal character, but not his political
tergiversations. I hope the Convention will sustain the administration
of Franklin Pierce, and not divide the Democratic party by passing the
supplementary resolutions of the gentleman from Oneida. But to preserve
harmony here I am willing to leave out all matters relating to Kansas,
and so will be the delegation from New York city, who are prepared now
to vote for the resolutions of the regular committee.”[18]

General Nye, former political associate of Gerrit Smith, the John Brown
Abolitionist, took the floor to reply to Mr. Kelly. Bowie knives, and
pistols, and pronunciamentos in Kansas formed the burden of his speech.
In conclusion the eloquent but somewhat comical General Nye declared:
“I would say, President Pierce, you have openly insulted the spirit
of your countrymen. Let us speak out and make this declaration. I
know it is our opinion, and think it is his. I don’t think my friend
Kelly would withdraw from the Convention if we passed the Jenkins
resolutions; but if he should do so, we should obtain legions by
adopting them. The Republican Convention is counting on our ominous
silence.”

Another Free Soil resolution was introduced at this point by Sandford
E. Church, declaring uncompromising hostility to the extension of
slavery into free territory. John Van Buren again took the floor and
loudly advocated the Church resolution. An administration resolution
was next offered by Lorenzo B. Shepard, declaring that the people in
the Territory of Kansas should be left to settle their own matters
as to slavery without interference from the North or South. A Mr.
Hinckley, of Ontario County, made a violent Abolition speech, and
caused roars of laughter by assuming a tragic attitude and declaring,
“I feel like a brave Indian on the battle field.”

John Van Buren, whose mission in the Convention seemed to be to destroy
his friend President Pierce, now offered the following resolution:

 “_Resolved_, That while the Democracy of this State will faithfully
 adhere to all the compromises of the Constitution, and maintain all
 the reserved rights of the States, they deem this an appropriate
 occasion to declare their fixed hostility to the extension of slavery
 into free territory.”[19]

He supported this resolution in a long speech, in which he tried hard
to leave the Administration without a leg to stand on. As a death-blow
to Pierce, the effort was eminently successful. In conclusion, he moved
to lay the whole subject on the table. Having shot his parthian arrow
into the side of the National Democracy, Prince John was not disposed
to give its friends a chance to be heard. A sharp running debate now
took place between Mr. Kelly and Mr. Van Buren. The New York _Herald_
published a synopsis of it:

“Mr. John Kelly, of New York, hoped the gentleman would not press his
motion, but would give other gentlemen an opportunity of expressing
their sentiments.”

Mr. Van Buren: “I will withdraw it, for I am going to dinner
(laughter), provided you or the gentleman who shall speak last agrees
to renew it in my name.”

Mr. Kelly: “I will agree to that if the Convention agrees to go to
dinner now.” (Laughter.)

Mr. Van Buren: “But if the Convention does not now take a recess, I
want to make the same bargain. I want the last man who speaks to renew
the motion in my name.”

Mr. Kelly: “I will do no such thing.”

Mr. Van Buren: “Then I insist on my motion.”

Mr. Kelly: “I expected more generosity from the gentleman from the
Thirteenth District of New York, than to do anything of this kind.”

At this point a recess was taken until 3 o’clock P. M. On the
re-assembling of the body Mr. John Kelly addressed the Convention,
and showed a determination not to be choked off by Mr. John Van Buren
and the Seward contingent of Disunionists and Abolitionists, who,
notwithstanding their noisy demonstrations, constituted only about
one-third of the Convention. He made a powerful speech in defense of
the National Democracy, and the Administration of General Pierce. He
reviewed, in scathing terms, the treason to Cass and Butler on the
part of the bolting Barnburners in 1848, and when he declared sternly
and with unmistakable indignation, that, if this treason was now to
be repeated he would leave the Convention, and never again affiliate
with Barnburners, a great sensation occurred, and it became evident
that the schemes of the fanatics had been arrested and thwarted by
Mr. Kelly. A hurried consultation took place between the friends and
opponents of the Administration. Mr. Kelly’s demand that a delegation
of true Democrats, and not Seward Democrats, should be sent to the
Cincinnati National Convention, and that a platform endorsing the
territorial legislation of Congress in 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska bill
(in effect a re-affirmation of the Webster-Clay Compromise of 1850)
should be adopted, was reluctantly but finally conceded. The sectional
and disturbing resolutions of Jenkins, Church and Hunt were withdrawn,
and in return for these concessions it was agreed to by Kelly and his
friends that the appointment of the delegation to Cincinnati should
be postponed to a later day, and the drafting of an address and
resolutions expressive of National Democratic principles should be
deferred until the meeting of another convention, at which the National
Convention delegates should be chosen. In view of this compromise any
further conflict over the Van Buren Free-soil resolution was avoided,
and it was adopted by the Convention.

No full report of Mr. Kelly’s important speech, which brought about the
administration victory, was taken down at the time of its delivery,
indeed none of the speeches before the convention was fully reported.
The New York _Herald_, of September 1st, 1855, contained the following
synopsis of what he said:

“Mr. John Kelly, of New York, took the floor. He came here, he
said, to represent the Democracy of the city of New York, and he
was determined to do so. He was always led to suppose that it was
not upon principle, but upon personal grounds that the Democratic
party was divided. He belonged to the Tammany Hall section of the
party, but if it were resolved to force down the throats of the
Convention resolutions derogatory to the honor of the Democratic
party, and of the administration, he, for one, would not remain in
the Convention. Let these dividing questions, he said, rest as they
are. If the resolutions reported by the Committee were brought up,
the city delegates would sustain them. But if on the other hand, the
resolutions of the gentleman from Oneida were forced down the throats
of the body, he would leave the Convention, and never attach himself
again to this branch of the party. (Sensation and applause.) He
asked was it desirable for one-third of this Convention to be the
means of severing the ties which connect the party together? He knew
that the constituents of the gentleman from New York who last spoke
(Mr. Van Buren) would endorse the administration, and endorse the
Kansas-Nebraska bill. If it were the desire of that gentleman to try
and distract the Convention, he should have come from another district,
and not disgrace that which sent him. (Hisses and applause.) When
he—Mr. Kelly—remembered the causes of the division of the Democracy
in 1848, he thought that the ‘isms’ and those causes of division
were to be forever buried in oblivion. But they come here again.
Shall it be said that the Democratic party of New York shall not
sustain a Democratic administration? If so, let it go forth that the
administration portion of the Democratic party of New York has refused
to endorse and sustain it. He trusted the Convention would consider
these matters well, and see what they were going to do. They were going
to divide the party and dissever it, never to be brought together
again in its present strength. They were going to give the power to
the proscriptive Know-Nothing party, which would bring the country to
ruin and desolation. Let them consider the matter well, and ask their
consciences whether they could do such a thing as this. He, for one,
would vote for the resolutions endorsing the administration, and if it
were necessary to endorse the Kansas and Nebraska bill, he would vote
for such resolution, too, and he was sure that the majority of the New
York delegation would do so.”

General Nye: “It is not on the issue of the Kansas-Nebraska bill that
the Democratic party of New York can hope to triumph, nor on it that
my friend from New York city, Mr. John Kelly, can expect to be sent to
Congress in 1856.”

Mr. Kelly: “On that issue alone I was elected.”

General Nye: “It so happens, however, that the opposing candidate voted
for the bill, and you could not have much advantage over him there.
(Laughter.) Besides, the very district which my friend Mr. Van Buren
is said to misrepresent—the Thirteenth—elected John Wheeler, who voted
against the bill.”

Mr. Kelly: “Will you also state that John Wheeler was elected by the
Know-Nothing party?”

General Nye: “No: I know nothing of that party. (Laughter.) I wish
this Convention to treat the subject in a manly way. If you do, I do
not believe Mr. Kelly will withdraw from the Convention; but even if
he does, better he should go than that the hosts that I see around me
should do so.”

Mr. Ward Hunt, of Oneida, made a violent Free soil speech, in the
course of which he said:

“Another gentleman from the city of New York, a member of Congress
elect (Mr. John Kelly), threatened to walk out of the Convention, if
it happened to adopt a course not in accordance with his views. He
would only say that if that gentleman did walk out, his blessing would
go with him, and the delegation of the city of New York might go with
him, too.”

Mr. O’Keefe: “Except Van Buren.” (Laughter.)

Mr. Hunt: “Well, I am glad to see that there is one good man left in
the city of New York.”

Mr. Van Buren: “I will not give notice, like my friend from the
Fourteenth Ward, Mr. Kelly, that if the procedure of the Convention
should not please me I would bolt. Perhaps if I did, the Convention on
that very account would persist in adopting such measures.” (Laughter.)

The repeated references by the leading opposition members of the
Convention to Mr. Kelly’s notice of his determination to retire, if
the Seward wing of the party persisted in its factious course, and the
concessions which followed, showed that the blow had been sent home.
The one strong man had been found to arrest the progress of disunion,
and to aid materially in staving off in 1856, the calamity which
finally overtook the country in 1860.

Had New York entered the Democratic National Convention of 1856,
distracted by intestine feuds, as was the case in 1848, the election of
the Republican candidate for President, John C. Fremont, probably would
have followed, together with the dreadful appeal to arms which shook
the continent four years later. The State ticket placed in the field by
the Soft Shell Convention of 1855, was not successful at the polls. The
State was carried by the Know-Nothings by decisive majorities. Samuel
J. Tilden was the candidate on the Soft Shell ticket of that year for
Attorney General. A short time before the election Mr. Tilden received
the following letter from Josiah Sutherland, nominee for the same
office on the State ticket of the other wing of the party:

  NEW YORK CITY, Friday, Oct. 12, 1855.

  SAMUEL J. TILDEN, ESQ.,

 MY DEAR SIR:—I was nominated for the office of Attorney General of
 this State, by that portion of the Democratic party of the State
 called the Hards; you were subsequently nominated for the same office
 by that portion or section of the Democratic party of the State called
 the Softs. I look upon the resolutions passed and published by the
 Convention which put me in nomination (a copy of which I herewith
 enclose) as truly, emphatically and unequivocally expressing great
 principles of the National Democracy and of the Constitution. The
 third resolution, as you will observe, firmly enunciates the great
 Democratic principle, “That it should be left to the people of the
 States to determine for themselves all local questions, including the
 subject of slavery;” it expresses also “an unqualified adherence to
 the Kansas-Nebraska Bill,” and a firm opposition to “any effort to
 re-establish the Missouri prohibition.”

 I approve of these resolutions and have endorsed them, and do
 now endorse them in letter and spirit. Do you look upon these
 resolutions as truly and faithfully expressing principles of the
 National Democracy and of the Constitution? Are you in favor of the
 Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and of the great principle of the exclusive
 constitutional right and liberty of the people of the Territories on
 the subject of slavery, thereby affirmed?

 Do you believe that in the organization of future Territories Congress
 will have no right or power, under the Constitution as it now is,
 to prevent the inception, existence or continuance of slavery in
 such Territories as a domestic or Territorial institution; that
 the question and subject of slavery as a domestic or Territorial
 institution, in the absence of any express provision or clause of the
 Constitution giving such right and power to Congress, will and must
 of necessity belong exclusively to the people of such Territories—of
 natural, if not of constitutional right; and that the only
 constitutional and legitimate way in which a citizen of Massachusetts
 or of New York can interfere with or act upon that question, is by
 exercising his undoubted right to move to the territory where the
 question is pending, and to become a citizen or resident thereof?

 Are you opposed to the political, verbal “Black Republican” fanatics
 and demagogues of the North, who, using words for things, oppose
 this great principle, and call for a restoration of the “Missouri
 Compromise line?” Are you opposed to the State ticket lately put in
 nomination in this State, headed by Preston King, and to the declared
 principles and grounds upon which that ticket was nominated?

 The opinions, propositions, or principles which would be implied in
 the affirmative answers to the foregoing questions appear to me to
 be plainly expressed, or necessarily implied in the resolutions of
 the Convention which put me in nomination, and of which you herewith
 receive a copy.

 Please answer these questions by letter at the earliest possible
 day; for if you answer them in the affirmative, I shall take great
 pleasure in immediately laying your letter before the State Committee
 of the party which put me in nomination, and shall at the same time
 inform that Committee that I decline any longer to be considered a
 candidate. I will not stand in the way of a union of the Democratic
 party of this State upon principle. The Constitution and the Union now
 need the united force of the Democratic party of this State for their
 protection.

 With the most sincere desire to promote such a union of that party,
 and with high regard for yourself personally, I have the honor to be,

  Your obedient servant,

  JOSIAH SUTHERLAND.


MR. TILDEN’S REPLY.

  NEW YORK, Thursday, Oct. 18, 1855.

 DEAR SIR:—I have received your letter, offering, on certain
 conditions, to send your declension to the State Committee of the
 party by which you were nominated, with my letter of compliance, and
 to open to me the opportunity of running before that Committee for
 their nomination in the vacancy.

 I think that, on reflection, you will see that it is impossible for
 me to entertain any negotiation, or discuss any conditions, for a
 fusion of a part of the two State tickets, as proposed by you, or of
 the entire ticket, as proposed in other quarters. Still less can I
 initiate such an arrangement for my individual advantage, irrespective
 of the other gentlemen nominated on the ticket with me, and which,
 even if not intended for that purpose, may result in a call for
 some of them to reciprocate your withdrawal. Discussions as to the
 feasibility, propriety or terms of any union of the two tickets belong
 not to me, but to the party which nominated me, or its authorized
 representatives. The only countenance I could, in any event, give to
 the suggestion would be in retiring myself, and not in being made
 instrumental in, or even a party to, causing others to do so. Those
 who have done me the honor to make me their candidate know that no
 delicacy toward me need restrain them from anything of this nature
 which they think it advisable to do. Very respectfully, your obedient
 servant,

  HON. J. SUTHERLAND.[20]       S. J. TILDEN.

It will be observed that Mr. Tilden made no answer to Judge
Sutherland’s inquiries on the vexed question of slavery in the
territories. Mr. Tilden was one of the Free soil bolters at the
Baltimore Convention of 1848, and supported Van Buren and Adams in the
Presidential contest of that year. His views on the subject of Slavery
in the Territories, which he did not disclose in this correspondence,
were frankly stated five years later in his letter of October 26, 1860,
to Judge William Kent. “I never held any opinion,” said Mr. Tilden
in the Kent letter, “which could justify either the policy or the
organization of the Republican party. If I had done so I should not
hesitate to frankly renounce so grave an error. * * * But, in truth,
I never adopted the doctrine of absolute and universal exclusion,
by federal legislation, of slavery from all territories, and still
less that of the exclusion of new slave States, or the philosophical
theories on which the doctrines are founded.”

Mr. Kelly’s energetic protests in the Soft Shell Convention of 1855
bore ample fruit in the Convention of the same party held at Syracuse
January 10, 1856. The delegates chosen to represent the Softs at
Cincinnati were headed by Horatio Seymour, and were National Democrats
of conservative convictions and feelings. Mr. Kelly was a delegate
from the Fourth Congressional District. An able and elaborate address,
written by Nicholas Hill, Jr., was adopted by the Convention, and
was replete with sound Democratic doctrine of the broadest national
character. Not a word of Free soilism appeared in it. The resolutions
were of the same conservative kind, and adverted to the triumph of
the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska bill as shown in the recent
elections. The fourth resolution was in these words:

 “_Resolved_, That the determination of Congress, avowed in the
 Kansas-Nebraska bill, to reject from the National councils the subject
 of slavery in the Territories, and to leave the people thereof free to
 regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to
 the Constitution of the United States, is one that accords with the
 sentiments of the Democracy of this State, and with the traditional
 course of legislation by Congress, which under Democratic auspices,
 has gradually, in successive Territorial bills, extended the domain
 of popular right and limited the range of Congressional action;
 and that we believe this disposition of the question will result
 most auspiciously to the peace of the Union and the cause of good
 government.”

Thus the principles advocated by John Kelly were embodied in the
address and resolutions of this Convention, while those which John Van
Buren had urged were entirely rejected. Franklin Pierce was unfortunate
in the selection of his political representative in the State of New
York, at this important juncture. He was an aspirant for renomination,
and his brilliant but unstable counsellor, Prince John, landed him
in a Serbonion bog, and left the coveted prize to James Buchanan.
John Kelly would have proved a safer adviser for the eloquent and
patriotic Pierce. The differences between the two wings of the New York
Democracy, led respectively by Horatio Seymour and Greene C. Bronson,
were harmonized at Cincinnati, and on motion of Mr. Bayard of Delaware,
both were admitted on an equal footing in the National Convention.

It has been said that William L. Marcy desired John Kelly, in place of
John Van Buren, to be made the mouthpiece of the Administration in New
York at this critical period. But from the day of Pierce’s election
John Van Buren had been assiduous in his attentions to him. He went
early to Concord before the inauguration, and was closeted with the
President elect.[21] He was with him at the White Sulphur Springs, in
Virginia, just before the Syracuse Convention of 1855. Mr. Van Buren
was a man of varied and fascinating accomplishments, and found it
an easy task to capture the President’s heart. Notwithstanding the
preference of Mr. Marcy for John Kelly as administration leader in
New York, on Prince John was bestowed that distinction. William L.
Marcy, with the exception of De Witt Clinton, the greatest Democratic
statesman the Empire State has yet furnished to the country, died at
Ballston Spa, New York, July, 4, 1857.

Mr. Kelly won a national reputation by his brilliant course in the
Syracuse Convention of 1855. His services in the cause of the Democracy
were recognized on all sides before he took his seat in Congress at
the meeting in December of that year. General Cass, successor of
Mr. Marcy in the State Department, introduced and welcomed his old
New York supporter of 1848 into the councils and friendship of the
Administration of Mr. Buchanan. John Kelly entered the field of Federal
politics, as a member of the Thirty-fourth Congress, under favorable
auspices for a successful career.


FOOTNOTES:

[10] Ingersoll’s Hist. Second War between the United States and Great
Britain. Vol. 1, p. 439.

[11] Message of President Madison to Congress, March 9, 1812. Vt. Gov.
and C., Vol. V., 478-9. Henry himself for $50,000 revealed the matter
to Madison. Ibid. Committee on Foreign Relations Ho. Rep. June 3, 1812,
also arraigns England. Ibid, 499.

[12] January 14, 1811, in the debate in the House of Representatives
upon the erection of the Louisiana purchase into a State, Josiah
Quincy, of Massachusetts, opposed the measure. “He expressed his
deliberate opinion that so flagrant a disregard of the Constitution
would be a virtual dissolution of the bonds of the Union, freeing the
States composing it from their moral obligation of adhesion to each
other, and making it the right of all, as it would become the duty of
some, to prepare definitively for separation, amicably if they might,
forcibly if they must! This declaration, the first announcement on
the floor of Congress of the doctrine of Secession, produced a call
to order from Poindexter, delegate from the Mississippi Territory.”
Hildreth’s Hist. U. S., Vol. III., p. 226.

[13] Vol. 2, p. 723.

[14] Generative Principle of Political Constitutions, p. 19.

[15] Jefferson’s Complete Works. VII., 159.

[16] Address by Hon. John J. Ingalls at Ossawatomie, Kansas, August 30,
1877, on the dedication of a monument to John Brown and his associates.

[17] John Randolph of Roanoke. An Address delivered before the Literary
Societies of Hampden-Sidney College, June 13, 1883, by Daniel B. Lucas,
LL.D.

[18] New York _Herald_ August 31, 1855.

[19] “New York Hards and Softs,” p. 70.

[20] New York Hards and Softs, pp. 71-2.

[21] New York Hards and Softs, p. 39.



CHAPTER V.

 KELLY, AS ALDERMAN AND CONGRESSMAN—SKETCH OF MIKE WALSH—GREAT STRUGGLE
 FOR SPEAKERSHIP—STORMY DAYS IN CONGRESS—JOSHUA R. GIDDINGS PLAYS PART
 OF CASSANDRA—CULLEN OF DELAWARE TALKS OF EGGING THE CATHOLICS—KELLY
 REPLIES—READS IMPORTANT LETTER OF LAFAYETTE ON PRIESTS WHICH THE
 KNOW-NOTHINGS HAD GARBLED—KELLY THE ONLY CATHOLIC IN THE HOUSE.


Although a political rather than a chronological order has been
observed in the preceding chapters, it is necessary now, for the
preservation of important threads of the narrative, to speak of some
events as they transpired.

John Kelly, then captain of that popular company the Emmet Guards, was
elected Alderman for the Fourteenth Ward at the election in November,
1853, to serve for two years, beginning January 1st, 1854. Twenty-five
or thirty years ago the people of the city of New York selected the
strongest men in the community to represent them in the Board of
Aldermen. To attain, at that period, the place of a City Father was an
object of ambition with those who sought an attractive rank among their
fellow-citizens, and many men were elected Aldermen who have since
become famous in State and National politics. The Boards of which
Mr. Kelly was a member in 1854-5, were exceptionally able bodies. At
his election, November 8th, 1853, the whole number of votes cast for
Alderman of the Fourteenth Ward was 1938, of which John Kelly received
1097; Thomas Wheelan, 566; and Morris Miller, 275. Mr. Kelly’s majority
over all was 256. He was a member of the Committee on the Almshouse
Department in the Board of Aldermen, and of the Committee on Annual
Taxes in the Board of Supervisors, the latter body being composed of
the Mayor, Recorder and Board of Aldermen. The Aldermanic list for
1854 contains the well-known names of Nathan C. Ely, President of the
Peter Cooper Insurance Company, and also President of the Board of
Aldermen; William Boardman, jun.; Abram Wakeman, Amor J. Williamson,
Thomas Christy, Anson Herrick, Daniel D. Lord, John Kelly, Richard Mott
and Thomas Woodward. To these were added, in 1855, Isaac O. Barker,
who succeeded Mr. Ely as President of the Board, Orison Blunt, William
Chauncey, George W. Varian, and others, the new members taking the
seats of those whose terms expired in 1854.

Mr. Kelly’s aptitude for affairs was soon recognized by his fellow
members. President Barker placed him on no less than five committees in
his second year in the Board, and appointed him chairman of the most
important committee of the body—that on Annual Taxes in the Board of
Supervisors. The members of this Committee were John Kelly, Henry R.
Hoffmire and Daniel D. Lord. The Know-Nothings were then powerful in
New York, and John Kelly was their sleepless opponent in the Board of
Aldermen. His constituents were warmly attached to the man, and duly
appreciated his services in official life. Some even went so far as to
predict that he would soon become a dangerous rival to the celebrated
Mike Walsh, then in the meridian of his popularity. Kelly and Walsh
both lived in the Fourth Congressional District, and the latter was at
that time representing the District with great acceptability in the
Thirty-third Congress. The prediction was verified, and Kelly became
Walsh’s competitor at the ensuing election. The interest which this
contest excited was not confined to the city, but extended to all parts
of the State of New York. The plan adopted in these pages of giving
outline sketches of the more conspicuous men with whose names that of
Mr. Kelly has been associated in political controversies, certainly
cannot be disregarded in the case of Mike Walsh, that wayward genius,
gifted orator, and child of misfortune.

Michael Walsh was born in the town of Bandon, County Cork, Ireland,
in 1815, and came to this country with his parents when he was a
child. His father was an intelligent, industrious, hard working man,
and the owner of a mahogany yard in Washington Street, New York.
He entertained peculiar views in regard to a republican form of
government, and on that account never became a citizen of the United
States. His son Michael possessed a great deal of talent, and was
educated at St. Peter’s school in Barclay Street. When he was about
sixteen years of age his father indentured him to a lithographer at
Broadway and Fulton Street, with whom he learned that business. He was
hardly twenty-one when he began to be exceedingly active in political
affairs in New York, and the whole country. As an orator, for his
age, he had probably no equal. He possessed literary ability, and was
equally ready with pen or tongue. His forte, however, was sarcasm, and
unfortunately for himself he had an unrivaled knack for coining slang
expressions. Many of the slang sayings peculiar to New York at this
day were invented by Mike Walsh. He was naturally humorous, and was
endowed with powers of mimicry that would have made his fortune on the
stage. He could describe the weaknesses of human nature, and lay bare
the motives which influenced public men in their actions with a mastery
which no other man of his time possessed.

He was elected to the lower branch of the Legislature of New York
before he was twenty-one years of age, and although he had little or
no business ability, he distinguished himself in the House by his
fine oratorical powers. His speeches were not only interesting and
amusing, but often full of information. Without previous thought or
reflection, he could make a capital off-hand speech, expressing his
views very intelligently, and enlisting the attention of his audience
throughout. The Democratic party in New York, at that period, was under
the control and influence of men who had very little respect for Walsh,
as his manners were not only objectionable, but sometimes his language
was abusive. He was very strong, notwithstanding, with the people,
and on that account was feared by the leaders. He was re-elected to
the Assembly several times. He established and edited a paper which
he called “The Subterranean,” and his squibs, sometimes clever but
often coarse, were sent forth in its columns. There was a furniture
dealer in the Fifth Ward named John Horsepool, between whom and Walsh
a bitter feud existed. Several times Horsepool had him arrested for
libel. At last “The Subterranean” belched forth an angrier flame than
usual, and Horsepool got his revenge. Walsh was indicted, tried and
convicted, and sent for a short term to the penitentiary. But this
served to excite sympathy for him and increase his popularity. He
was a very companionable man, was full of anecdote, and had a very
retentive memory. He recollected, without particular effort, nearly
everything he had ever read, and if called upon would recount a story
or any other matter with great precision. Among his companions, for
several years, were Tom Hyer, the pugilist, and Jack Haggarty, son of
the old New York auctioneer of that name. They generally made their
headquarters at the Hone House, a hostelry kept by Morgan L. Mott. This
was formerly the private residence of Philip Hone, and took its name
from him. Walsh and his coterie would gather together here daily, and
relate stories and anecdotes of their checkered experiences. Having no
business occupations and some money to spend, they all shortened their
days by the immoderate use of alcoholic stimulants. As long as Mike
Walsh survived he was the life of the company. During the Presidential
canvass of 1844 Walsh formed a political organization on the East Side
of New York city, which he named the Spartan Band. This body was in
opposition to the Empire Club of Captain Isaiah Rynders. Both of these
clubs were exceedingly active during the Polk and Dallas campaign,
and rendered efficient service to the Democratic ticket. Walsh was
proud of the influence he wielded over his men, and of the power his
position brought to him as a leader. The singular notion occurred to
him of giving high-sounding titles to his several lieutenants, and
he consequently called them after the distinguished French Marshals
who fought in the wars of Napoleon the First. All the men who were
prominent in those days in the Spartan Band and Empire Club have long
since passed away, with the exception of Captain Rynders, who still
figures in New York politics at eighty-one, as erect of carriage and
almost as brisk of step as he was fifty years ago.[22]

A curious anecdote is told of the way in which Mike Walsh and David C.
Broderick, subsequently Senator from California, ceased to be friends.
After Walsh was sentenced to Blackwell’s Island, an understanding is
said to have been reached between them that Walsh should commit suicide
on his way to the penitentiary by jumping from the ferry-boat into the
East River. Walsh being regarded as the champion of the poor as against
the rich, and many believing he had been sentenced to Blackwell’s
Island because of his advocacy of the interests of the poor, his death
in the manner indicated, it was thought, would be avenged by his
followers as that of a martyr in their cause. In view of the disgrace
visited upon him, Walsh is said to have promised Broderick that he
would sacrifice his life by drowning, and thus stir up the vengeance of
the populace in retaliation upon his and their oppressors. But Walsh
showed better sense than to do so foolish a thing, and Broderick became
his enemy, and branded him as a coward, because he did not kill himself
according to promise.

During the summer months Mike Walsh was in the habit of frequently
sleeping all night in one or another of the parks of the city, because,
as he claimed, the night air hardened his constitution. For the same
reason he seldom wore an overcoat in winter. He was an inveterate
joker, and was in his element whenever he could play a trick on the
unwary or uninitiated. He was the author of the Frank McLoughlin
hoax, which all old New Yorkers will remember. McLoughlin was a noted
sporting man in New York forty years ago, and a great toast among
horse men, pugilists, and like people of that day. He was one of the
California pioneers of 1849 when the gold excitement broke out. In a
few years he returned to New York. Mike Walsh happened to be passing
through the City Hall Park, and met McLoughlin as he was on his way
from the ship to the house of his relatives.

“Well, Frank,” said Mike, “I see you have returned.”

“Yes,” was the reply.

“Do you expect to remain here?”

“Yes, sir,” said Frank, “I hope to spend the remainder of my days in
New York. I have been in no place since I left here that I like as
well.”

“I suppose,” said Mike, “all of your friends will be glad to see you?”

“Yes, I am sure they will, and I shall be glad to see them.”

Thus they separated. Walsh hastened over to the Pewter Mug on Frankfort
Street, Thomas Dunlap proprietor, then known as Tammany Hall. Passing
into the bar-room, Walsh exclaimed to those present that he had just
seen Frank McLoughlin, and that he had gone to a public-house on
the Bowery, and requested his friends to call on him there at once.
McLoughlin being a favorite, a great many persons started out to find
him, but as it was Sunday they encountered some difficulty in obtaining
admittance to the hotel. The bar-keeper there perceived the joke in an
instant, and said McLoughlin had been at the hotel, but had gone to
John Teal’s, on the corner of Stanton and Forsyth Streets, having left
word, if any of his friends should call, they were to go there and see
him. Walsh took care to circulate the hoax all over the city, sending
people to various points in quest of McLoughlin, who was the bearer,
quoth Mike, of many letters and presents to the boys in New York from
old acquaintances in California. Proprietors of drinking saloons reaped
a large harvest by selling extra quantities of their beverages to the
victims of the hoax. In sportive tricks of this sort Mike Walsh was
continually engaged.

In 1852 he was nominated for Congress in the Fourth Congressional
District, and elected. He served in the House of Representatives for
two years, and attracted by his peculiar powers much attention in that
body. He was nominated the second time in 1854 by the Hard Shells. The
Soft Shells nominated John Kelly. A very bitter and exciting contest
followed. Many thought Walsh was invincible in the Fourth District,
but his opponent was very popular, and the struggle between them was
carried on with great enthusiasm and energy. Mr. Kelly came out the
victor, but only with eighteen plurality. The whole number of votes was
7,593, of which John Kelly received 3,068; Mike Walsh, 3,050; Sandford
E. Macomber, 824; John W. Brice, 626; James Kelly, 1; and scattering,
24.

After the election Walsh served notice on Kelly that he would contest
his seat, on the ground that illegal votes had been cast in the
Fourteenth Ward, where the majority against Walsh was quite large. Mr.
Kelly at once acted on information that had been given to him by a
friend of Walsh’s father, the late John Griffin, that Walsh was not a
citizen of the United States, his father not having been naturalized,
and he himself having neglected to take out citizen’s papers when he
reached the proper age. He was not, therefore, a citizen of the United
States. A certificate of his baptism was procured from the parish
priest at Bandon, Ireland, where he was born, and Walsh, fearing the
result of an exposure, withdrew, and the contest ended.

The subsequent career of Mr. Walsh was a checkered one. He was
employed by George Steers, the well-known ship-builder, as his agent
to go to Russia to negotiate a contract in his favor to build ships
for that Government. Walsh obtained letters of introduction from the
Secretary of the Navy of the United States to officials of the Russian
Government, and set out on his mission with fair prospects of a
successful issue to the business. Instead, however, of conducting the
affair well, the unfortunate man fell into riotous living in Europe,
and spent the remittances his employer sent to him. He returned to the
United States in the steerage of one of the steamships plying between
Liverpool and New York.

He was never a candidate for office again, after his memorable contest
with Mr. Kelly in 1854. In the winter of 1859 poor Mike, while on his
way home one night, slipped and fell down a cellar-way on the 8th
Avenue, near 16th Street, and was supposed to have been instantly
killed, as he was found dead the next morning by the police. Although
at the time it was thought that he had been murdered, the evidence
taken at the inquest showed that this was not the case, and the jury
returned their verdict that his death was caused by an accidental fall
in an open cellar-way. His death called forth expressions of profound
sorrow in New York, for, in spite of the infirmities of his nature,
Mike Walsh had a powerful hold on the popular mind, and over his
new-made grave many an eye was dimmed with unhidden grief, and all that
was gentle and noble in his nature was feelingly recalled.

Although John Kelly had been an ardent Hunker, or Cass and Butler man,
in 1848, he was now acting with the Soft Shells, having, when the
reconciliation took place between the Hunker and Barnburner factions
in 1849, followed the leadership of William L. Marcy and Horatio
Seymour, the two eminent Hunkers, who became Soft Shells. It was by
the Soft Shells he was nominated against Walsh in 1854. The country
was roused to a high pitch of excitement by the Kansas imbroglio
when he took his seat as a Representative of the city of New York in
the Thirty-fourth Congress. For the first time in the history of the
government a purely sectional candidate, sustained exclusively by
sectional votes, was elected Speaker of the House of Representatives
in 1856. This was Nathaniel P. Banks, of Waltham, Massachusetts. The
struggle was the most bitter and protracted one that ever took place
in the House, beginning when Congress assembled on the first Monday
of December, 1855, and continuing from day to day for nine weeks. The
contending forces were so evenly balanced, and party spirit ran so
high, that it seemed impossible to break the dead-lock. There were
three candidates in the field, and the followers of each supported
their respective favorites with unflinching resolution. William A.
Richardson of Illinois, who had brought in the Kansas-Nebraska bill
at the last session, and carried it through successfully, was the
caucus nominee of the Democrats; Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts,
of the Republicans; and Henry M. Fuller, of Pennsylvania, of the
Know-Nothings. It was the beginning of the great sectional conflict,
and the ominous mutterings of the storm were now heard in the House
of Representatives whose thunder in a few years was to break forth on
a hundred battle-fields. There was Joshua R. Giddings, the ancient
Abolitionist, who for years like Cassandra in the gates had been
uttering prophecies of woe, and now in anticipation of victory was
goading the Hotspurs of the South to fury, such as Keitt, and Brooks,
and Caskie, and Bowie, and Extra Billy Smith, and Fayette McMullin.
There, too, were Humphrey Marshall, Henry Winter Davis, Zollicoffer
and Cullen, Know-Nothing birds of evil, shouting their No-Popery cry
in the House, like Lord George Gordon in the British Parliament,
seventy-five years before. There were Alexander H. Stephens, who on the
outbreak of sectionalism left the Whigs forever, and now took sides
with the National Democrats, John Kelly, Howell Cobb, James L. Orr, and
William A. Richardson, marshalling the forces of the administration,
and striving to pluck success from the aggressive and powerful
sectionalists. They would have succeeded in electing the Democratic
candidate, William Aiken, finally settled upon in place of Messrs.
Richardson and Orr, but for the officious intermeddling of a blunderer,
who revealed the plans of the Democrats before they were fully matured,
and nominated Aiken in a theatrical speech which repelled the two or
three wavering votes, only needed to elect him. This was Williamson
R. W. Cobb of Alabama. In the homely words of Mr. Stephens, as will
be explained more fully a few pages further on, he “plugged the melon
before it was ripe.”[23] It was true that Aiken was first nominated
by John Kelly in a few tentative words, that attracted several and
did not repel any votes. Mr. Kelly made no kite-flying speech, and
the anti-Banks Whigs, such as John Scott Harrison, Haven, Cullen and
Barclay, who opposed an out-and-out Democrat, were interested in Mr.
Kelly’s off-hand manner of presenting William Aiken’s name, and showed
a disposition to vote for him as against Banks. Harrison had avowed his
intention to do so.[24] But W. R. W. Cobb of Alabama, let the secret
out that Aiken was the Democratic dark horse, and the masterly plans
of Alexander H. Stephens and John Kelly, just as victory was in reach,
were dashed to the ground. An opinion further prevailed among many
that one or two Democrats were corruptly bought off.

On the 18th of December, 1855, after nearly two weeks had been spent
in a fruitless effort to organize the House, John Letcher of Virginia
proposed that all the members should resign, and new elections be
held. This proposal was not made seriously, but rather as a protest
against the dead-lock. Joshua R. Giddings of Ohio chose to treat
the proposition seriously, and on the 18th of December spoke of the
Democrats as follows: “These are the gentlemen who propose here to
the majority of the House, that we shall resign and go home, if they
will. The proposition is unfair. We are endeavoring to organize this
House; they are endeavoring to prevent an organization. To illustrate
my idea, I will remark that I am reminded of the criminal standing upon
the gallows, the rope fastened to the beam over his head and around
his neck, the drop on which he stands sustained by a single cord,
which the sheriff stands ready with his hatchet to cut. ‘Now,’ says
the criminal to the sheriff, ‘if you will resign, I will, and we will
go home together, and appeal to the people.’ Let me say to gentlemen,
we are each of us now writing our biography with more rapidity than
we generally imagine. Gentlemen of the Democratic party, I say again,
in your attempt to extend this sectional institution, you have called
down the vengeance of the American people upon your heads. The
handwriting upon the wall has been seen and read of all men. Your
history is written, and your doom is sealed; the sentence is pronounced
against you, ‘depart, ye cursed!’ I have already given my views upon
Republicanism. They are expressed in the language of that immortal
instrument the Declaration of Independence. That is the foundation of
my Republicanism, as it is that of a vast majority of the Whigs and
Know-Nothings of the North. You, gentlemen of the Democratic party,
stand forth here denying this doctrine. You say men are not endowed by
their Creator with the inalienable right of liberty. * * * I would to
God I could proclaim to every slave in Virginia to-day—You have the
right of self-defence, and when the master attempts to exercise the
right of dominion over you, slay him as he would slay yourselves!”[25]

Here then the incendiary appeal in favor of a servile insurrection,
which John Brown tried to carry out with arms in 1859, was openly made
on the floor of Congress in 1855.

That Giddings was either blinded by his fanaticism, or was a dishonest
pettifogger, became clearly established a few weeks after he made this
seditious speech. On the 18th of January, 1856, the House still being
in the wrangle over the Speakership, Mr. Giddings took the floor,
and advocated the adoption of the plurality rule. Mr. Banks had the
largest number of votes of the several candidates. Giddings, who had
bitterly opposed this rule in 1849, now, to help his candidate, as
earnestly advocated it.

He said: “We have but one precedent in the history of the Government
for our guidance. In 1849 this body found itself in the same condition
for three weeks that it now finds itself in during almost seven weeks.
There were then, as now, three parties in the House. No one party
had sufficient numbers to decide the election. No one party now has
sufficient numbers to elect.”

Mr. Jones of Tennessee rose to a question of order.

Mr. Giddings: “I do not blame the gentleman (Mr. Jones) for rising to
a question of order. He then stood with the party which established a
precedent which shall go down in all time to the condemnation of his
party. I mean that under the circumstances, the Democratic party, as
a party, in its caucus, speaking by a party organ, then declared the
plurality rule to be the proper and only rule which could be adopted
for the organization of the House.”

Mr. Howell Cobb, “Mr. Clerk, the gentleman is mistaken.”

Mr. Giddings: “No, sir; I stand upon the record. I have the record
before me, and the gentleman must contradict that before he contradicts
me. I read from the Congressional Globe. ‘The House had now’ says the
record, ‘reached the contingency contemplated in the proposition of
Mr. Stanton. It had exhausted the three votings therein provided for,
without a result, and had arrived at that point where, in fulfillment
of an agreement entered into between the two parties, a Speaker was
to be elected by a plurality vote.’ Here, sir, stands the record. Now
we stand precisely where we then stood. I do not know the number of
times that we, on this side of the House, have endeavored to follow
this established precedent that was then adopted. It was adopted by
gentlemen on the other side of the House, and under it the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Cobb) himself was exalted to that chair. The
Republican party stands ready to carry out that precedent now. The
Republicans stand upon the great principle which was avowed by both of
the great parties, Whigs and Democrats.”

Mr. Cobb: “I corrected the gentleman in a statement of fact. I rise
now for the purpose of putting that statement correctly before the
country in connection with his remarks. He stated that the Democratic
party had in 1849 adopted the plurality resolution in caucus. The truth
is simply this: the plurality rule was adopted in caucus by the Whig
party. When it was reported by the Committee of Conference of the two
parties to the Democratic caucus, it was rejected there by a decided
majority. And, if he desires to stand by the record, there was no man
on the floor more violent or more denunciatory of the operation of the
plurality rule than the gentleman from Ohio. My recollection is that
he offered a substitute for it, which declared that it was wrong in
principle, dangerous in its tendency, and ought not to be adopted.”

Mr. Giddings: “I only repeat what was said by a leading member of the
Democratic party, the Hon. Mr. Stanton, of Tennessee, on this floor,
and in the presence of the gentleman from Georgia, and his party in
this House. That gentleman sat silently in his seat when Mr. Stanton
declared the plurality rule to have been agreed to by the Committee,
and he did not deny it; no member of his party denied the fact. I
call the attention of the country to the fact that in their caucus
the Democratic party, as a party, agreed with the Whig party, as a
party, that this should be the rule. I do not involve gentlemen; I only
involve the Democratic party. I mean to pin it on that party.”

Mr. Edmundson: “Anybody who asserts that the Democratic party agreed to
adopt the plurality rule, asserts what is not true.”

Mr. Orr: “I was present on the occasion to which I suppose reference is
made; and I state distinctly that no such resolution as that referred
to by the gentleman from Ohio was adopted by the Democratic caucus,
either directly or indirectly.”

Mr. Millson, and other members who had attended the Democratic caucus
of 1849, made similar denials.

Mr. Cobb: “Fortunately the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Stanton),
although not a member of this House, is here, and I assert, without one
word of conference with him, that he never intended to say before this
House, nor did a single member of the House at that time so construe
his language—that the Democratic party had adopted the plurality rule
in caucus.”

At this point Mr. Jones, of Tennessee, referred to the _Globe_ of 1849,
and showed that the words put in Mr. Stanton’s mouth by Mr. Giddings
had not been used by him at all, but were words of the reporter
distinctly employed in another connection. This revelation, so damaging
to Mr. Giddings’s character for fair dealing, was clinched by Mr.
Letcher, who quoted from a speech made in the House by Mr. Giddings
himself, in 1849, five days after the adoption of the plurality rule,
in which he declared the Whig party had forced the rule upon the House.
Having quoted the passage from Mr. Giddings’s speech contradictory of
himself, Mr. Letcher remarked: “Now, Sir, I submit that whatever may
have been the opinion of other people, it does not become the gentleman
from Ohio to rise here in his place, and undertake to charge that
the Democratic party adopted that rule, after he has sent out to the
country and published a speech, revised and printed in pamphlet form,
in which he purports to give the facts as they occurred in 1849.”

Mr. Giddings: “I repeat what I said when I first rose, that the
Democratic party in its caucus, speaking through its committee, did
agree to the resolution.”

Mr. Edmundson: “I want to let the gentleman from Ohio know that he is
asserting what is not true. I am stating facts within my own knowledge.
The Democratic caucus voted down the resolution, and refused to adopt
it. Now, any statement made in conflict with that, I say this from my
own personal knowledge, is a statement which is not true, and he who
makes it knows, at the time he is making it, that it is not true.”

Mr. Giddings:

    “‘Go, show your slaves how choleric you are,
      And make your bondmen tremble,’

but do not come here to make any imputations upon me.”

Mr. Edmundson (advancing towards Mr. Giddings, who had sprung
Shakespeare on him unexpectedly): “I want to hear what the gentleman
from Ohio is saving.”

Mr. Giddings: “Let gentlemen keep cool.”

Mr. Edmundson: “I will keep cool, if you will state the facts.”

At this point there were loud cries of “Order, order,” and much
confusion and excitement in the hall.

Mr. Cobb: “When the gentlemen from Ohio stated that the Democratic
party had adopted as a party the plurality rule, I unhesitatingly
denied that statement. When he said that the resolution was introduced
by Mr. Stanton, he read the language of Mr. Stanton to show that he
made the statement to the House, and to the country, to that effect.
I stated then that it was a misconstruction of the language of Mr.
Stanton, and that it must have been so from the facts as they were.
Now, Mr. Clerk, I ask this House, and I put it to the candor of every
man on this floor, if, at the time this declaration was made, it was
not its understanding that the language quoted was the language of Mr.
Stanton?”

Several members: “He so stated, expressly.”

Mr. Cobb: “I put it to the memory and candor of gentlemen here, if the
gentleman from Ohio did not so intend it, then he made a charge against
the party without any particle of ground to stand on. If he did intend
it, it was an effort to falsify the record on which he was standing.
This language was the language of the reporter, giving an account of
the proceedings of the day, and does not occur in connection with Mr.
Stanton’s name at all. There is a vote intervening between the time
when Mr. Stanton addressed the House, and the remarks here made by
the reporter, which had no earthly connection with them whatever.
Where, then, is the point of the gentleman’s remarks when he charges me
with sitting by and allowing Mr. Stanton to state that the plurality
proposition was the result of an agreement between the two parties,
unless it be because he had put in Mr. Stanton’s mouth the language of
the reporter? I submit the facts to the House; I shall not characterize
them.”

Mr. Orr: “Since the debate commenced, Mr. Stanton has come within the
limits of this hall. I have had an interview with him, and he has
authorized me to state, that when the proposition to elect by plurality
was presented to the Democratic caucus, it was almost unanimously
rejected by them, and that when he offered the plurality resolution he
did it upon his own individual responsibility.”

These crushing refutations of the charges of Mr. Giddings raise a
strong doubt of his honesty in this matter. He was a sharp politician,
and sought without regard to the means to elect Mr. Banks Speaker of
the House.

The Know-Nothings, recruited as were the Republicans from the
same parent stem of John Adams Federalism, were the allies of the
Sectionalists led by Mr. Giddings in 1856. The folly of the Southern
Know-Nothings in the great conflict over the Speakership in the
Thirty-fourth Congress was remarkable.

Some of them, like Zollicoffer and Humphrey Marshall, were afterwards
such violent Secessionists that they became Generals in the Confederate
army. Even Henry Winter Davis was so much opposed to the Republican
party at this time, and for several years after, that he denounced it
as a miserable, useless faction, and sneeringly asked, “Why cumbers
it the ground?” Mr. Zollicoffer, a Southern man, of no mean powers,
with surprising inconsistency refused to vote for a Democratic
candidate for Speaker when none other had the remotest chance to
beat Banks, and at the same time inveighed against Mr. Campbell, a
Pennsylvania Know-Nothing, for voting for Banks, and thereby aiding the
Sectionalists in opening the door for disunion and civil war. These
men and their congeners in bigotry, like the blood-stained fanatic
Lord George Gordon before them, strove to excite a religious war, and
preached proscription of foreigners, and persecution of Catholics in
the American Congress. No union with slaveholders, was the platform of
Joshua R. Giddings; no-Popery, and no citizenship for foreigners, the
platform of Henry Winter Davis.

“I go against the Catholics,” said Mr. Cullen of Delaware, during the
same Speakership contest. “I never will support them. They are not fit
to be supported by Americans. The people of the State from which I come
look upon them with abhorrence. A Catholic priest, a short time ago,
came among us. He was a stranger. He taught the doctrine of purgatory.
After he had proclaimed that doctrine, an honorable gentleman of the
State of Delaware, and who at the last election ran for Governor on the
same ticket with myself, declared that he ought to be egged! I vote
against the Catholics!”

Mr. Dowdell, of Alabama: “I am exceedingly pained at the spectacle
which has been presented to-night. When Rome was burning Nero was
fiddling and dancing. Now, sir, we are standing upon a slumbering
volcano. Upon our borders in the common territory of this country,
our people are marshalling their forces to try the great question
whether they are able to govern themselves, it may be with rifles in
their hands. I have been reminded by the ludicrous scenes witnessed
here of a parallel to be found in a book entitled, ‘Georgia Scenes.’
Ned Brace, the hero of the story, happened to be in a city during the
prevalence of a great fire, the flames in red volumes were rising
higher and higher each moment, the people were running to and fro in
great consternation, women and children were screaming through the
streets, and the midnight fire-bells were sending out their rapid and
startling sounds, when Ned quietly took his position on the sidewalk.
About this time a large old man, nearly out of breath, came running by
in great haste, whose home was threatened with destruction perhaps,
and was abruptly stopped by Ned with the interrogatory: ‘Sir, can you
tell me where I can find Peleg Q. C. Stone?’ ‘Damn Peleg Q. C. Stone,
my house is on fire;’ was the impatient reply. Now, sir, while the fire
of civil war is threatening to be kindled upon our borders, questions
are propounded here quite as impertinent at this time of danger, and
calculated to provoke similar impatience, if not a similar reply.
I have no fear that any party in this country opposed to religious
liberty will ever be strong enough to control its legislation.”

Mr. Paine, of North Carolina: “I ask whether any gentleman in this
House is willing to see the Government of the United States, and the
Congress of the United States, in the hands of the Roman Catholics of
this country? This is a matter which enters into the private feelings,
however unwilling members may be to expose it. These very gentlemen
themselves would not trust the government of the country and Congress
in the hands of Roman Catholics.”

Mr. Valk, of New York: “The honorable gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Dowdell) took occasion to draw the attention of the House to the once
living embodiment of that portrait on my right—that of La Fayette. I
frankly and freely do honor to his memory. But the gentleman forgets
one remark which fell from the lips of that man when living. He said:
‘If ever the liberties of this country are destroyed it will be by
Catholic priests.’”

Mr. Bowie of Maryland: “Sparks says that is a lie.”

At this point Mr. Kelly tried to get the floor to repel the furious
assaults of the Know-Nothings upon his church, of which the preceding
extracts are but a few specimens.

Mr. Kelly: “I should like to explain my vote.”

The Clerk: “The clerk would remind the gentleman from New York that it
is too late. He can proceed, however, if no objection is made.” There
were loud cries of “object!”

Mr. Kelly: “Does the Clerk decide that I am not in order?”

The Clerk: “The Clerk makes no decision.”

Mr. Pennington: “I move that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Kelly)
have leave to explain his vote, and I do so because the gentleman is a
Catholic, and the only one I believe of that faith upon this floor. I
think that under the circumstances it would be only common courtesy to
hear him.” Loud cries of “Hear him.”

Mr. Bowie: “Hear him; he is the only Catholic here.”

Mr. Washburn: “I will yield to the gentleman for ten minutes.” Mr.
Kelly, without previous preparation, now proceeded to make his second
speech in the House, January 9, 1856, his first having been delivered
December 19, 1855, in reply to Mr. Whitney, a New York Know-Nothing.

Mr. Kelly: “I am aware, Mr. Clerk, that it is very improper to bring
religious matters into legislative business at all but when I hear such
remarks as have fallen from the intelligent gentleman who has just
spoken, I feel that it becomes me, as a member of the religious body
which the gentleman has been assailing, to say something, at least, in
its defense.

“The accusation is made here that the Catholic religion is dangerous
to the institutions of this Republic. Sir, no man possessed of any
intelligence would give any weight to a charge of that sort. When
have the Catholic clergy urged their flocks to support particular
individuals for office? When have they from their pulpits urged their
congregations to support particular measures, or to vote for particular
men? There is not in the history of this country an instance in which
the Catholic clergy have so acted. But can the same be said of other
religious denominations in this country? In the Eastern portion of the
Union you will frequently find ministers from their pulpits invoking
their flocks to vote for measures which interest them, and the section
of the Union to which they belong. Now, Mr. Clerk, I am a Catholic,
and I love this Union. I defy any man in this Congress to say that he
is a better citizen, or more devoted to the true interests of this
Union than I am. This is not only my sentiment, but it is the sentiment
of the religious body to which I belong. It is the sentiment of our
priesthood.

“I let the accusation that the Catholic religion is dangerous to our
beloved country, go for what it is worth; for I am satisfied that
no sane man would make such an assertion. But this charge has been
frequently made since we first met here. When my colleague, Mr. Valk,
made several charges against the Catholic religion, I had not an
opportunity to say one word in reply but, sir, I am surprised that the
gentleman from Long Island, a man of intelligence and a Christian,
as I take him to be, should rise upon this floor, and denounce his
fellow Christians because he differs with them in opinion upon
religious questions.” Mr. Valk, who had indulged in such denunciation,
nevertheless, made a denial at this point.

Mr. Kelly: “The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Paine, asks, would
you like to see this Government in the hands of the Catholic people?
Suppose that it was in the hands of the Catholic people, have the
Catholic people of this Union ever been false to its true interests?
Why, sir, look at the early history of our country, and look to that
State which borders upon this District. A Catholic community existed
there, which extended a liberality to all other religions that could
not be found in other colonies at that time. While Calvert, Lord
Baltimore, was founding a free colony there, religious persecution was
going on in other colonies; and when people were persecuted in other
colonies, where did they go that they might worship God according
to the dictates of their own consciences? They came to the Catholic
colony of Maryland. These are the Catholic people to whom the honorable
gentleman from Alabama has referred. Such, sir, is the history of the
Catholics in this country, and such has it ever been. These people when
they leave their homes in Germany, in Ireland, or in whatever country
they may be found, and come here, it is to make this country their
home. They imbibe the spirit of true patriotism before they leave the
Old World. They come here with their parents, brethren, and friends,
because here they can enjoy their liberty. And tell me, sir, is not
the assertion, that they are inimical to your liberties unfounded? Are
not the people who make it blinded by prejudice and bigotry? Why, sir,
foreigners have always composed a large portion of the army of the
country. They have fought side by side with our native-born citizens
in every battle that has been fought from the earliest period of
our existence as a nation, down to the present time. They have been
working in a common cause to promote common objects—the blessings and
prosperity of this Union. Let me say to this House, if they come not
here with wealth, they come with willing hands to work and earn their
bread upon your public works, from their very commencement to their
completion. How could your great public works have been constructed
without these men?”

The Know-Nothings, not liking Kelly’s argument, at this point made a
determined effort to cut him off.

Mr. Russell Sage, of New York: “I move that this House do now proceed
to vote for Speaker, and upon that motion I demand the previous
question.”

Mr. Smith, of Alabama: “I hope the gentleman from New York, Mr. Kelly,
will be allowed to proceed with his explanation.”

Mr. Eustis, of Louisiana: “I hope Mr. Kelly will be allowed to proceed
by unanimous consent.”

Several members objected.

Mr. Leiter, of Ohio: “I appeal to the House to withdraw all objection,
and allow the gentleman from New York to go on with his speech.”
Objection was again made.

Mr. Kelly: “I do not care about proceeding further. I wished to deny
the charges made by the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Paine, and
by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Valk, and having done that I am
satisfied to let the matter rest for the present.”[26]

Mr. Kelly, had he not been cut off by objections, intended to read
the letter of La Fayette, written from Paris in 1829 to a Protestant
citizen of New York, whose guest the old patriot had been during his
last visit to this country. This letter Mr. Valk had grossly perverted.
At the earliest opportunity during that session Mr. Kelly replied to
Mr. Valk and Mr. Smith, and read the La Fayette letter. The sentences
in it which Mr. Valk had so garbled were in reality as follows:—“But I
must be permitted to assure you that the fears which in your patriotic
zeal you seem to entertain, that if ever the liberty of the United
States is destroyed it will be by Romish priests, are certainly without
any shadow of foundation whatever. An intimate acquaintance of more
than half a century with the prominent and influential priests and
members of that Church, both in England and America, warrant me in
assuring you that you need entertain no apprehension of danger to your
republican institutions from that quarter.”


FOOTNOTES:

[22] Captain Rynders died suddenly about the middle of January, 1885,
having enjoyed his usual good health up to within a few hours of his
demise.

[23] Life of A. H. Stephens, by Johnston & Browne, p. 306.

[24] Ibid, p. 306.

[25] Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 34th Congress, p. 44, _et seq._

[26] Cong. Globe, 1855-56, Thirty-first Congress, 1st Session, pp. 191,
_et seq._



CHAPTER VI.

 KNOW-NOTHINGS JOIN REPUBLICANS TO ELECT BANKS—SEWARD BECOMES
 LEADER—SKETCH OF HIM—DEFEAT OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY—CAUSES OF
 IT—FREQUENT FIST-FIGHTS BETWEEN MEMBERS—DRUNKENNESS AND ROWDYISM IN
 CONGRESS—ANGRY DISPUTE BETWEEN KELLY AND MARSHALL—KELLY’S POPULARITY
 IN THE HOUSE—HIS RELATIONS WITH ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.


In the last chapter the strange spectacle was presented of Southern
Know-Nothings, while declaring their opposition to the Abolitionists,
actually aiding them to elect a Speaker, and offering as an excuse for
their conduct the dread that the Catholic Church might obtain control
of the Government! The Democratic caucus had adopted a resolution
denouncing the enemies of civil and religious liberty. Humphrey
Marshall and the Southern Know-Nothings declared this was an insult to
them, and not only Marshall, but Cox of Kentucky, and Zollicoffer and
Etheridge assigned the same cause as presenting an insuperable obstacle
to their voting for any Democrat for Speaker. The Know-Nothings and
Abolitionists, having nothing in common, united to overthrow the party
of the Constitution, the former to prevent the Catholics from seizing
the Government, the latter to get rid of slavery. This ridiculous
pretext of the Know-Nothings concerning the political ambition of the
Catholic Church was most effectively answered by the fact that out of
the whole 234 members of the House, and 7 Territorial Delegates, John
Kelly was the only Catholic in the Thirty-fourth Congress. Mr. Kelly
declared truly that no sane man would offer such an insult to the
intelligence of the country, as a justification for his conduct, but
Davis of Maryland, Cullen of Delaware, Whitney of New York, and other
proscriptionists were wedded to their idols, and in order to strike
down an imaginary enemy, they became the tools of a real one.

For nine weeks the stubborn contest continued. The country, from one
end to another, was roused to feverish excitement. It was the first
time the Republican party had shown front in a National contest. Ever
since the Seward-Fillmore quarrel had led to the overthrow of the Whig
party in 1853, the Freesoilers had been a heterogeneous mass of the
Northern population, unorganized, and with no common object in view.
Mr. Seward keenly felt that success in the present struggle for the
Speakership was vital to the perpetuity of the Republican party. He
summoned to Washington his ablest friends, Thurlow Weed, Horace Greeley
and James Watson Webb. These four famous leaders soon organized their
followers in the House into a compact body. Mr. Zollicoffer, who
subsequently became a Secessionist, and fell in battle as a Confederate
General, characterized them by name on the floor of the House as the
chiefs of the lobby. In the course of a speech on the 20th of December,
in which he declared, with a short-sightedness unworthy of so clever a
man, that he would not vote for a Democrat against Banks, Zollicoffer
said: “I see here a great organization, numbering from one hundred and
four to one hundred and six members, who are steadily voting for Mr.
Banks. Whilst I have reason to believe that the great lobby spirits
who control that organization are Greeley and Seward, and Weed and
Webb, men of intellect and power at the North, who are as bitterly
opposed to the American party as they are to the Democratic party, I
do, upon my conscience, believe that there are gentlemen voting for
Mr. Banks, from day to day, who do not belong to the Abolition, or,
as they style themselves, the Republican organization. For example, I
cite the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Campbell), at whose position,
as he announced it here the other day, I was surprised. He says he is
an American, and he spurned the idea that the American party at the
North were identified with the Freesoilers of the North and yet he
casts his vote steadily against a conservative National American of
his own State, and gives it to Mr. Banks, a Free Soil Democrat, who
has affiliated, as his record clearly shows, with the most ultra and
violent Free-soil and Abolition factions.”

The Capitol was alive with intrigues and with intriguers from every
part of the country. The leaders retired to the Committee rooms day by
day, and night by night, and runners kept them constantly informed of
the movements of their adversaries. Counter-movements followed, and
new plans succeeded each other on every side without avail. It was an
interesting moment for the historian; the events of the hour were big
with the fate of the country. Federalism and Democracy were once more,
as in the year 1801, locked in a death struggle. Then, as now, it was
the party of the Constitution against the party of Centralization. The
Know-Nothings held the balance of power, and of course the followers
of the man who wrote his own epitaph in these words, “Author of the
Declaration of Independence, and of the Statutes of Virginia for
Religious Freedom,” had nothing to expect from that pestilent band of
bigots. Sprung from the same parent stem of John Adams Federalism,
Joshua R. Giddings and his Abolitionists, and Henry Winter Davis
and his Know-Nothings, were natural allies against the disciples of
Jefferson.

Seward, Weed and Greeley, to their credit be it recorded, having led
the anti-Know-Nothing branch of the Whig party in New York, were
not personally influential with members of the American party in
Congress. But the Republican leaders were men of varied resources,
and Thurlow Weed, the Whig Warwick, was equal to any emergency. The
fierce philippics of Henry A. Wise against the Know-Nothings in the
memorable Virginia campaign just closed, and the tremendous blows
which Alexander H. Stephens had dealt the party of dark lanterns in
his then recent Georgia campaign, were artfully spread abroad among
the proscriptionists in Congress, and the bitterness of their defeat
in both those States added to the chagrin which the unanswerable
arraignments of Wise and Stephens excited among them. The resolutions
of the Democratic caucus, especially the one denouncing the enemies
of civil and religious liberty, and the alleged contradictory
constructions placed upon the Kansas-Nebraska bill by Northern and
Southern Democrats, were also used by the Seward men as electioneering
appeals for Mr. Banks. In one or two Democratic quarters the Republican
leaders were strongly suspected of employing corrupt appliances.

The great anti-Know-Nothing speech of Alexander H. Stephens at
Augusta, largely quoted from in a former chapter of this book, was
now being used by the Republicans to increase Know-Nothing enmity to
the Democrats. On his part Mr. Stephens was a tower of strength to
the Administration men in the House. He appreciated the magnitude of
the struggle, and was indefatigable in his attempts to defeat the
Republican and Know-Nothing alliance. He rejoiced at the prominence
which the Republican leaders were giving to the victory over
Know-Nothingism in his own State. “I think,” he said in a letter to his
brother, “the Georgia election is more talked of than that of any other
State in the Union.”[27]

Lewis Cass, Stephen A. Douglas, C. C. Clay, R. M. T. Hunter, Judah P.
Benjamin, and other Democratic Senators, were in frequent consultation
with Alexander H. Stephens, John Kelly, Howell Cobb, James L. Orr,
William A. Richardson, and other Democratic members of the House. The
relative strength of the two leading parties in the House, seventy-four
Democrats and one hundred and four Republicans, was the subject of
anxious thought, and all at length saw that Mr. Richardson, the caucus
nominee of the Democrats, could not be elected. He was, therefore,
dropped, and James L. Orr substituted as the Democratic candidate. As
week after week elapsed, it became evident that the dead-lock could
only be broken by the abandonment of a straight party man by the
Democrats. Even then no election was likely to take place unless the
plurality rule should be adopted. About ten days before the end of
the contest, as alluded to already, a private consultation took place
between Mr. Stephens, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Orr, and Mr. Cobb, at which the
nomination of William Aiken of South Carolina was decided upon as
that of the only available candidate against Banks. But in order to
render this movement effective, the utmost secrecy was necessary until
the time should have come to bring out the new candidate. This plan
originated with Mr. Stephens. Mr. Kelly entered heartily into it. To
him was assigned the important duty as a Northern Democrat of putting
Mr. Aiken in nomination. He was only to do this, when Banks’s election
should appear imminent, or after the plurality rule had been adopted,
with Orr still running against Banks. The nomination was not to be
enforced by any set speech on the part of the mover, which might show
design and premeditation, but was to be made as if on the impulse of
the moment, and as the sudden act of an individual who had given up all
hope for Orr, and now named Aiken as a sort of dernier resort to beat
Banks.

It showed that the Democratic leaders reposed extraordinary confidence
in Kelly’s coolness, tact and good judgment, that he should have been
selected to initiate this most delicate parliamentary move. Mr. Orr
had agreed to withdraw at the proper moment in Aiken’s favor. In the
meantime Mr. Stephens was to manage the preliminary strategy necessary
to put the train of affairs in motion. He sounded various members in
casual conversation, and found men of the most opposite views quite
favorable to Aiken, as a compromise candidate against Banks. At length,
February first, when it seemed probable that Banks would be elected,
and at the right moment, with admirable brevity and effect, John
Kelly rose and nominated Aiken. But before Orr could get the floor
to withdraw in favor of Mr. Kelly’s nominee, Williamson R. W. Cobb,
of Alabama, who had found members who were in the secret predicting
that Aiken would win, now sprang up and in a cut-and-dried-speech,
and with a great parade of theatrical language, declared that the
time had arrived to name the winning man, that he had the pleasure of
offering an olive-branch to all those who opposed the Republicans, and
after giving everybody to know that he was about to announce a grand
parliamentary stroke on the part of the Democrats, he nominated William
Aiken of South Carolina. The effect of that supremely ill-timed speech
was to drive off votes which Mr. Aiken would have otherwise won, for as
soon as it dawned upon the Whigs and Know-Nothings, who had not gone
over to Banks, that the latest move was a Democratic “olive-branch,”
a sufficient number of them reconsidered their intention to vote for
Aiken, and Banks was elected Speaker the next day, under the operation
of that extra-constitutional device—the plurality rule.

The votes of John Hickman and David Barclay, two Democrats from
Pennsylvania, were not given on the final ballot to the candidate
supported by the Democratic side of the House. They were much censured
for their course.

The Congressional Globe contains the following:

“House of Representatives, Friday, February 1, 1856.

Mr. Ball. I offer the following resolutions, and upon it I demand the
previous question:

Resolved, That Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts, be, and he is
hereby declared Speaker of this House for the Thirty-fourth Congress.

Mr. Kelly. I desire to offer a substitute for that resolution.

The Clerk. It is not in order to do so now, as the previous question
has been demanded.

Mr. Kelly. Then I give notice, that if the pending resolution is voted
down, I shall hereafter offer the following:

Resolved, That William Aiken, of South Carolina, be, and he is hereby
elected Speaker of this House, for the Thirty-fourth Congress.”

The resolution declaring Banks the Speaker was lost by 102 ayes to 115
noes. Then, before Mr. Kelly could obtain the floor to name Mr. Aiken,
Williamson R. W. Cobb made his fatal olive-branch speech in favor of
Aiken, and Mr. Washburne of Illinois moved to lay “that olive branch
on the table.” The House by a vote of 98 to 117 refused to table the
resolution. The main question of declaring Aiken Speaker was then put
and lost, ayes 103, noes 110. It will be observed that the vote for
Aiken was larger than that for Banks. Banks 102 to 115; Aiken 103 to
110. Mr. Kelly would have had the honor of naming the Speaker but for
the precipitancy of Mr. W. R. W. Cobb. The plurality rule, a device
of doubtful constitutionality, was adopted the next day, February 2d,
and Banks was elected. The following was the vote: Banks 103; Aiken
100; Fuller 6; Campbell 4; Wells 1. If Henry Winter Davis and the
other five Know-Nothings who voted for Fuller, or even three of them,
had supported Mr. Aiken, his election would have taken place. Or if
only two of those Know-Nothings, and the two Democratic back-sliders,
Hickman and Barclay, had voted for Aiken, the defeat of Banks, and
election of the Democratic candidate, in this momentous national
contest would have resulted.

“After a prolonged struggle,” says Mr. Blaine in his _Twenty Years
of Congress_, “Nathaniel P. Banks was chosen Speaker over William
Aiken. It was a significant circumstance, noted at the time, that the
successful candidate came from Massachusetts, and the defeated one
from South Carolina. It was a still more ominous fact that Banks was
chosen by votes wholly from the free States, and that every vote from
the slave States was given to Mr. Aiken, except that of Mr. Cullen of
Delaware, and that of Henry Winter Davis of Maryland, who declined to
vote for either candidate. It was the first instance in the history of
the Government in which a candidate for Speaker had been chosen without
support from both sections. It was a distinctive victory of the free
States over the consolidated power of the slave States. It marked an
epoch.”[28] If William H. Seward and Thurlow Weed were here to explain
this “distinctive victory,” as Mr. Blaine calls it, they might, if they
were in a confessing mood, call the thing by another name.

It is certain that votes were thrown away on nominal candidates, and
some even were given for Mr. Banks which belonged rightfully to Mr.
Aiken. The members who cast those votes not only failed to reflect the
sentiments of their constituencies, but in some cases openly defied
and misrepresented the will of the voters to whom they owed their
seats. Why these men betrayed the Democratic party in the memorable
parliamentary battle which, as Mr. Blaine says “marked an epoch,”
will perhaps forever remain one of the mysteries of the lobby of that
eventful Thirty-fourth Congress.

John Kelly, Howard Cobb and others strongly suspected that corrupt
appliances were at work.

Mr. Stephens, in a letter to his brother Linton Stephens, February 1st,
1856, said: “But for a _faux pas_ on the part of that fool C——, I think
we should have made Aiken Speaker to-day. I had set the programme
for it about ten days ago. My plan was this: after the plurality rule
should have been adopted (which I had all along believed after a while
would be), and two ballots should have been had under it, if the
Southern Know-Nothings should not indicate a purpose to go over to Orr
to prevent Banks’s election (which I did not much expect them to do),
then Aiken was to be put in nomination on the floor, Orr to decline,
and let the last vote be between Aiken and Banks. From my knowledge
of the House, its present tone and temper, knowledge of Aiken and the
estimation he was held in by several of the scatterers, I believed he
would beat Banks. This I communicated to a few, and a few only. I gave
Cobb, of Georgia, my idea; he was struck with it, and communicated
it to a few others. It took finely. I sounded some of the Western
Know-Nothings,—Marshall and others,—and found that they could be
brought into it. I said nothing of my plan, but simply asked carelessly
how Aiken would do. I found that he would do for them. But after his
name began to be talked of, he got so popular in the minds of many that
C——, a fool, plugged the melon before it was ripe. If we had then been
under the pressure of the plurality rule, and the choice between him
and Banks, he would have been elected, sure as fate, in my opinion.”[29]

In conversations with the writer of this memoir, and in letters to
him on the subject, Mr. Stephens often spoke of Mr. Kelly’s conduct
during this first great struggle between the Democratic and Republican
parties in the House of Representatives, as truly admirable and
patriotic. “Mr. Kelly,” said he, “never hounded on anybody against the
South, but was one of the few Northern Democrats who then stood firmly
by us, in defense of our Constitutional rights against the assaults
of Republicans and Know-Nothings, who had formed an unholy alliance
against us.” The present writer has sometimes read, with surprise,
attacks on Mr. Kelly in Southern newspapers of respectability and
standing, such as the Baltimore _Sun_ and Atlanta _Constitution_,
which only could be ascribed to insufficient information on the part
of the writers, or perhaps they unintentionally erred in accepting the
scurrilous caricatures of _Puck_, and other Gerrymanders, for the real
John Kelly.

Mr. Banks appointed the standing Committees of the House in the
interest of the ultra wing of the Republican party, of which William H.
Seward and Joshua R. Giddings were the leaders. M. Seward was at length
at the head of a great organization, with the immense power of the
popular branch of Congress at his back, and no other man in American
politics ever made more of his opportunities. Five years before he
had been rudely jostled from his dream of ambition by the death of
President Taylor, to whose friendship for him he was indebted for
his elevation to leadership in the Whig party in 1849. That event had
been rendered possible in consequence of the disastrous feuds in the
Democratic party of New York in 1848. While Hunkers and Barnburners
fought, the Whigs captured the Legislature of New York, by which a
Senator in Congress was to be chosen. Mr. Seward was elected Senator.
His political sagacity soon enabled him to grasp the situation. Deeming
it certain that whoever might control the Administration patronage,
whether Senator or not, would control the politics of New York, he went
to Washington, and paid assiduous court to that dashing Virginian,
William Ballard Preston, Secretary of the Navy, to whom President
Taylor was more attached than to any other member of his Cabinet. As a
charmer Mr. Seward had few equals. He was addicted to aphorisms, and
studied _bon mots_ with the diligence of Sheridan. His affectation
of philosophy was set off by good manners and easy address. He had
been a school-master in Georgia, and had at his command a fund of
South-of-Potomac reminiscences, saws, and anecdotes. In the company
of William Ballard Preston he was never so happy as when expatiating
over the types, and modes, and fascinations of Southern society. The
Tazewells, Randolphs, Gastons, Lowndes, Calhouns, Crawfords, Forsyths,
Lumpkins, and other famous Cavaliers, were all names familiar on
Mr. Seward’s lips as household words. It did not take him long
to win Preston, and that gentleman soon addressed himself to the
task of winning over the President to the side of Mr. Seward. But
Vice-President Fillmore was Seward’s bitterest enemy, and Taylor’s
confidence was of slower growth than Preston’s. Fierce sectional
passions upon the subject of slavery were already raging between the
North and South, and the old hero of Buena Vista desired to allay
those passions, and render his Administration the era of pacification.
Pledges were finally exacted and given, James Watson Webb representing
Mr. Seward, and Secretary Preston representing the President, and the
patronage of the Administration in New York was placed at Mr. Seward’s
disposal; in consideration of which that wily diplomat entered into
engagements to take no part in the Senate of the United States in
the Abolition agitation, but to pursue a policy of conciliation and
compromise at Washington. He had been elected Senator to succeed a
Democrat. Daniel Webster, Henry Clay and John J. Crittenden, and the
other leading Whigs in the Senate and House, were friends of Mr.
Fillmore, and unalterably opposed to Seward’s recognition by Taylor,
upon any terms, as leader of the Administration party in New York.
Angry controversies took place in Administration circles. A breach
occurred between the President and Vice-President, and their social
relations were broken off. Preston had acquired complete personal
ascendency over Taylor, and the old soldier became a violent partisan
of Mr. Seward. The Senator from New York was now recognized as the real
leader of the Whig party, and wielded the Administration lash with
exasperating indifference to the powerful men arrayed on the side of
Mr. Fillmore. Alienations took place between life-long friends, and
many of the great Whig statesmen were not even on speaking terms. The
Whig party was rent in twain.

Mr. Blaine has recently discussed some of the political events of
this period of American history, in his valuable work “Twenty Years
of Congress,” but in assigning causes for the destruction of the Whig
party, he has strangely overlooked this portentous quarrel, provoked
by Seward, which was the underlying cause,—the _causa causans_,—of the
dissolution and utter extinction of that celebrated party.

On the 11th of March, 1850, Mr. Seward, unmindful of his pledges to
William Ballard Preston, made a violent Abolition speech in the Senate.
The Georgia school-master has outwitted the Secretary of the Navy.
Charles Francis Adams, in his memorial address at Albany on Mr. Seward,
stated that he was aware of the “agreement,” as he called it, between
the Auburn statesman and Taylor’s Administration, but he must have been
ignorant of its real terms, for a descendant of two Presidents would
scarcely have regarded the violation of voluntary pledges as a fit
topic for glowing eulogy.

And now in that month of March, 1850, William H. Seward was at the
height of power. In all human probability he would be next President
of the United States. Short-lived triumph. The summer of his glory was
soon overcast with stormy portents. Within four little months Zachary
Taylor lay dead in the White House, and Fillmore, Seward’s dearest
foe, was President. The downfall of the Whig party soon followed, and
Mr. Seward and Winfield Scott sat amid its ruins. It was about this
time that Daniel Webster said to his friend Peter Harvey of Boston:
“One of the convictions of my mind, and it is very strong, is that the
people of the United States will never entrust their destinies, and the
administration of their government, to the hands of William H. Seward
and his associates.”[30]

But Mr. Webster, perhaps, underestimated the character of Mr. Seward.
In 1856, upon the election of Nathaniel P. Banks as Speaker of the
House of Representatives, the distinguished New York Senator became
titular primate of a new and more powerful organization than the
Whig party ever had been in its palmiest days. England is governed
by Cabinet Ministers with seats in Parliament; the United States by
standing Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives, by
whom legislation is initiated, secretly formulated, and then carried
through both Houses by aid of caucus management, and under the whip and
spur of imperious majorities. This vast energy Mr. Seward now commanded
through Speaker Banks in the House of Representatives. He had admirable
lieutenants. Banks was a fair Speaker in his rulings, and not a sticker
over non-essentials, but in everything that seriously affected the
welfare of the Republican party, he was an aggressive and tenacious
partisan. The astute Thurlow Weed was even a shrewder politician
than Mr. Seward himself; and Horace Greeley, adopting the maxim of
Daniel O’Connell—that agitation is the life of every cause—employed
his unrivaled editorial pen in the anti-slavery crusade, now fairly
inaugurated throughout the Northern States. Yet with all his great
advantages and skill as an organizer, Mr. Seward could not have carried
the Republican party to victory, had not some of the leaders of the
Democratic party, during the last five years of their ascendency at
Washington, wilfully neglected their opportunities, and given to their
more vigilant opponents the vantage ground in the collision of forces
on the floor of Congress.

During the latter days of the Pierce administration, and the whole
of that of Buchanan, measures of great national importance were
defeated through the culpable negligence of a few Southern Democrats.
Northern Representatives who stood by the South in defense of its
constitutional rights, bitterly complained of this neglect on the part
of those who were so deeply interested. These Northern men, like Mr.
Kelly and Horace F. Clark, had to brave a false but growing public
opinion at the North, on account of their heroic devotion to what they
deemed the line of duty, especially on the great Territorial questions,
over which the Union was being shaken to its foundations. They had,
therefore, the right to expect corresponding earnestness on the part
of all their fellow Democrats of the South. To hold to Jeffersonian,
strict construction opinions was then becoming extremely unpopular at
the North, and involved sacrifices that threatened to blight their
political prospects. To maintain similar opinions at the South was a
wholly different matter. Everybody there believed in the State-rights
doctrine, and public men were carried smoothly on with the current in
defending measures of administration.

Mr. Kelly observed some things which he could not but regard with
pain during the Thirty-fourth and Thirty-fifth Congresses, for they
were pregnant with ill-omens for the country, and to a man of his
perspicacious brain they must have foreboded those disasters to the
Democratic party which ere long overtook it. There was an incapacity
for affairs on the part of a few Southern Representatives, and a
proneness to intemperance among quite a number of otherwise excellent
men from the same section. It was a bad symptom of the distempered
state of the Democratic party to find many of its Representatives
frequently, and inexcusably, absent from their seats when test votes
were about to be taken, fraught with vital interest to the South, and
decisive of great national policies. The fault was more grievous, when
the absentees, as was often the case, would have been able to change
the result by being present and voting. This was attributable in some
measure to inexperience, and want of training for public life. Some
there were who were addicted to pleasure parties, frequently went home
to their families, and entertained fanciful ideas respecting the duties
devolving on gentlemen in society. That they were honorable men who
would not stoop to disreputable conduct, no one who knew them can for
a moment doubt. Indeed their integrity bore refreshing contrast to
the looser morality so often to be encountered in a later political
generation. The trouble simply was that these men were impracticables,
and out of place in the Halls of Congress during the stormy days of
1855-60. They talked politics in the parlor and bar-room, and neglected
their duties in the House and Senate. John Randolph, in his Hudibrastic
vein, scores a similar class that flourished in Virginia in 1831: “We
hug our lousy cloaks around us, take another _chaw of tubbacker_,
float the room with nastiness, or ruin the grate and fire-irons, where
they happen not to be rusty, and try conclusions upon constitutional
points.”[31]

But a still greater evil was intemperance. The Hole-in-the-Wall, in the
House of Representatives, was the downward path to irretrievable ruin,
where many a noble fellow of genius and promise drowned his faculties
in rum, when his country most needed his services. While the Democrats
and Republicans were in a deadly struggle on the floor of the House
over questions involving the destinies of the Union, and the lives and
fortunes of millions of human beings, the tipplers were in the bar-room
drinking, or on the sofas of the lobby dozing in their cups. A vote
is wanting to carry an imperiled measure to victory,—the inebriate is
lifted into a sitting posture, dragged to the floor, and bid to vote
aye, or no, provided he is there to mumble out the word. Too often
he is absent, having been carried off to his lodgings in a state of
drunken imbecility. John Quincy Adams[32], in his Memoirs, inveighs
savagely against this melancholy vice, as the besetting sin of an
earlier day; and Alexander H. Stephens, in his private letters to his
brother, Judge Linton Stephens, pours out indignant lamentations over
the same disgraceful spectacle at the period under review.

“One vote against us,” writes Mr. Stephens to his brother, August 23,
1856, on the loss of an important bill. “Seven more Southern men absent
than Northern. If our men had stayed, we should have been triumphant
to-day. On several votes we lost two to three Southern men who were
too drunk to be brought in.”[33] Again, February 5, 1858, he says: “I
have been more provoked at the course of Southern men on this Kansas
question from the beginning than upon any other subject in my public
career. I mean their culpable negligence.”[34] He informs his brother
that thirteen Southern Democrats were absent March 11, 1858, when an
important vote was taken, and the Republicans prevailed. “Had the
thirteen been present we should have saved the question. How shamefully
the South is represented! Some of the Southern men were too drunk to
be got into the House. * * Have we any future but miserable petty
squabbles, parties, factions, and fragments of organizations, led on by
contemptible drunken demagogues?”[35]

The next day he writes again: “As usual we lost the question by the
absence of two Southern votes. Luck seems to be against us. We had all
our other men there to-day except those paired. Some were so drunk they
had to be kept out until they were wanted to say ‘aye,’ or ‘no,’ as the
case might be.”[36] Two years later, after the celebrated Charleston
Democratic National Convention had broken up in a row, and the Douglas
wing had adjourned to meet in Baltimore, and the Breckenridge wing in
Richmond, Mr. Stephens seems to hint that drunkenness had something to
do with that most fatal step the Democrats ever took. “I am sorry,”
he says in a letter to Professor Johnston, “things are as they are;
sorry as I should be to see the paroxyms of a dear friend in a fit of
delirium tremens.”[37] Mr. Kelly, who was a delegate to the Charleston
Convention, returned home mortified and sad. “The drunkenness down
there,” said he to the author of this memoir, “was shameful. Men whose
minds are inflamed with whiskey are not able to govern themselves, much
less the country. Alas! for the poor Democratic party. The disruption
means defeat, and unless the Douglas men and Anti-Douglas men come
together and nominate a single ticket, the Republicans will carry the
election.”

Mr. Kelly, during his two terms in Congress, witnessed the demoralizing
scenes to which Mr. Stephens refers in his letters. Kelly was often
amused in spite of himself when he went out to the lobby to shake up
some poor inebriated gentleman, and lead him to the floor to give an
important vote. The grotesqueness and difficulties of the task, and the
absurd figure cut by the tipsy Solon, always excited his risibilities,
although he tried to keep a straight face during the trip to and fro.
His account of some of these scenes, never mentioned except among
intimate friends, was rich in comic touches and facial contortions. His
mimicry of the scenes was irresistible. But he, too, equally with Mr.
Stephens, saw what it would all lead to, and felt that the Democratic
party was in a bad way.

Another element of Democratic weakness was the over-readiness of those
called Fire-eaters to appeal to the code duello, or other forms of
personal rencontre. This was made by an unfriendly press to bear the
appearance of a species of terrorism, and was to some extent a revival
of the bullying and domineering so common among the Federalists in
Congress in their treatment of Democrats during the Administration
of John Adams. Writing in 1809 of “the brow-beatings and insults,”
to which the Federalists subjected the Democrats in the days of the
elder Adams, Mr. Jefferson says: “No person who was not a witness of
the scenes of that gloomy period can form any idea of the afflicting
persecutions and personal indignities we had to brook. They saved our
country, however.”[38] The inexcusable assault of Preston S. Brooks on
Charles Sumner in the Senate Chamber, May 22, 1856, had had its exact
counterpart on the floor of the House of Representatives, February 15,
1798, when Roger Griswold, a member of Congress from Connecticut, with
a stout hickory club, made a furious assault during the sitting of the
House upon the celebrated Matthew Lyon, one of the Representatives from
Vermont. Griswold was a Federalist, and Lyon a Democrat. But in the
latter case the assault was made by Brooks, a Democrat, upon Sumner,
a Republican. The Federalists condoned the offense of Griswold, and by
the decisive majority of 73 to 21 refused to expel him from Congress.
Even a resolution to censure him was lost.[39] The Republicans of 1856,
political legatees of the Federalists of 1798, did not show the same
forbearance in the case of Brooks. A resolution of expulsions received
121 affirmative, and 94 negative votes in the House, not enough to
expel a member under the two-thirds rule required by the Constitution,
but more than enough, remembering the palliation of Griswold’s offense,
to prove that all such votes reflect the partisan prejudices rather
than the impartial judgment of members.

In 1856 a scuffle took place upon the floor of Congress between
Mr. John Sherman of Ohio, and Mr. Wright of Tennessee. Mr. Sherman
attempted to throw a handful of wafers in Mr. Wright’s face, and the
latter returned the compliment by aiming a blow at Sherman with his
fist. The latter put his hand in his pistol-pocket, but before he could
draw members rushed between the combatants, and separated them.[40]
Intense excitement prevailed during this bear-garden performance.

A still more disgraceful scene occurred in the House, February 5, 1858.
Mr. Grow of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Keitt of South Carolina became
engaged in a regular fist fight, which spread to others until the
flourishing conflict boasted not less than thirty active participants.
The fight took place directly in front of the Clerk’s desk. In the
midst of the melee Mr. Barksdale, who afterwards fell in the battle
of Gettysburgh, rushed at Mr. Covode of Pennsylvania, who had lifted
up a heavy spittoon and was about to hurl it at the head of the
Mississippian, but at that instant some one seized Barksdale by the
head, and off came his wig, leaving his shining pate glittering in
the gas light, perfectly bald. At this ludicrous vision the enraged
combatants and all the spectators were moved to laughter, and finally
Mr. Speaker was able, by aid of the Sergeant-at-Arms, who bore his mace
on high and led his posse through the throng, to recall the House, if
not to order, at least from pandemonium.

“Last night,” says Mr. Stephens, in a letter, February 5, 1858, “we
had a battle royal in the House. Thirty men at least were engaged in
the fisticuff. Fortunately, no weapons were used. It was the first
sectional fight ever had on the floor, I think; and if any weapons had
been on hand it would probably have been a bloody one. All things here
are tending to bring my mind to the conclusion that the Union cannot,
or will not last long.”[41]

Mr. Kelly in the midst of these belligerent and disgraceful scenes
kept cool and calm. Once, however, Mr. Humphrey Marshall, the Kentucky
Know-Nothing, provoked him into momentary indignation by an insulting
allusion to Mr. Kelly’s religion, and by charging Catholics with abject
servitude in all civil and religious matters to the will of a foreign
prince, the Pope of Rome. Kelly rose and corrected Marshall without
discourtesy or bad feeling, but the huge form of the Kentuckian dilated
with rage, and he repeated the offensive charge in still stronger
language. Then Kelly rose with fire in his eye, and hurled back the
charge in such manner as to satisfy the whole House, and Marshall
in particular, that the barbaric passion for war, however held in
subjection at other times, now glowed in the bosom of the New York
member with irresistible fierceness. The two gentleman sat near each
other, and the scene as described to the author of this memoir by a
member who occupied an intervening seat, Judge Augustus R. Wright of
Georgia, must have produced intense excitement throughout the House.
Judge Wright, a distinguished Southern lawyer, said that after the
colloquy between Mr. Kelly and Mr. Marshall, which is imperfectly
reported in the Globe, and after Mr. Marshall had concluded his speech,
the latter walked over to Mr. Kelly’s seat, and demanded to know what
he meant by declaring the statement he had made was false. Marshall was
known to be a believer in the code duello, and was a man of immense
size. Mr. Kelly kept his eyes fixed on Mr. Marshall as he approached,
and Mr. Wright said that his physiognomy would have been a study for
Lavater. It was rigid and intent, but the eyes kindled with peculiar
light, and he gave Marshall such a glance that he, Wright, never could
forget it as long as he lived, and he supposed Marshall never would
either. To the question Kelly replied: “I meant exactly what I said;
your statement was not true, Sir.” Mr. Kelly was on his feet facing Mr.
Marshall, and Judge Wright anticipated an immediate collision between
them. It was avoided, however, and Marshall, with returning good humor,
made some allusion to the plain modes of speech in vogue among New York
members, and went back to his place.—The colloquy as published in the
Globe, toned down considerably in asperity, is as follows:

Mr. Marshall. “I feel quite sure there should have been a distinction
drawn between the Papist and the Catholic. I understand that a portion
of the Catholics hold the doctrine that the Pope,—whether it springs
from his spiritual power or his temporal power, or both combined, is
in the last resort the ultimate judge, not only of moral right, but
under the moral law, of political right; and, therefore, possesses the
power in some way, to absolve the citizen from obedience to the law of
the land or country to which he belongs, of which his Holiness may
disapprove as an infraction of the Divine law.”

Mr. Kelly. “I desire to ask the gentleman a question.”

Mr. Marshall. “The gentleman can take an hour to reply to my speech.”

Mr. Kelly. “The gentleman asserts what is not a fact, and I desire”—

Mr. Marshall. “I have found a great contrariety of opinions among
Catholics upon this particular branch of my subject, and I do not
expect that my friend from New York and I shall agree upon what are the
facts in regard to it.”

Mr. Kelly. “I deny that they hold any such doctrine, and the gentleman
states what is not true.”

Mr. Marshall. “Well, I must say that the gentleman puts his remarks in
a very blunt form.”

Mr. Kelly. “I say that the statement is not true.”

Mr. Marshall. “Why surely one branch of the Church holds that doctrine.”

Mr. Kelly. “I say there is no branch in this country that holds that
doctrine; and the gentleman has never seen one that advocates that
doctrine.”[42]

Mr. Marshall reiterated the statement, and Mr. Kelly in still more
positive language denounced it as untrue, and challenged the
Kentuckian to produce any evidence to sustain his allegation. The scene
was becoming very animated, and as the two herculean Representatives
glared at each other with angry mien and menacing front, Mr. Wright was
reminded, as he afterwards said, of Milton’s picture:—

                                       “Such a frown
    Each cast at the other, as when two black clouds
    With heaven’s artillery fraught, come rattling on
    Over the Caspian, then stand front to front
    Hovering a space, till winds the signal blow
    To join their dark encounter in mid-air
    So frowned the mighty combatants.”

But this dispute with Marshall was a very exceptional thing to happen
to Mr. Kelly. He was a universal favorite in both Houses of Congress,
and his popularity continued to grow the longer he remained at the
Federal Capital. Some rare men there are in this world in whom there
is such unity of character, whose talents however high are equalled by
the qualities of their hearts; whose virtues however great are equalled
by the warmth of their affections and the sweetness of their temper;
they carry a passport to the common heart written, as it were, upon
their fronts by the finger of God. “The world is a looking-glass,” says
Thackeray in Vanity Fair, “and gives back to every man the reflection
of his own face. Frown at it, and it will in turn look sourly upon
you; laugh at it and with it, and it is a jolly kind companion.” Sir
Thomas More was one of those rare characters who won the general heart
by the sunshine that played about him. He met Erasmus at a dinner table
in London without an introduction, but Erasmus knew him at once. “Aut
Morus aut Nullus,” said he. “Aut Erasmus aut Diabolus,” was the waggish
reply. In America occasionally some noble spirit appears who finds his
way to all hearts without an effort. Such a man was Nathaniel Macon of
North Carolina, simple, plain, unostentatious, the political idol of
John Randolph, “the last of the Romans” as Jefferson called him; “a
speaker,” says Benton, “of no pretension and great performance, who
spoke more good sense while he was getting up out of his chair and
getting back into it, than many others did in long discourses.”[43]
Mr. Stephens frequently said to the present writer that John Kelly
reminded him more of Nathaniel Macon than did any other man in public
life. Kelly’s rugged sense of right, his blunt honesty, sagaciousness,
modesty, and good humor, conspired to make friends for him on all sides
of the House. If he was asked to do a favor for any one, he generally
did more than was asked, and never said anything about it afterwards.
Kindness and service to mankind were virtues of which he was the
cheerful exemplar.

Stephens and Kelly were strikingly alike in this respect, both seemed
never to tire in well-doing and deeds of benevolence. The number of
poor boys who have owed their education and success in life to these
two men has been very large. There are hundreds of happy homes in
this country to-day where poverty has been turned into comfort, and
pinching want into comparative prosperity, by Alexander H. Stephens and
John Kelly. The two gentlemen were deeply attached friends, and each
regarded the other as the type of an honest statesman. Twenty years
after the close of their Congressional relations, Mr. Stephens, in a
letter to the present writer, desired to be remembered to Mr. Kelly in
the kindest manner. The following is the letter, personal matters of no
interest to the general reader being omitted:

  LIBERTY HALL,
  Crawfordsville, Georgia,
  28th October, 1878.

  MY DEAR SIR:

 Your letter was duly received. Two days afterwards the parcel came. *
 * *

 I am now just about leaving home for an absence of several days. I
 want you to read Johnston and Browne’s recent book. I have ordered
 several copies, but none has yet reached here, or I would send you
 one. Give John Kelly my kindest regards when you see him. I regard him
 as one of the ablest and truest men in this country. * * *

 With best wishes to you and all yours, I remain,

  Very truly,

  ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

Mr. Kelly’s esteem for Mr. Stephens while living, and his respect for
the great Commoner’s memory when dead, are shown by the subjoined
extract from an article which appeared in the New York Utica Observer,
November 22, 1884:

“William M. Evarts, Republican, and John Kelly, Democrat, have each
contributed fifty dollars to the Alexander H. Stephens Memorial Fund.
John Kelly wrote as follows to the Committee: ‘I had the honor of
sitting in Congress with this gentleman thirty years ago, and always
entertained for him the highest regard. He was a noble example of a
statesman; in fact, I never met a man who was so pure in his intentions
in public life.’ Commenting upon this circumstance, the Atlanta
_Constitution_ says: ‘It is a good sign of the proper feeling between
the South and North to see such men as W.M. Evarts and John Kelly
joining in doing honor to the memory of the ex-Vice-President of the
Confederacy.’”


FOOTNOTES:

[27] Life of A. H. Stephens. Johnston and Browne, p. 299.

[28] Twenty Years of Congress, vol. i, p. 122.

[29] Life of A. H. Stephens. Johnston and Browne, p. 306.

[30] _Reminiscences of Daniel Webster_, by Peter Harvey, p. 200.

[31] Garland’s Life of John Randolph, vol. II., p. 345.

[32] Memoirs of John Quincy Adams. X., 361.

[33] Life of A. H. Stephens. Johnston and Browne, p. 315.

[34] Ibid, p. 329.

[35] Ibid, p. 331.

[36] Ibid, p. 331.

[37] Ibid, p. 355.

[38] Jefferson’s Works, vol. ix., p. 508.

[39] Annals of Congress, 1798.

[40] Gobright’s Recollection of Men and Things at Washington, p. 164.

[41] Life of A. H. Stephens. Johnston & Browne, p. 330.

[42] Congressional Globe, part 3. 1st Session, 35th Congress, p. 2366.

[43] Thirty Years’ View, vol. I. p. 117.



CHAPTER VII.

 MR. KELLY IN VARIOUS DEBATES—FAMINE IN THE CAPE DE VERDE
 ISLANDS—“IRISH WAITERS”—MAYNARD’S SNEER AND KELLY’S
 REBUKE—KNOW-NOTHING RIOT IN WASHINGTON—KELLY WITNESSES THE SCENE—HIS
 GREAT HOMESTEAD SPEECH—OTHER SPEECHES BY HIM—WASHINGTON SOCIETY IN THE
 OLDEN DAY.


As a comprehensive portrayal, rather than biography in detail, is the
design of this volume, a general survey of Mr. Kelly’s Congressional
career is all that can be attempted in these pages, with concise
mention of some of its leading events and incidents. His speeches alone
would fill a book of equal size to this.

In the course of a debate in the Committee of the whole on the State
of the Union, May 26, 1856, Mr. Kelly delivered a strong speech upon
New York politics, in which he gave an interesting review of the
divisions that had prevailed in the Democratic party of that State.
Tracing back those divisions to 1848, he gave a lucid insight into
the history of the Hunkers and Barnburners, and of the later factions
known as Hard Shells and Soft Shells. He evinced thorough acquaintance
with the complexional differences between those factions, and with
the political history of the Empire State, a knowledge which was
to prove so useful to him in after years. He charged that many of
the Hards were Know-Nothings, but attributed patriotic motives to
other members of that wing of the party. He might have made the same
charge of Know-Nothingism with equal justice against many of the
Softs. Subsequent history probably has led Mr. Kelly to modify some
of the opinions he expressed in that speech. There were good National
Democrats in both wings of the party, the disturbing question of
slavery being the chief cause of dissension. The anti-slavery agitation
at the North, and consequent dissemination at the South of the old
New England doctrine of secession, were the two growing ideas, the
monomania of that age of American history. The Republican party was
more largely recruited from the ranks of the Soft Shells than from
those of the Hard Shells, and the resolutions and speeches in the
Syracuse Soft Convention of 1855, of which Mr. Kelly was a member, and
which were discussed at large in a former chapter, clearly indicated
that such would be the case.

As sound a Democrat as President Pierce was, he made the mistake of
placing the chief control of his Administration in the hands of those
Democrats, both at the North and South, who had opposed the compromise
of 1850, such as John A. Dix and John Van Buren on the one hand, and
Jefferson Davis on the other.

“Notwithstanding,” said Mr. Kelly, “the outcry raised by our enemies,
who desire to destroy the influence of New York, let me assure you,
Mr. Chairman, that there now exists no division among the Democratic
masses there. They now happily constitute a united party, bound
together by a common creed and a common interest. This union of the
Hunker and Barnburner sections of the party was accomplished in 1849,
the year after the unfortunate defeat of General Cass, and it has gone
on strengthening ever since, in spite of the transient fanaticisms of
Republicanism and Know-Nothingism, from one or the other of which the
party in every section of the country has suffered temporary damage,
our late reverses in New York forming no exception to the general rule.
If the Democrats of Louisiana, or Tennessee, or of any other Southern
States, have been prostrated when opposed to only one of these evils,
is it a peculiar disgrace—is it any special evidence of impotency, that
we have had to yield once or twice before the combined forces of both?”

During the year 1855 the crops in Europe and other parts of the world
suffered greatly from unseasonable and excessive rains. In some
places, particularly in the Cape de Verde Islands, the wet weather was
succeeded by a protracted drought. For two years prior to that year the
Cape de Verdes had suffered from a scarcity of food owing to similar
causes, and a third visitation now reduced the inhabitants in many
places to a state of starvation. The Bishop of those islands on the
12th of March, 1856, wrote an earnest appeal for succor to Archbishop
Hughes, of New York. “Having exhausted all our own means,” said he, “it
only remains for us to appeal to the charity of the public. If these
people are not promptly succored more than twenty thousand persons
will perish, victims of famine.” A movement was organized in New
York to send food to the famine-stricken islanders, and a resolution
was introduced in Congress by Mr. Wheeler, of New York, in which the
President was requested to instruct the Secretary of the Navy to detail
twenty-five seamen to man the vessel in which the cargo of food was
to be shipped to the sufferers. Archbishop Hughes had confided Bishop
Patricio’s appeal to Mr. Kelly, and requested him to lay it before
Congress, and use his best offices with his fellow-members to secure
favorable action upon it. On the 19th of May, Mr. Kelly asked and
obtained the unanimous consent of the House, after the introduction of
Mr. Wheeler’s resolution, to have the letter to Archbishop Hughes read.
The picture which the Bishop of the Cape de Verde Islands had drawn of
the dreadful scourge deeply impressed members. In the course of the
debate some objections were made to the passage of the resolution, to
which Mr. Kelly replied as follows:

“This resolution, Mr. Speaker, merely proposes to relieve the poor
people in those islands, who are now in a state of starvation on
account of the blight to their vine crop; and it is astonishing to me
that any member of this House should object to a resolution of this
kind. It asks no appropriation of money; it does not ask Congress
to appropriate a single dollar towards relieving them. The generous
citizens of New York have come forward and held a meeting at the
Exchange in that city, and agreed to load a vessel with provisions for
the use of these destitute people of the Cape de Verdes, who are now
living on the bark of trees, the stalks of bananas, and anything else
they can pick up to save themselves from utter starvation. Therefore,
I trust that there will be no objection from any gentleman in this
House to the resolution presented by my colleague. It merely asks that
a crew of United States seamen may be given to navigate the vessel, in
order that relief may reach those poor people in time to save them from
impending destruction. It is not much that is asked, and we ought, I
think, cheerfully to grant it.”

This simple, strong appeal proved effective, and the resolution was
passed by the large vote of 123 ayes to 24 noes.

Mr. Kelly was again nominated for Congress in 1856, and at the election
on November 4th of that year was returned to the Thirty-fifth Congress
by an overwhelming majority. Of the 11,599 votes cast in the Fourth
Congressional District of New York, John Kelly received 8,319, L. W.
Ryckman, 1,497; W. F. Gould, 1,735, and 48 were scattering. Kelly’s
majority over all was 5,039.

During Mr. Kelly’s second term in Congress a savage riot occurred in
Washington at the District election in June, 1857. For some time the
city was at the mercy of a gang of professional desperadoes, composed
of Washington Know-Nothings, and Plug Uglies of the same party from
Baltimore, the latter being the pets and followers of the malignant
Henry Winter Davis. The Mayor was powerless to preserve the peace with
the insufficient police force at his command, and President Buchanan,
on the Mayor’s requisition, called out the Marines at the Navy Yard
under Major Tyler to disperse the rioters. The military proceeded
to the Northern Liberties, where they were attacked by the mob,
and several innocent citizens were killed. Major Tyler was finally
compelled to return the fire of the infuriated mob, and for some time
that portion of the city was the scene of a fierce battle. It was not
until the fire of the soldiers was directed in a few cases with fatal
effect that the miscreants were driven off and dispersed.

After the disturbance, the Mayor of the city and the Chief of the
Washington police, feeling themselves unable to cope with the lawless
bands in their midst, appealed to Congress for relief. A bill to
establish an Auxiliary Guard for the protection of public and private
property in the city of Washington was accordingly introduced in the
Senate, and after an extended debate the excellent measure passed
that body, and was sent to the House of Representatives for action
there. The remedies applied in the city of Baltimore, where still
more atrocious scenes of bloodshed annually had occurred under Mayor
Swan’s Know-Nothing administration, with Henry Winter Davis firing
the hearts of his Plug Uglies to a war of extermination against
foreigners, presented an example to Washington of the effective way
of redeeming the latter city from the scoundrels who infested it.
The Legislature of Maryland took the control of the police force of
Baltimore from the Mayor, and lodged it in the hands of an independent
officer known as Marshal of Police. In the bill creating the office
the celebrated George P. Kane was designated as Marshal, and no
better man ever lived for a position of that kind. Col. Kane was a
gentleman by instinct and education; the purity of his character was
universally recognized, and the intrepidity of his nature was perfectly
understood by the law-breakers of Baltimore. A man of gigantic stature,
he possessed wonderful symmetry and comeliness of person, enormous
physical strength, and a courage that would have carried him to the
stake to be flayed alive in vindication of an idea or principle he
believed to be right. This man did more to redeem Baltimore from the
assassins and ruffians who had controlled it than all other men and
agencies combined. Under Marshal Kane’s magnificent administration the
Monumental City became one of the most peaceable, as it long had been
one of the most beautiful of American cities. In after years the people
rewarded this destroyer of Know-Nothingism in their midst, first with
the office of High Sheriff, and next with that of Mayor of Baltimore.

The bill to establish an Auxiliary Guard in Washington, whose features
resembled those of the Maryland Act creating a Marshal of Police in the
city of Baltimore, received Mr. Kelly’s decided approval and support
when it reached the House. In the course of the debate on this bill,
April 15, 1858, Mr. Kelly said:

“The proposition before the Committee is that the police laws of this
city are of such a character that the citizens of Washington have to
ask Congress to alter them in order to protect them from the murderer
and assassin. The bill proposes to give to the President of the United
States the power to appoint the Chief of Police, and that that Chief
of Police, with the consent of the Secretary of the Interior, shall
have the power to appoint his subordinate officers. The people here
are willing to throw up their charter, given to them by Congress, for
the reason, as they say, that they are not able to protect themselves
against the criminals that infest the city. The amendment proposed
by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Dodd) providing for the selection
of Commissioners by the people is, in my opinion, objectionable.
Men elected as Americans will, of course, appoint Americans or
Know-Nothings to office, and _vice versa_, Democrats will do the same
thing. The only way to give this city an efficient police is by passing
the bill reported by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), placing
the power in the hands of the President of the United States to appoint
the Chief of Police. Mr. Chairman, in the various arguments that have
been made on this bill, all kinds of logic have been brought to bear
in favor of gentlemen’s different prejudices. The gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Maynard), in discussing this bill yesterday, referred to
a transaction which took place during a former Congress.[44] He spoke
of men who earn their living by the sweat of their brow as a ‘parcel
of Irish waiters.’ Now, sir, I do not think that that expression
was called for. These men, whether Irish or German, or belonging to
any other country, have the same rights under the Constitution as
American-born citizens. It is not to be said that because these men
were waiters, they had not their independent rights and privileges as
much as the Representatives of the people on this floor. I tell the
gentleman from Tennessee, and other members of this House, that the
humble Irishman has his rights under the Constitution, naturalized as
he is by your laws, equally with the native-born, and until he commits
some act in derogation of the true principles of manhood, it does
not become any gentleman to stigmatize him or speak of him in such a
contemptuous style.

“The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stanton), in speaking on this Bill,
attributes the defeat in 1844 of that great and honored statesman, Mr.
Clay, who has long since gone to his grave, to the Empire Club in the
city of New York, and to the manner in which the election was conducted
in that city. Let me tell the gentleman that I was conversant with
all those facts, and knew of the transactions which took place in New
York in 1844. There was another Club there at that time, and it was a
very objectionable one, because all the pugilists, all the fighters,
and all the rowdies you could find, were brought together by pay,
by solicitations of whatever nature, and were formed into a Club in
opposition to the Empire Club at that time. Now, I ask the gentleman if
he knows who was president of that Club?”

Mr. Stanton: “I know nothing in regard to that Club. Who was the man?”

Mr. Kelly: “Bill Poole. I am sorry to say he got into a personal
difficulty in New York and was killed. Let me say to the gentleman
that when both of those Clubs were organized at that particular time,
though there were violent men in both, neither one of these Clubs used
violence against citizens in going to the polls to exercise the right
of suffrage. That cannot be said in this city, for I am reminded of the
transactions which took place at the election here last June.”

“The gentleman from Mississippi, (Mr. Quitman,) said, in his speech,
that there was no violence in this city; that he had travelled around
on frequent occasions, in order to see if some one of the rowdies here
would not attack him. Now I know that the gentleman has displayed
courage upon the battle-field, and rendered essential service to his
country. No man doubts his integrity, his honesty and his bravery; but
had he been here last June, he would have met in the streets of this
city that which no man desires to meet. I saw a body of young men from
eighteen to twenty years of age, driving men of thirty and forty years
of age before them like sheep from the field, and firing their pistols
among them indiscriminately. Yet there did not appear to be, so far as
I could see, courage enough in the citizens of this city to resent the
outrage which was perpetrated upon them at that time.

“Crime, Mr. Chairman, in all cities, whether it be here, or in New
York, or elsewhere, unless checked by the physical power of man, will
continually manifest itself. Some gentlemen here have argued that you
cannot check it by physical force; that moral force must be resorted
to. That is all humbug, for such a check amounts to nothing at all.
Violence of all description will be committed, unless you have proper
officers to prevent it. Then you ought in the present case to organize
a police force to meet this exigency, and to arrest the individuals
who are in the habit of committing crimes in your city. Now this bill
organizes an efficient police, under the jurisdiction of officers of
this Government who have the full control of it,—a force which will be
the means of protecting individuals who come here to transact business,
as well as yourselves, for many of you admit that it is dangerous to
leave your rooms at night,—that you are afraid of encountering these
marauders who infest the city. The main objection on the other side
of the House is that the Chief of Police, who may be appointed by
the President, will be partial in his appointments, selecting only
partisans, or those who favor his political principles, just as it
is supposed the President himself will appoint a man who is of his
politics. That argument, in my opinion, cannot hold good. I do not
think such a course will be carried out, and I know if I had anything
to do with it, I would not be partial at all. I would select men for
their character alone. If I saw they were efficient, physically able
to do the duties of policemen, and of good moral character, I would
appoint them upon such grounds alone, without regard to politics. But,
gentlemen on the other side say they are afraid to trust the President.
Well, we are afraid to trust them in the city of New York. The case
of this city and that of New York, between which some analogies have
been made, are not parallel cases at all. This city is under the
jurisdiction of the Federal Government. The President and the Congress
of the United States are here; Ministers from foreign Governments are
here; and the courts here are under the jurisdiction of the Federal
Government. The only difference between the appointment of a Chief of
Police by the President and by the Mayor is this: in the former case
the Chief of Police is responsible to the Federal Government, and if he
does not carry out the laws, can easily be reached; while on the other
hand if the Mayor does not appoint satisfactorily, the people cannot
reach his appointee, in the same manner.”[45]

The Republicans and Know-Nothings were strong enough, with the aid of
a few Democrats, who had fine-spun constitutional objections to it,
to prevent the passage of this excellent bill by the House, but Mr.
Kelly’s argument was not successfully answered by any of the opponents
of the measure.

An interesting debate took place in the House, May 3, 1858, in relation
to the Bureau of Statistics of the State Department, in which Mr. Kelly
took a prominent part. This Bureau was established by Congress upon
the recommendation of Mr. Marcy during the last Administration. The
urgent necessity for such a Bureau was originally pointed out by Mr.
Webster in 1842, when he was at the head of the Department. Several
volumes upon the Commercial Relations of the United States with all
other countries were issued during 1856 and 1857, prepared ostensibly
by Edmund Flagg, Superintendent of the Bureau, but in reality Flagg
had very little to do with the work. Hugh C. McLaughlin of Virginia,
Mr. Flagg’s assistant, and who was soon after appointed his successor
as Superintendent, was the real compiler, translator and editor of
the valuable materials contained in those volumes. But Flagg was
Superintendent, and he not only contrived to get his name printed on
the title page as such, but to monopolise the whole credit to himself
for the work. The volumes were received with remarkable favor by the
leading commercial authorities in this country and Europe. Hunt’s
Merchants Magazine spoke highly of them. In a notice of the fourth
volume, the London Athenæum of February 20, 1858, said: “The highest
praise is due to the House of Representatives for publishing this
comprehensive and really national report, which brings into one view
the commercial status of the United States with the entire world.”[46]
The celebrated M. Rouher, then Minister of Agriculture and Commerce
in France, who subsequently figured so conspicuously under the Empire
of Napoleon the Third, expressed unqualified praise of this work of
the State Department at Washington. To a friend who sent him one of
the volumes, M. Rouher wrote: “This document is executed under the
direction of the Secretary of State, by Mr. Edmund Flagg, an officer
of the State Department. The Minister of France at Washington had
already communicated to the Imperial Government the remarkable Report
of Mr. Flagg to Mr. Marcy. It contains abundant and useful information;
and I am happy to recognize in it marked improvement over works of
the same character previously published by the American Government. A
further improvement will be accomplished when, in accordance with the
wish of Mr. Flagg, Congress shall prescribe a continuous, periodical
and practically useful publication, like that which my Department has
constantly issued for many years.”[47]

If M. Rouher was in the habit of following the proceedings of the
American Congress, his surprise must have been great to find this
same Mr. Flagg, who but a few months before had expressed so earnest
a desire for the continued and regular publication of the Commercial
Relations by the State Department, now haunting the lobbies of
Congress, and supplying specious arguments to the opposition or
Republican members against the further publication of the work, and in
favor of the abolition of the Bureau itself. That which he proclaimed
a work of national importance yesterday, he declared to be a useless
encumbrance to-day. Flagg’s sudden change of mind was easily explained.
Certain irregularities in his accounts had been discovered, and
Secretary Cass had compelled him to send in his resignation. _Hinc
illae lachrymæ._ The opposition members were always ready to attack
the Administration, and Mr. Flagg plied them with frivolous arguments
against the Bureau from which he had been discharged. Mr. Nichols
of Ohio, and Mr. Washburne of Illinois, two Republican Congressmen,
perhaps unaware that Flagg was a man with a grievance, espoused his
cause, and while the Appropriation Bill for the legislative, executive
and judicial branches of the Government was under consideration, May
3, 1858, they declared that it would be a waste of money to make any
appropriation for the Bureau of Statistics in the State Department,
and Mr. Nichols made this a pretext to denounce the extravagance of
the Administration. After he had made his attack, and elicited no
reply, Mr. Nichols was emboldened to go farther, and indiscreetly
began to cross-question the members of the Committee of Ways and
Means, of which Mr. Kelly was one, and by which the Appropriation Bill
had been brought in, and to extol Flagg as a disinterested patriot,
who had resigned his office, because he could not conscientiously
draw a salary for work that was wholly useless. This was a fatal line
of attack for Nichols to pursue, as he soon discovered to his cost.
Senator Clay of Alabama, Chairman of the Committee on Commerce in the
Senate, had investigated Flagg’s case in the State Department, and Mr.
Kelly afterwards had become acquainted with the doings of the latter
individual. Challenged to defend the appropriation, Mr. J. Glancy
Jones, Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, and Mr. Kelly, a
member of the same Committee, completely turned the tables upon Mr.
Nichols and Mr. Washburne and after Kelly’s crushing rejoinder, Mr.
Nichols, the would-be-champion of Flagg, dropped him as he would have
run away from the contagion, and made a most ludicrous retreat from the
field of his own selection.

To quote Mr. J. Glancy Jones, in his able defense of this item of the
Appropriation Bill brought in by his Committee, would occupy too much
space here; but the spicy debate between Messrs. Nichols, Kelly, and
Washburne cannot be entirely omitted in a memoir of Mr. Kelly’s life.

Mr. Nichols: “I cannot take my seat without paying a just tribute to
the late Mr. Marcy, and Mr. Flagg, who had charge of the preparation of
the volume known as the ‘Commercial Relations.’ I would enquire of the
gentleman (Mr. J. Glancy Jones) whether the former Superintendent did
not resign his office under the express declaration that a discharge
of the duties of the office was no longer necessary; and whether after
that, and during this year, a successor was appointed?”

Mr. J. Glancy Jones: “I do not know what induced the gentleman alluded
to to resign the office.”

Mr. Kelly: “I have made some enquiry on this subject, and from the best
information I could get, I learned that Mr. Flagg was compelled to
resign because there were charges made against him, to the effect that
he had employed women ostensibly at four dollars a day, and only paid
them at two dollars a day, requiring their receipts for four dollars
a day. This fact was ascertained by the gentleman who represents the
Committee on Commerce of the Senate. When he found that such was the
case, he went to the State Department and said, that if Mr. Flagg
was not turned out of that office, he would expose the matter to the
country. This was the reason that Mr. Flagg was compelled to resign.
So far as the Bureau itself is concerned, every gentleman knows that
there is no Bureau in the Government that has been so effective in
giving the country valuable statistical information. But Mr. Flagg
being compelled to resign, now comes to Congress, and makes the effort
to abolish a Bureau which has been of so much benefit to the country.”

Mr. Nichols: “I beg leave to say that so far as my action here is
concerned, Mr. Flagg has nothing to do with it whatever. He has been
connected with that Bureau, but I have spoken to him hardly half a
dozen times.”

Mr. Nichols, but a few minutes before, had been extolling Flagg, and
coupled his name with that of Secretary Marcy in what he called a “just
tribute.” Now he wriggles out of the debate in the following amusing
style:

Mr. Nichols: “I desire to conclude what I have to say. I wish the
gentleman from New York to understand that, in reference to anything he
may say about troubles in the Democratic camp which may have led to the
removal of any of its children, I desire to enter into no discussion.
I have nothing to do with it, then, or the difficulties of this happy
family.”

Mr. Kelly: “I think the gentleman from Ohio is entirely in error.
The duty of the statisticians in the State Department is to collate
and compile all the reports made by consuls at foreign ports upon
commercial matters, and everything which pertains to the welfare and
benefit of this Government. It is done not only for the benefit of
commercial men, but for the benefit of the community generally, and I
think the abolition of that particular branch of the Government would
be entirely wrong. The whole expense of keeping it up amounts to very
little. I say again that the whole of this matter originated—though
I do not attribute it to the gentleman from Ohio—on the part of
disappointed gentlemen who had been turned out of office, and in
nothing else.”

Mr. Washburne, of Illinois: “My object in asking my friend to yield
me the floor is to say a word here in reference to Mr. Flagg. I have
had some acquaintance with that gentleman from my connection with this
matter during the last Congress, and I am astonished at the charges the
gentleman from New York has made here to-day; and I think it is due to
Mr. Flagg that the gentleman from New York should state his authority.
Those charges go to the country, and reflect severely upon Mr. Flagg.”

Mr. Kelly: “I have made no charge, and shall make no charge against the
gentleman.”

Mr. Washburne “Will the gentleman state his authority for what he has
said?”

Mr. Kelly: “The State Department itself. If the gentleman desires to
have this matter investigated, let him introduce a resolution for that
purpose. If information on the subject be desired for the House and the
country, let a resolution be introduced and passed calling on the State
Department to furnish it.”

Mr. Maynard: “I should like to know who is the present head of the
Bureau?”

Mr. Nichols: “These interruptions have entirely broken the thread of
my remarks. With the discussion of family differences and difficulties
which have led to the removal of one man and the substitution of
another, I have nothing to do, and I desire to have nothing to do with
them. I do not know who fills this office. It is nothing to me who
does. I find I have occupied about enough of the time of the Committee
with this question.”[48]

The Bureau of Statistics flourished on, and was no longer disturbed
by Edmund Flagg. Mr. Kelly had overwhelmingly refuted the charges of
Messrs. Nichols and Washburne against the management of the State
Department under General Cass.

There was a warm controversy between the Senate and House of
Representatives over the appropriations for the naval service for the
year ending June 30, 1859. Committees of Conference on the disagreeing
votes of the two Houses were appointed, and held frequent meetings. The
managers on the part of the Senate were Stephen R. Mallory, Solomon
Foot, and Judah P. Benjamin; those on the part of the House were Thomas
S. Bocock, John Kelly and F. H. Morse. The conferees finally agreed
upon their report. Mr. Bocock submitted the report to the House, June
11, 1858. Of the few amendments in controversy, the House Committee
receded from their disagreement to the second and third amendments,
relating to an appropriation of fifty thousand six hundred dollars for
a new purchase in the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Messrs. Morgan, Grow, Clemens
and others energetically opposed this appropriation. Mr. Bocock and Mr.
Kelly of the Conference Committee as strongly advocated it. The members
of the Conference Committees of both Houses had unanimously approved
the report, and each of the managers had signed it. Mr. Kelly answered
the objections to this appropriation.

Mr. Kelly: “I will say a word on this matter with the permission of the
gentleman from Virginia. The Government owns the land between the Navy
Yard and the Marine Hospital. It is now all, or nearly all, a swamp. A
part has been filled in, and filled in, I believe, for the very small
price of sixteen cents a yard. As the property now stands, it cannot be
of any use to the Government. Even if the Government desires to sell,
it would be a sound economy and prudent foresight to first fill it in.
It would then command a large price. It extends for a considerable
way along what is called the Wallabout, and it shows a complete
water-front. If the Government filled it in at the rate contracted for
before, they might sell lots there for large sums, which are now of
no earthly use to anybody. Until it is filled in the Marine Barracks
ordered by Congress cannot be built; and the Marines at that Yard are
now quartered in sheds. They are small, and not at all suitable for the
purpose for which they have been temporarily put up. I hope, therefore,
that this appropriation will be concurred in. I am convinced that it is
needed and needed now.”[49]

The objectors, however, were unyielding, and the report of the
Committee of Conference was disagreed to by a vote of 74 noes to 67
ayes.

The interests of Brooklyn always have had a warm advocate in Mr. Kelly,
and although in more recent days he has found there some of his most
active political opponents, it may be doubted whether those gentlemen
have proved themselves truer friends of the general interests of that
great city than John Kelly.

In a former chapter of this book allusion has been made to the many
gross misrepresentations of Mr. Kelly’s motives and actions to which
the press has given circulation. A glaring instance of this bearing
of false witness against the neighbor is to be found in a volume
entitled _The American Irish_, by “Philip H. Bagenal, B. A., Oxon.”
This Mr. Bagenal seems to be, not an American Irishman, but an English
Irishman of the London Tory variety, whose booklet smacks of the facile
courtier of some Cabinet Minister, not far off from Downing Street or
Pall Mall. It is a libel on Ireland and Irishmen at home and abroad,
now on Mr. Parnell in Wicklow, and again on Mr. Kelly in New York.
Bagenal writes not so well, but after the fashion of Dr. Russell,
another English Irishman, familiarly known as “Bull Run Russell.” The
latter’s vulgar caricatures of President Lincoln, in his letters to
the London _Times_, caused his expulsion from the military lines of
the Federal army during the war. Peripatetic book-makers from abroad,
who take hasty journeys through this country, generally contrive to
pick up a budget of miscellaneous misinformation, which they cram
into misbegotten books, and offer for sale in the London market.
Mr. Bagenal’s mission appears to have been to contribute an English
tract on Irish life in the United States, for English partisan use in
Ireland. To say that the alleged facts in this book are frequently
untrue, is to characterize the performance very mildly. Mr. Parnell
and his followers, according to Bagenal, are enemies of Ireland,
and architects of ruin and anarchy only less reprehensible than the
dynamiters.

“In New York,” says this scribe of the London _Times_, “we find the
Irish dying faster than any others, less given to marriage than any
others, and more given to hard work and fasting than any others. * *
I visited the tenement houses in New York where the Irish population
dwell. * * Everywhere the moral atmosphere is one of degradation and
human demoralization. Gross sensuality prevails. The sense of shame,
if ever known, is early stifled. * * Thus live the descendants of
the great Irish exodus of 1845-48. * * They sought such occupation
as offered; they underbid labor, adapted themselves manfully to
the conditions of industry, or joined the rabble that trooped as
‘ballot-stuffers’ and ‘shoulder-hitters’ in the train of the Tweeds,
the Morrisseys, and the Kellys of the day; and so became the scourge of
American politics. In those bygone days when the Irish-American nation
began to grow on Yankee soil, had Government directed and assisted
the tide of emigration, hundreds of thousands would have been carried
out West; where, accustomed to agricultural pursuits, they would have
become quiet and prosperous citizens, instead of fire-brands and
perpetuators of the animosity between England and Ireland.”[50]

This slanderous picture of the Irish population in New York is followed
by an account of Bishop Ireland’s noble efforts to build up an Irish
colony in Minnesota, and the great West. Mr. Bagenal holds up Mr. Kelly
as an enemy of this great movement. What a pity he did not ask Bishop
Ireland, with whom, he says, he became acquainted at St. Paul, who were
the leading co-workers with that pious churchman in opening up a home
for Irish settlers in the new States of the West? Bagenal would have
learned from Bishop Ireland, had he sought to know the truth, that
John Kelly had aided this philanthropic work by giving to the Bishop
one thousand dollars, afterwards increased to nearly two thousand, as
a contribution to the St. Paul Catholic Colonization Bureau. Knowledge
of this circumstance probably would not have deterred Bagenal, the
vilifier of Mr. Parnell, from describing Mr. Kelly as the enemy to
Irish colonization in the West. The typical London snob abroad is
revealed in the mendacious sentence concerning “the rabble that trooped
as ‘ballot-stuffers’ and ‘shoulder-hitters’ in the train of the Tweeds,
the Morrisseys and the Kellys of the day,” and sufficiently proves the
Downing Street inspiration of this Tory romancer, who, it appears from
his preface, is a writer for the London _Times_.

John Kelly, throughout his whole career, has been an earnest advocate
for the settlement on the fertile prairies of the West of the poor
emigrants who crowd into the Eastern cities, too often to starve for
the want of employment. Twenty-seven years ago he introduced one of
the first Homestead bills brought forward in Congress, which was a
statesmanlike effort to relieve the overcrowded population of the great
cities, and to build up the prosperity and happiness of the struggling
masses of his fellow-citizens. He supported this bill in a speech of
great vigor, in which he pointed out the advantages of homes in the
West to the poor, and sought to place the acquisition of such homes
within the reach of every citizen of the United States, who wished to
become an actual settler upon the teeming millions of land that then
belonged to the Government. Had his bill been passed, the gigantic
railroad monopolies of to-day might not be in possession of the mighty
landed empire which they, in so many cases, acquired by fraud, and hold
by corruption, against the rights of the people of the United States.

On the 18th of January, 1858, Mr. Kelly introduced a bill in Congress
to secure homesteads to actual settlers upon the public domain. The
bill was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on
Agriculture. This great measure which Mr. Kelly then brought forward,
one of the most beneficent that ever claimed attention in the American
Congress, was originally introduced by Andrew Johnson, March 27, 1846,
then a Representative in Congress from Tennessee. More than six years
elapsed before the House acted on this bill, but the indomitable Andrew
Johnson, future President of the United States, persevered in his
statesmanlike advocacy of the measure, and the House of Representatives
finally passed it May 12, 1852, by a majority of two thirds. The bill,
unfortunately, failed in the Senate. The same bill, in substance,
was again introduced in the House in 1853 by John L. Dawson of
Pennsylvania, where it was passed a second time by an overwhelming
majority. As it had done before, the Senate again rejected the bill,
under the mistaken notion that it would weaken some of the old States
to allow a flood-tide of population to pour into the new ones.

The next attempt to carry through the measure in Congress, and to
bestow happy homesteads on homeless millions of American citizens, was
that of Mr. Kelly of January 18th, 1858. About the same time Andrew
Johnson, then a Senator, introduced a similar bill in the Senate,
and became, as before, its powerful champion. The House, being in
the Committee of the Whole, May 25, Mr. Kelly made one of the ablest
speeches of his life on the Homestead Bill. The length of the speech,
and the scope of this volume, preclude its reproduction here. A few
extracts are all that can be given:

“Mr. Chairman,” said he, “I regret that the bill which I had referred
to the Committee on Agriculture, in the early part of this Session,
has not as yet been reported on, as I would have much preferred
addressing my remarks on the homestead question to the bill itself. I
will take occasion to observe, in passing, that the Committees of this
House have been prompt in making their reports even on matters that
sink into insignificance when compared with the question of giving an
humble homestead to actual settlers on the lands of the Government. If
the Committee should think proper to delay their report much longer,
I shall feel it to be my duty, at an early day, to move for their
discharge from the further consideration of the subject, and ask leave
to bring the bill directly before the House. If the Senate bill does
not reach us in the meantime, I may fail even in this way to secure a
vote on the question; but I will have the consolation to know that I
have done my duty to those of our fellow-citizens who are either too
modest or too poor to command much influence in this Hall.”

“The main provision of the bill now before the Committee consists
in the liberal appropriation contained in the first section, in the
following words: ‘That any person who is the head of a family, or who
has arrived at the age of twenty-one years, and is a citizen of the
United States, or who shall have filed his intention to become such,
as required by the naturalization laws of the United States, shall,
from and after the passage of this act, be entitled to enter, free of
cost, one quarter section of vacant and unappropriated public lands
which may, at the time the application is made, be subject to private
entry, at $1.25 per acre, or a quantity equal thereto, to be located in
a body, in conformity with the legal sub-divisions of the public lands,
and after the same shall have been surveyed.’”

“The other sections of the bill are either explanatory of the first,
or designed to guard against mistake or fraud in its execution. Its
general purport and object is, as its title indicates, to secure
homesteads to actual settlers on the public domain.”

Mr. Kelly next enters into a minute history of the vast extent of the
public lands of the United States, how and when title to them was
acquired, from whom derived, and an interesting resumè of the subject
from a period anterior to the adoption of Articles of Confederation
between the thirteen original States, down to the latest acquisition of
territory in 1854, known as the Gadsden Purchase. After an instructive
review of European, and especially of English colonization, he
continues as follows:

“But, sir, humanity claims for this bill the serious consideration of
every member of this House, more especially of those who, like myself,
represent in part any of the large and populous cities of the Union.
For the laboring classes, large cities and towns, with superabundant
populations, are too often but the portals from wretchedness to death.
They can find no employment whereby to earn their bread by the sweat of
their brow, and idleness, poverty and crime are the inevitable results.
The very shifts they resort to, the avocations they follow in quest of
subsistence, even if they desire to live honestly, yield but scarcely
sufficient to supply unwholesome, scanty, unnutritious diet; and hence
the statistics of city life exhibit a frightful mortality. * * Does not
humanity, then, as well as patriotism, invoke our favorable action
on a bill which will withdraw from our large cities this overplus
population, and by giving a proper incentive to its industry and labor,
rescue it from pauperism and death? It is not for the worthless vagrant
who is found in every large city, lurking amid the haunts of vice and
wretchedness, I appeal. This pauperism strikes down those who are able
and willing to work, and, therefore, are fit subjects for the bounty
of Congress. It is a truism in political economy that when pauperism
siezes upon this class of citizens, the wages of labor are reduced to
the cost of subsistence. The whole class must therefore be subjected to
the necessity of working, rather to avoid the poor-house than to better
their condition. Rescue these and such as these, not only from New York
or Boston, or New Orleans or Baltimore, but from every city, and town,
and village in the Union; rescue them from drudgery and death, and
transform them into useful and industrious citizens of a free Republic.
The earth which God made is man’s. Give him, at least, a share of it,
a spot for a cot and a garden, and a grave when he dies, else God will
hold us as usurpers and faithless stewards, when the great day of
reckoning shall come.”[51]

Nothing in the political career of John Kelly has been more marked than
his hostility to the great land cormorants, particularly the railroad
corporations, and in nearly all his public utterances from that day
to this he has uniformly denounced the venal men who have controlled
the lobbies of Congress, and bought legislation by bribery and gifts,
whereby they have usurped so vast a part of the public domain. A true
history of Congressional grants to those corporations has yet to be
written. The annals of Congress show nothing so disgraceful, and so
disastrous to the public welfare, as the wholesale donations of the
lands of the people to the great railroad monopolists.

In closing this rapid sketch of John Kelly’s Congressional career, it
may be observed that necessarily many things have been omitted which
properly should find a place in his complete biography. The object
sought here is to elucidate his character, and the transactions which
have been selected for this purpose were among those in which he more
especially displayed the bent of his mind, his love of human kind, and
the practical business direction of his thoughts and language. Mr.
Kelly had not reached his thirty-fourth year when he entered Congress.
He had had no former experience in National politics, and was called
upon to contend with statesmen of great ability, long service, and
with a large following in the House. Two or three terms are required,
generally, before members can hope to attain prominence as legislators
and debaters in a body where men of so much ability are in rivalry
for the palm of superiority. In spite of these obstacles, Mr. Kelly
took rank among the leading men even during his first term, and during
his second he was placed on the Committee of Ways and Means, the most
important committee of the House, was recognized as one of the leaders
of his party, and wielded an influence with the Administration scarcely
exceeded by any one. Had he remained in the House of Representatives,
considering the high position he won there in two terms, and judging
from the remarkable ability he has displayed in his subsequent career,
in all probability John Kelly would have become one of those few great
parliamentary worthies whose names occupy so large a space in American
history. He has given ample evidence that he possessed the requisite
qualifications to have succeeded Stephen A. Douglas as leader of the
Northern Democracy, when death snatched the sceptre from the hands
of that gifted man. Of the calibre of Kelly, the reader has seen the
opinions in the preceding pages which were expressed by such weighty
statesmen as Lewis Cass, and Alexander H. Stephens. The gauge and
measurement which those distinguished men took of him over a quarter
of a century ago have been justified by the events of the past fifteen
years, and the marvellous grip upon the minds and imagination of the
American people which the very name of Kelly has come to possess.

Hardly had he taken his seat in Congress when he was confronted by
Wm. H. Seward, as leader of the Banks forces, in the famous contest
over the Speakership in the Thirty-fourth Congress, and yet after nine
weeks of stubborn battle in the House, John Kelly named a candidate,
William Aiken, as competitor against Mr. Seward’s candidate, and Aiken
came within two votes, in a House containing seventy-four Democrats
and one hundred and four Republicans, of beating Mr. Banks for Speaker
of the House of Representatives. In his second struggle with Mr.
Seward, when the Collectorship of the Port of New York was at stake,
Mr. Kelly may be said to have entered the lists almost single handed
against a powerful adverse interest in the Senate and House from his
own State. He was, nevertheless, completely successful in securing the
confirmation by the Senate of Augustus Schell for that office, as he
had been mainly instrumental in procuring his nomination by President
Buchanan. In a letter to a friend in New York, written some time after,
Mr. Kelly said: “Mr. Schell’s nomination was opposed very bitterly by
a large number of Democrats, and I have no doubt but that it was my
influence with Clay, Orr, Dowdell, Shorter, Fitzpatrick, and I might
say quite a number of the members of the Senate, that brought about
the confirmation of Mr. Schell.” John Kelly and Augustus Schell were
devoted personal and political friends, although in the factional
divisions in New York the former had been a Soft Shell and the latter
a Hard Shell Democrat. They stood shoulder to shoulder in victory and
defeat, thinking the same things about the Republic, inseparable in
affection and fellowship throughout a long and tempestuous period in
the politics of the country. In city, State and National conventions
of the Democratic party these two men always appeared together, and in
their journeys to and fro they travelled together, roomed together, sat
at the same table, and presented a picture to the public eye of more
than brotherly affection. In looking at them, as they conversed with
each other at such times, one would be reminded of Gales and Seaton in
real life, or of the Cheeryble Brothers of romance. The death of Mr.
Schell, in 1884, was a grievous blow to Mr. Kelly. All who heard his
speech at the memorial meeting for his departed friend at Tammany Hall,
will remember the unwonted emotions under which he labored.

Society at the Capital during Mr. Kelly’s day in Congress was very
agreeable and homelike, and the manners and tastes of the people
were formed in the school of frugality and simplicity well befitting
a Democratic Republic. Boast as men may of the material progress of
the country, the old school which held sway at Washington, during
Democratic Administrations, was the nursery of civic virtues, and had
about it the flavor of the golden age of the fathers. This was the
school Jefferson founded, and Madison and Monroe illustrated. It was
the school in which appeared John Taylor of Caroline, Rufus King,
William Pinkney, Governor Gore, Josiah Quincy, William Gaston, and
Littleton Waller Tazewell. Along Pennsylvania Avenue John Marshall and
Daniel Webster might be seen wending their way to market with baskets
on their arms, while Chancellor Bibb has gone fishing to the Long
Bridge, John Quincy Adams to have a swim in the Potomac, and John C.
Calhoun has gone out in the old-fashioned omnibus to Georgetown College
to talk philosophy with Father Dzierozynsky.[52] This society was based
on simplicity, the heritage handed down from Revolutionary soldiers,
offshoot of freedom and downrightness. There was no charlatanism in
Washington then, neither had there been any since Jefferson came to
tell the people “we are all Republicans, all Federalists.” For fifty
years the official rogues could be counted on the ten fingers. How
different in that respect since the antique school has passed away. The
great wars have blown out the old-fashioned virtues, and money-changers
have unhinged the morality of the people. Corruption in high places
has prevailed, and it has been in Washington as it was in Rome during
the last days of the Empire, when Fabricius and Tully were forgotten,
and turgid and loquacious rhetoricians mouthed in the Capitol. The
golden age of manners, and tastes, and honest living still survived
while the subject of this memoir sat in Congress. To be a gentleman
above reproach was glorious. Poverty was no badge of disgrace, for
James Monroe had given his fortune to the country in the war of 1812,
and died, “like rigid Cincinnatus, nobly poor.” Henry Clay could never
reach the White House, because after the fashion of the simple great
ones he would rather be right than President. Webster was an old school
patriot, for after Calhoun’s speech in 1833, he modified his views so
greatly that he never afterwards denied that the Government of the
United States was a compact between sovereign States. The rule of right
living was so inflexible that Calhoun relinquished all hopes for the
Presidency, rather than have his wife visit Bellona, at the dictation
of General Jackson.

Happy days! Fortunate John Kelly! to have been there to witness the
antique social phases, and to have come away again before the era was
quite passed and gone, and another and a different one had arisen in
its place.


FOOTNOTES:

[44] The reference in the speech was to the murder of a waiter named
Keating, in the spring of 1856, at Willard’s Hotel, by a drunken
Congressman from California named Herbert. Great indignation was
aroused by this unprovoked crime, and although after two trials,
the jury failing to agree in the first, Herbert was acquitted, his
usefulness as a representative was destroyed. “He remained in Congress
till the end of his term,” says Gobright in his _Recollection of
Men and Things at Washington_, “but failed to be respected by his
fellow-members,” p. 164.

[45] Cong. Globe, p. 2, 1st Sess., 35th Cong., p. 1919.

[46] Cong. Globe, p. 2, 1st. Sess. 35th Cong., p. 1919.

[47] Cong. Globe, p. 2, 1st Sess. 35th Cong., p. 1919.

[48] Cong. Globe, P. 2, 1st Sess. 35th Cong., pp. 1918-19.

[49] Cong. Globe, p. 3, 1st Sess. 35th Cong., p. 2,977.

[50] “The American Irish,” pp. 70-1-3.

[51] Cong. Globe, Appendix, 1st Sess., 35th Cong., p. 430.

[52] “Father Curley tells me that John C. Calhoun used to come to the
College to talk philosophy with old Father Dzierozynsky.” Extract from
a letter of the late Father J. S. Sumner, of Georgetown College, to the
author.



CHAPTER VIII.

 ELECTED SHERIFF—MASTERS DUTIES OF OFFICE—RE-ELECTED—NOMINATED
 FOR MAYOR AGAINST A. OAKEY HALL—CAUSES OF HIS WITHDRAWAL—GOES TO
 EUROPE—VISITS HOLY LAND—INNER LIFE—HIS CHARITIES—RELATIONS WITH
 S. J. TILDEN—LEADER OF TAMMANY—SECOND MARRIAGE—COMPTROLLER OF NEW
 YORK—SPEECH AT LOTOS CLUB, ETC.


On Christmas Day, 1858, having been elected Sheriff of the City and
County of New York, November 2d of that year, Mr. Kelly resigned his
seat in the Thirty-fifth Congress. He remained in Washington at his
post until it was necessary to go to New York to enter upon his new
office; but in refreshing contrast to those Representatives in a
subsequent Congress, the Forty-second, who voted themselves back-pay,
he declined, after his election as Sheriff, to draw any salary at all
for his service as a member of Congress. The total number of votes cast
at the election for Sheriff was 69,088, of which John Kelly received
39,090, and William H. Albertson received 29,837, scattering 161.
Kelly was the regular nominee of the Democratic party of the city. His
majority was 9,092.

He entered with characteristic energy upon the duties of Sheriff,
that most ancient of county officers known to the common law,
_Vice-comes_ to the Earl, as Blackstone calls him. The difficulties
and responsibilities of this office in New York are peculiarly
great. The reported cases upon Sheriff’s law in that city indicate
the immense number of statutes applicable to the office, and the
subtleties, refinements, and nice legal distinctions, together with
the liabilities, which constantly press upon the Sheriff in the
discharge of his duties. As laymen nearly always have been elected to
the office, it was the rule, before Kelly’s term, for incumbents to
rely for guidance upon legal advisers and prompters behind the scenes,
whose special knowledge of business was supplemented by professional
knowledge of law, and by training and experience in the office. But
John Kelly set resolutely to work with his law books, for it is one of
the leading traits of his character to perform conscientiously whatever
duties are imposed upon him, and he was determined to delegate to no
one else a labor which the people had elected him to do himself. While
he was in the office the Under-Sheriff ceased to be the High-Sheriff.
After reading one or two good elementary books, he next applied himself
to the Code of Procedure, the Revised Statutes, and Reported Cases,
and wrote out a syllabus, or private digest for himself, of opinions
delivered in the lower Courts and the Court of Appeals in relation to
Sheriff’s law. To master such questions he worked with unflagging zeal,
not only by day but far into the night, during the greater part of his
term. In the meantime he acquired familiarity with the routine and
usages of the office. Thus equipped, he was perhaps the first Sheriff
who thoroughly understood the duties of the office, and discharged them
in person. He became a favorite among the members of the bar, and was
an authority, theoretically and practically, upon disputed questions of
Sheriff’s law. In the Sheriff’s Court Mr. Kelly himself presided over
the intelligent juries there empanelled. He heard arguments of counsel,
passed upon authorities cited, was conversant in the law applicable
to cases, and in the opinion of leading members of the profession he
displayed a judicial mind of high order.

The best body of jurors in the United States is undoubtedly the
Sheriff’s Jury in New York city. The members of this jury are chosen
annually by an eminent Commission of judicial and other high officers,
and are selected from among the foremost citizens in the community,
whose wealth, intelligence, and established character afford a
guarantee of their freedom from improper influences. Large fines for
absence are imposed, and cheerfully paid. An annual banquet, known of
all men, _ubique gentium_, as the Sheriff’s Jury’s Dinner, is provided
for with the ample sum thus accumulated. Delmonico’s choicest menu is
laid under requisition, and a distinguished and brilliant company is
always brought together.

That accomplished and discerning gentleman, Mr. Rosewell G. Rolston,
President of the Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company of New York, was
one of the members of the Sheriff’s Jury during Mr. Kelly’s term. He
once expressed to the writer of these pages his high respect for the
Sheriff, and descanted upon his sturdy qualities, saying, that while he
was a stern and austere man to look at, he was, nevertheless, brimful
of kindly human nature. After mentioning some occurrences which had
come under his own observation, he said, with no little earnestness,
“John Kelly is a love of a man, a grand fellow undoubtedly.”

Under-Sheriffs had presided at the trial of Sheriff’s cases before Mr.
Kelly’s entry into the office. The Jury was surprised now to see the
usual rule broken, and the new Sheriff going upon the bench himself.
The more experienced members gave each other a smile of astonishment
and a knowing wink, for they suspected that Kelly was led away by
zeal, and by ignorance of the mysteries of the law, into whose knotty
labyrinths he would be plunged presently by wrangling lawyers. But Mr.
Rolston and his fellow-jurors quickly discovered that the imperturbable
Sheriff behaved like a veteran under legal fire, and the lawyers
themselves were surprised to find him not only familiar with questions
at issue, both of traverse and demurrer, but practically master of
the situation. He had broken the precedent, and what had been before
a fiction was now a fact, a Sheriff of New York who knew more about
his office than any of his subordinates. John Kelly made a reputation
for honesty and capacity as Sheriff, which in the whole history of the
office has never been excelled by any man who has occupied it. The
best evidence of this is found in the fact that at the earliest moment
when he was eligible under the Constitution of the State, namely, at
the expiration of the term of Sheriff Lynch, his immediate successor,
John Kelly was renominated and re-elected Sheriff of New York. He
is the only man since the foundation of the Government who has been
elected twice to this important office. In the early day, before the
Hamiltonian or monarchical features of the State Constitution had
been abolished, and the Jeffersonian or elective principle had been
substituted for them by constitutional amendment, the Governor and
Council held the appointment, not only of judicial and other great
officers, a most fruitful source of corruption and centralization,
but they were likewise clothed with the power to appoint Sheriffs and
County Clerks in the several counties of the State. But twice only,
in the early history of the State, did the Council of Appointment at
Albany select the same men to fill a second term as Sheriff of the
city and county of New York. Marinus Willett was appointed Sheriff
of New York in 1784, and served until 1787. He was re-appointed in
1791, and held until 1795. Benjamin Ferris also held the office by
appointment from 1808 to 1810, and again from 1811 to 1813. On the
6th of November, 1864, John Kelly, who had filled the office so
faithfully from 1859 to 1861, was re-elected Sheriff of New York, an
unprecedented honor, as well as endorsement of his official integrity,
now bestowed for the first time in the history of the city, by the
people themselves, upon any individual.

At this election there were three candidates in the field, two
Democrats and a Republican, but after an exciting canvass John Kelly
led the poll by a plurality of nearly 6,000, his Republican competitor
coming next. The whole number of votes for Sheriff was 106,707, of
which Kelly received 42,022, John W. Farmer 36,477, and Michael
Connolly, commonly called the “Big Judge,” 28,099. The number of
scattering votes was 109. Mr. Kelly’s second term expired December 31,
1867. That it was a repetition of the first one in his fidelity to the
important interests and duties confided to his charge, was universally
declared at the time, without one whisper of dissent. In the fierce
conflicts of party fifteen years after his first term as Sheriff, and
seven years after the second, when his talents and commanding position
in the community had made him a formidable antagonist, John Kelly’s
official integrity as Sheriff was called in question for the first time
by certain political opponents, whose misconduct he had exposed, and
whose arbitrary acts he had resisted. These tardy shafts of malice fell
harmless at his feet.

In the year 1868, eleven months after he had ceased to be Sheriff a
second time, a still handsomer testimonial to the stainlessness of his
character was tendered to him than that implied in his re-election as
Sheriff; an emphatic endorsement of his qualifications for the highest
civic preferment was received by him when the Democratic Union of New
York nominated him for Mayor of the city against A. Oakey Hall, the
candidate of the Tweed Ring. In a laudable and patriotic attempt to
drive the Ring from power at the Charter election of November, 1868,
New York’s best citizens,—merchants, bankers, tradesmen, mechanics,
and members of the various professions, turned to John Kelly to lead
them, to the man whose admirable administration of the trusts he
had previously held as Alderman, Congressman, and Sheriff, afforded
satisfactory proof of his fitness to grapple with the Ring, and if
elected, to crush it, and restore honesty and economy in the various
municipal offices.

Among those who looked to Mr. Kelly at this interesting and critical
hour in the history of New York, as a safe leader against the notorious
triumvirate of Tweed, Sweeny and Connolly, were Samuel J. Tilden,
Andrew H. Green, Augustus Schell, and still another—tell it not in
Gath! mention it not in the streets of Ascalon! for it is surprising
to relate—Nelson J. Waterbury himself. Yes, in the very next year
after John Kelly had ceased to be Sheriff, this gentleman, who has
since lavished so much savage abuse upon him for mythical misdeeds
as Sheriff, the self-same Nelson J. Waterbury was an enthusiastic
supporter of John Kelly for Mayor of New York.

The support which Mr. Tilden was disposed to bestow upon Mr. Kelly
was a more important incident of that eventful campaign. For a long
time they had been intimate acquaintances, and Tilden not only looked
upon Kelly as a man of invincible honesty, but recognized in him a
born leader of men. It was a most unfortunate thing that Mr. Kelly’s
health, at this particular juncture, was so much impaired that it was
not possible for him to stand the strain of such a contest, or, indeed,
of any contest at all. The blackest chapter in the history of New
York was about to be written. He felt the magnitude of the occasion,
and rose from a sick bed to go meet the people half way, when they
called him to lead them in the fight. No personal sacrifice could be
too great, not even life itself, when the stakes were the reformation
of the public service, and the rescue of a million people from the
corrupt domination of such a Ring. “You will never live to reach the
army,” said Voltaire to the feeble and emaciated Mareschal de Saxe, as
the leader was setting out for Fontenoy. “The object now,” replied the
fiery commander, “is not to live, but to go.” But Mr. Kelly, however
willing to act his part, soon found that nature’s barriers are not to
be overcome. The hand which had rejoiced in its strength was relaxed
and powerless under wasting illness, and like that of Old Priam,
_telumque imbelle_, no longer could strike an effectual blow. He was,
indeed, destined to smite the Tweed Ring a death-blow, but not now, nor
until four years had come and gone, when, with health restored, and
energies all on fire, he drove them from Tammany Hall, and inscribed
his name among the benefactors of New York. He lived, like Saxe, to
fight and win his Fontenoy.

From early life Mr. Kelly had suffered from bronchial troubles, which
always were increased by public speaking. His mind is intensely
active. “I must be occupied in some way,” he once said to a friend,
“and I can’t sit still five minutes without doing something. I cannot
be an idler.”[53] Whatever he undertook to do, his faculties became
concentrated upon the task until it was accomplished. His occupations
for a long time had been engrossing and laborious, and his health had
suffered under the strain. “For twenty years,” to repeat the remark
of the editor of the _Utica Observer_, quoted in a preceding chapter
of this volume, “he had devoted several hours of every day to the
pursuit of literature and science,” and at length his constitution was
seriously impaired. Domestic afflictions also came upon him about this
period, and his physical maladies were increased fourfold.

John Kelly had entered into wedlock when a very young man, and for
twenty years his circle of domesticity was unclouded by a single
shadow. His wife, _nèe_ McIlhargy, was the daughter of an Irish
adopted citizen of New York, and an interesting family, a son and two
daughters, grew up to the verge of manhood and womanhood about him.
Mrs. Kelly, whom the present writer knew well, and greatly respected
for the excellent but unostentatious qualities of her character, was
a good wife, a devoted mother and a pious Christian woman. In the
year 1866 she fell a victim to consumption. Her son Hugh, a bright
and winning young man, just as he had turned his twenty-first year,
succumbed to the same disease, and followed his mother to the grave.
Symptoms of consumption also appeared in the daughters, and it was
evident that death had marked them both for its early victims. To a
man of John Kelly’s strongly affectionate nature, wrapped up in his
home and family, these visitations falling upon him like unmerciful
disasters, one after another in quick succession, proved well nigh
irreparable. His health already impaired, gave way entirely, and his
friends were seriously apprehensive of his own early demise.

It was in the midst of these afflictions that he was nominated for
Mayor against A. Oakey Hall. He was placed in nomination by the
Democratic Union, which held its convention at Masonic Hall, November
18, 1868, and he received on the first ballot 240 votes, to 51 for
John W. Chanler, and 1 each for John McKeon and Fernando Wood. On the
second ballot John Kelly received every vote in the convention, and was
declared the unanimous nominee for Mayor. A committee was appointed by
the chair, Mr. Roswell D. Hatch, to notify Mr. Kelly of his nomination,
and to invite him before the convention. The chairman of this committee
was Mr. Nelson J. Waterbury. After some time Mr. Kelly entered the hall
escorted by Mr. Waterbury, by whom he was presented to the convention
in appropriate terms, as the reform candidate for Mayor.

He was warmly received, and made a brief speech, vigorously denouncing
the Tweed and Sweeny Ring, which had usurped control of Tammany Hall.
He referred in terms of praise to those honest Democrats, many of whom
he saw before him, who formerly like himself had been identified with
the Wigwam, but who had retired from it in disgust, as he himself
had done when the Ring obtained control. “I see many gentlemen in
this convention,” said Mr. Kelly, “who formerly were associated with
me in Tammany Hall, and who felt the same grievances there which I
myself have experienced. I have no desire for this nomination, but
while I have not sought it, I will only say this, I shall stand by
those who have so generously nominated me for Mayor, and if elected,
I will discharge the duties of the office honestly and faithfully. In
accepting your nomination I fully realize that both yourselves and
myself will have to work strenuously against the corrupt men opposing
us, if we expect to secure victory. But by working together in good
faith we can succeed, for the people of New York feel the importance
of the contest, and the necessity of putting down the bad men who have
obtained control of the city government. I accept your nomination, and
if elected will do the best in my power to realize all your legitimate
expectations.”[54]

Abram R. Lawrence was nominated for Corporation Counsel. The candidacy
of Mr. Kelly greatly alarmed the Ring leaders and their Republican
allies. The latter sought to control the Republican convention which
was held the next day, and force through a straight Republican ticket
for Mayor and Corporation Counsel, as the most effective way to secure
the election of A. Oakey Hall. But fortunately there was a reform
element among the Republicans, as well as among the Democrats, and
the opponents of the Ring were in a majority in the Republican city
convention. That excellent citizen, Mr. Sinclair Tousey, was President
of this convention. The main struggle was between those who favored
the endorsement of John Kelly for Mayor, and, therefore, wished
the convention to adjourn over, and those who advocated the prompt
nomination of a straight Republican ticket. The latter class was led
by Charles S. Spencer, who vehemently demanded immediate action. But
the opponents of Spencer prevailed, and secured an adjournment to
the following Monday. “It was understood,” remarked the _Herald_ of
November 20th, “that the party of compromise was engaged in fixing up
quite a neat little arrangement, by which the Republicans would endorse
the nomination of John Kelly for Mayor, in consideration of having Mr.
Shaw substituted for Mr. Lawrence as candidate for Corporation Counsel.
The compromisers gave out that Spencer and the party of action were
simply acting in the interest of Tammany Hall in endeavoring to have
the Republican convention make regular nominations.”

In this campaign the _Herald_ opposed John Kelly, and championed A.
Oakey Hall for Mayor. This was not evidence of any complicity on the
part of that paper in the misconduct of the Ring, for in 1868 there was
no positive proof in possession of the public of the criminality of
the Ring, and hence the _Herald_ or any other journal was not justly
obnoxious to unfavorable criticism at that early day in the history
of the plunderers for advocating the election of Hall. “The Ring,”
says Mr. Tilden in his history of its overthrow, “became completely
organized and matured on the 1st of January, 1869, when Mr. A. Oakey
Hall became Mayor. Its duration was through 1869, 1870 and 1871.”[55]

The morning after Mr. Kelly’s nomination the _Herald_ declared for
A. Oakey Hall and against Kelly, in one of those plausible leading
articles by which it has so long and so remarkably influenced public
opinion for or against men and measures. The reference to Mr. Kelly as
a nabob was an adroit campaign stroke, and although he was living quite
unostentatiously in a modest three-story brick house at the corner of
38th Street and Lexington Avenue, an impression was created that he was
surrounded by princely opulence, in the fashionable quarter among the
millionaires. The _Herald_ editorial was as follows:

“John Kelly is a good citizen and a respectable man; but he has already
been elected by the Tammany Democracy, to which he owes all his past
political favors, to the offices of Councilman, Alderman, member of
Congress, and twice to the valuable position of Sheriff of New York,
being the only man, we believe, who has held that lucrative office a
second term. John Kelly was brought up a lad in the _Herald_ office,
when he first came to New York, and was well brought up; but he went
into politics in spite of his early training. We supported him for
office while he was poor and lived in the locality of the Fourteenth
Ward. Now that he has made himself a millionaire, and lives like a
nabob in the high locality of one of the most fashionable avenues of
uppertendom, we think he should be satisfied, and give place to others
who have not enjoyed such good fortune.”

“If the Democrats nominate A. Oakey Hall, as it is said they will,
as their candidate for Mayor, he will no doubt be elected by a large
majority. He will suit those who take a pride in the dignity of the
city, because he is a man of superior ability, a profound thinker,
an eloquent talker, and understands thoroughly the details of the
municipal government.”[56]

The Ring men got thoroughly frightened after the adjournment of the
Republican City Convention without a nomination, for it was becoming
quite clear that independent citizens, both outside and inside of the
respective political parties, meant to support Mr. Kelly for Mayor
against the Ring candidate. This state of things caused the _Herald_ to
discard special pleading respecting the “nabobs of uppertendom,” and to
redouble its attacks on Kelly. He was now denounced as a deserter for
having retired from Tammany Hall, and joined the opponents of William
M. Tweed. “The fight,” said the _Herald_, “is to be made against the
Democratic organization with the object of breaking down Tammany, and
thus giving the death-blow to the regular Democracy in its stronghold.
The _Tribune_, _Times_ and _World_ are co-laborers in this work—the two
former openly, and the latter in an underhanded but not less vindictive
manner. They are preparing to unite on John Kelly, who has deserted
the Democratic organization for the purpose of leading the Republican
forces in the battle. District Attorney A. Oakey Hall will be the
Democratic nominee, and will no doubt be elected; but it will be one of
the greatest fights we have ever had over a Charter election, as the
breaking down of the Democratic organization at this end of the State
would be the death-blow of the party, and is therefore a stake worth
playing for by the Republicans, who feel the loss of power in New York
very severely.”[57]

Against this pretended but sham regularity, not only Mr. Kelly, but Mr.
Tilden also revolted. “Weighty pressure,” says Tilden, “was brought
on me from powerful men all over the State to ‘save the party.’ I
denied that the system of organization then in use in the city had
any moral right to be considered regular, or to bind the Democratic
masses. I told the State Convention that I felt it to be my duty to
oppose any man who would not go for making the government of this city
what it ought to be, at whatever cost, at whatever sacrifice. If they
did not deem that ‘regular,’ I would resign as chairman of the State
Committee.”[58]

The exertion made by Mr. Kelly in leaving a sick bed to go before the
Democratic Union City Convention to accept its nomination for Mayor,
increased the illness from which he suffered. His physician called
eminent doctors into consultation, and it was the opinion of them all
that his continuance in active political movements would have a fatal
result. This professional decision was communicated to Mr. Kelly by
that eminent physician, the late Dr. Marion Sims. Thus admonished that
the excitement of the campaign would kill him, Mr. Kelly, on the 27th
of November, reluctantly sent in his withdrawal from the Mayoralty
contest to the Executive Committee of the Democratic Union, and the
vacancy was filled by the nomination of Mr. Frederick A. Conkling.

Mr. Kelly, who was a sufferer from insomnia, soon after sailed with his
two daughters for Europe. He made an extended tour in Europe, Asia and
Africa, visiting, among other places, the Holy Land. He first went to
Ireland as a pilgrim would return to the home of his fathers, spending
some time in the beautiful Island of Saints, where Christianity made
its only bloodless conquest in the world. During fourteen hundred
years, while other Christian nations have rushed back into infidelity
and again become Christian, Ireland has never lapsed into infidelity,
nor into a scoffing, Godless philosophy, the invariable accompaniment
of unbelief and paganism. After visiting the various capitals of
Europe,—London, Paris, Vienna, Berlin, Madrid, St. Petersburg, and
other places, he repaired to Rome, the city of the soul, the Niobe
of nations, shrine of saints and martyrs, of doctors and confessors,
where he spent a considerable period in rest and retirement, and in
viewing its wonderful ruins, monuments, and churches. Repairing to Holy
Land, Mr. Kelly remained for some time at Jerusalem, the cradle of
Christianity; which Titus, in fulfilment of prophecy, left not a stone
upon a stone of; where Christ had walked about among the people, and
where He died upon Calvary.

In contemplating scenes associated with the earthly life and death
of the Redeemer, the traveler no doubt derived comfort in his own
bereavements, dignified by such a fellowship of suffering as was there.
What a lesson of humility the ignominious Cross must have preached
to his reflective mind. He was leading a contemplative life, and his
letters at this period dwell much upon the Mount of Olives, the Way of
the Cross, and the Holy Sepulchre. He had read somewhere in allegory
of the contest in which the trees of the forest are represented as
debating among themselves who should be their king. Had the contest
occurred in the days of the Redeemer, small chance the ignoble tree of
the Cross would have had to win the crown. Mr. Kelly had read Cardinal
Wiseman’s beautiful thoughts on the subject. “Apply the allegory,”
said he once in a circle of his friends, “and let us enter some forest
of Judea filled with stately trees, lofty, tapering pine, and royal
cedar, and hear the proud possessor give orders as to how their worth
should be realized into wealth. He says to the forester: ‘See that
elegant and towering tree which has reached the maturity of its growth,
how nobly will it rise above the splendid galley and bear itself in
the fell fury of the wind, without breaking or bending, and carry
the riches of the earth from one flourishing port to another. Cut it
down and destine it for this noble work. And this magnificent cedar,
overcasting all around it with the solemnity of its shade, worthy to
have been built by Solomon into the temple of God, such that David
might have sung its praises on his inspired lyre; let it be carefully
and brilliantly polished, and embarked to send to the imperial city,
there to adorn those magnificent halls, in which all the splendor of
Rome is gathered; and there, richly gilded and adorned, it shall be an
object of admiration for ages to come.’ ‘It is well, my lord,’ replies
his servant, ‘but this strange, this worthless tree, which seems
presumptuously to spring up, beneath the shadow of those splendid
shafts, what shall we do with it? it is fitted for no great, no noble
work.’ ‘Cut it down, and, if of no other use, why, it will make a cross
for the first malefactor!’”

Strange counsels of men! The soaring pine dashed the freight that
it bore against the rocks, and rolled a wreck upon the beach. The
noble cedar witnessed the revels of imperial Rome, and fell by the
earthquake, or in the fire kindled by the barbarians, charred into
ashes. But that ignoble tree, spurned by proud man and put to the
most ignominious of uses, bore the price of the world’s redemption
upon Calvary, its every fragment has been gathered up, and treasured
and enshrined, and in every age it has been considered worth all that
the world dotes on, and sets its heart on. An Empress crossed the
seas and searched among the tombs of the dead for that material wood
of the Cross of Christ. For that holy rood was built a magnificent
church on Mount Sion. For it the Emperor Heraclius made war on the
King of Persia; and when he had recovered it, bore it as his Master
had borne it before, barefoot and in humble garb to Calvary. For that
tree Constantine the Great built a noble church, yet standing among
the ruins of the palaces of Rome, and brought the very earth from the
Savior’s own land, as though none were worthy to be there save that
upon which had first fallen the precious blood of redemption. For
eighteen hundred years this relic has been the most priceless treasure
of Christians. Its smallest fragment has been enshrined and vestured
in gold and precious stones, and housed and sheltered in magnificent
temples piled up with the richest materials and noblest productions of
art. The ignoble tree which the world despised has conquered the world
itself.

Mr. Kelly’s correspondence at this time made it apparent that he had
ceased to feel interest in the busy trifles of politicians, and that
his thoughts were directed to problems of the moral world, to reveries
upon the mysteries of redemption, like that outlined in the preceding
allegory upon the Cross, and to the works of mercy, both spiritual and
corporal. He brought back from Palestine souvenirs and patristic relics
of much interest. He had familiarized himself with the topography of
the hallowed scenes of Holy Land, and those who have heard him describe
them and relate the history and traditions connected with them, have
been struck with his reverence as a narrator, as well as with his
closeness as an observer of manners, customs and places. While he was
abroad unfounded rumors reached New York that John Kelly had withdrawn
from the world, in order to spend the remainder of his days in monastic
retirement. Perhaps this story originated from the circumstance that he
travelled much in the company of clergymen in Europe. Vicar-General
Quinn of New York was his companion on the Continent. The late Bishop
McGill of Richmond, Virginia, a man of ascetic tastes and profound
learning, often shared Mr. Kelly’s carriage in the latter’s drives
about Rome. Another thing which may have given color to the rumor was
the fact that Mr. Kelly had educated, and was still educating, many
young men for the ecclesiastical state, not only American youths, but
those of Irish and German and Swiss nationalities. While he was in
Switzerland his attention was directed by his daughters to a pious
little boy, the son of a poor gardener, who with another boy of wealthy
parentage, served at the altar every morning. The wealthy man’s son
soon departed for the University, when Mr. Kelly sent for the son of
the gardener, and finding that he wished to become a religious, told
him that he would afford him the means to carry out his purpose, and
amid the grateful tears and prayers of the boy’s parents, he sent him
to a renowned German University, and defrayed all his expenses until
he was graduated. That boy has since become a learned scholar and
minister at the altar. While Mr. Kelly was in Rome he became warmly
interested in the American College, a noble seat of learning in that
city for the training of young ecclesiastics for the American Missions,
and he generously established a bursary in the College. He gave to its
President, Dr. Chatard, who since has been raised to the Episcopate,
five thousand dollars for the maintenance of this charitable Kelly
foundation. It reflected no credit upon the managers of the New York
Cooper Institute meeting, held in 1884, to denounce the spoliation of
the Propaganda, of which the American College at Rome is a part, to
have omitted one of its benefactors, and so prominent a representative
man as John Kelly, from the list of the officers and speakers of that
meeting. Those managers were then burning incense to Monsignor Capel,
a clerical gentleman of know—ledge, not knowledge, who thinks American
Catholics are too illiterate yet awhile to aspire to a University.

The beautiful pictures in stained glass, which adorn the windows of
St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York, are, with the exception of the
examples in the French Cathedral in Chartres, perhaps unsurpassed in
modern times, as figured scenes from the Scriptures and lives of the
saints. In this pictorial religious epic is a beautiful window placed
there by John Kelly in memory of his lost ones, or more correctly
of those members of his family who have been called to the better
life. “Before quitting the Sanctuary,” says the writer of a pamphlet
descriptive of the exterior and interior of the Cathedral, “we will
bend our steps towards the Lady Chapel. The window in the first bay
represents the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin in the Temple. The
high priest, in gorgeous vesture, advances to receive the child, while
St. Joachim and St. Anne modestly remain standing behind. The friends
of the family are assembled to witness the ceremony. This bears the
inscription, ‘John Kelly—_in memoriam_.’”[59]

Some years before the completion of the new Cathedral, and while Mr.
Kelly was in Rome, he gave an order to a celebrated artist in that
city of art treasures to execute for him four great oil paintings
representing the Baptism of our Lord, the Marriage feast of Cana, the
Return of the Prodigal Son, and St. Patrick preaching at Tara. He
afterwards embraced two additional scenes from sacred history in his
scheme, the Ascension of Our Lord, and the Assumption of the Blessed
Virgin. The artist, Galliardi, produced a noble work after the best
masters. These six magnificent paintings were sent from Rome to America
as a present from Mr. Kelly to St. Patrick’s Cathedral, and are the
only paintings in canvas upon the walls of that grand church.

When he was in England he visited a region inhabited almost entirely by
miners—English, Irish and Welsh. Those people were, to a great extent,
ignorant of the truths of Christianity, and there were no facilities
in the wild mountain region they inhabited to improve their moral
condition. Working in the mines day and night, and constantly exposed
to death in the midst of their subterranean toil, these poor people
appealed to friends at a distance to send them a clergyman to minister
to their spiritual wants. The appeal was answered, and the Reverend Mr.
Dealy arrived there to open a mission a short time before Mr. Kelly
visited that part of England. The clergyman found himself destitute of
every worldly appliance for a proper ministration of the functions of
his spiritual office, no church, no school-house, no charitable home
or asylum for the sick and helpless, all things, in a word, wanting,
and no adequate means to provide them. He was an excellent and zealous
man, and he stated his situation, and the necessities of the people
to Mr. Kelly. He told him that if he had the money to build a church
and school-house, incalculable good might be done. He poured his story
into sympathetic ears. Help was promised, and faithfully was the
promise kept. Mr. Dealy some time after, upon Mr. Kelly’s invitation,
set sail for America, and took up his residence in the latter’s house.
When Mr. Kelly reached home he organized a movement among those of his
immediate friends, whose opulence and charity admitted of the appeal,
and in the course of a few months Mr. Dealy, as he informed the writer
of these pages, was the fortunate possessor of a purse of over twelve
thousand dollars, inclusive of Mr. Kelly’s own handsome donation. Those
poor miners in England soon had their church, and a school for their
children, and their pastor had reason to bless the day when he first
made the acquaintance of the subject of this memoir.

After John Kelly had re-entered the field of politics, and even when
immersed in public affairs, his charity and philanthropy continued to
be the controlling principles of his conduct. During the past five
or six years he has been a frequent lecturer in various cities of
the Union. His lectures, respectively upon the Sisters of Charity,
the Early Jesuit Missionaries in North America, and upon the Irish
Settlers in North and South America, were replete with historical
information and sound practical instruction, and wherever he appeared
on the platform as a lecturer he always drew crowded houses. Mr. Kelly
realized from his lectures, which he delivered repeatedly in the North,
South and West, over fifty thousand dollars, and this immense sum he
gave in charity to educate and clothe the poor, to build schools, or
to lift the burden of debt from charitable institutions. His heart
was in his work. He would not allow one penny of the proceeds of
his lectures to be diverted from the sweet uses of charity for his
traveling expenses, but in every instance, wherever he went to lecture,
he insisted on paying his railroad fare, and hotel bills, out of his
own pocket.

Bagenal, the London traducer of the American Irish, with unblushing
mendacity, classes John Kelly as a leader of “shoulder-hitters and
ballot-stuffers,” and ignorantly accuses him of being an enemy of Irish
colonization in the West. The simple truth is that Kelly is one of the
originators and prime leaders in the movement to get poor emigrants out
of the overcrowded Eastern cities, and has contributed thousands of
dollars to make their colonization in the West a success.

Dr. Ireland, Bishop of St. Paul, Minnesota, one of the great pioneers
in this benign scheme, while speaking kindly of Mr. Bagenal in a
letter to the present writer, still shows how erroneous he is in his
strictures upon Mr. Kelly. The Bishop’s comment upon Bagenal, is as
follows: “He is mistaken, of course, in his remarks about Mr. John
Kelly. But I do not think he will be sorry to be set right. He mixes
up Mr. Kelly with the average politicians of New York—not knowing,
as I know, Mr. Kelly’s exceptional qualities, his sterling honesty,
his true love for his fellow-Irishmen, and his general nobility of
character.”[60]

When he retired from politics in 1868, Mr. Kelly had resolved to enter
upon that field no more. Chastened by domestic affliction, and loss of
health, the plan of his life was changed. Public station had lost its
charm for him. To feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and open the doors
of colleges, or advanced schools, to those whose talents were good, but
who were too poor to gain admittance, these things afforded to him his
greatest pleasure. He sought out the companionship of holy men, and
of holy books. Thomas à Kempis became his _vade mecum_. He took more
delight in the pages of the Following of Christ than he had ever known
in the conflicts of politics, either in the halls of Congress or the
city of New York. It was not altogether surprising, therefore, that
people’s conjectures should consign him to the prospective seclusion
of a monastery, and that rumors to that effect should have gained
circulation. The _New York Times_, on one occasion, shortly after Mr.
Kelly’s second marriage, made editorial reference to these rumors, and
spoke of him as that remarkable individual who had escaped being a monk
at Rome, in order to become the nephew of a Cardinal in America.

These revelations of the inner life of John Kelly are not laid before
the public without a great deal of reluctance. Some may think it were
better to keep them back until after his death, and the writer knows
perfectly well that no one else would prohibit their publication at any
time, or under any conceivable circumstances more sternly than John
Kelly himself. But these pages have been written without consultation
with any human being in the world, and recollecting the unparalleled
and shameful abuse which this man has been subjected to for doing his
duty as God has given him to see it, the writer is resolved to tell
the truth about him, and let the unprejudiced reader know something
of his real character. Indeed hardly a tithe of those charities and
good works of John Kelly which are within the personal knowledge of
the present writer, have been mentioned in these pages. During the
war for the Union, especially, were the kindly impulses of his nature
displayed. He went about among the hospitals visiting and cheering the
sick and despondent, supplying articles for their relief and money
for their wants, and doing what he could for the wounded. He did not
confine these ministrations to the hospitals in New York, but went to
Washington and got a pass from Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War, whom
he had known well in former years, to visit the Army of the Potomac,
and particularly the camp hospitals. Thither he repaired, and extended
his aid not only to New York soldiers but to those of other States,
with characteristic zeal and liberality. A letter was published in the
New York _World_, November 1st, 1875, from Mr. James Murphy, in which
reference is made to one of Mr. Kelly’s visits to the army in Virginia.

“I well recollect,” said the writer, “that thirteen years ago, when
I was a soldier in the Second Army Corps of the Army of the Potomac,
and stationed at Stafford Heights, Virginia, opposite Fredericksburg,
I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. John Kelly. His mission was one of
the noblest that man ever followed. He was going round from hospital
to hospital, and from tent to tent, visiting the sick and wounded of
the poor and neglected soldiers of the New York regiments, to see to
their wants, and alleviate their sufferings as much as lay within his
power, and questioning them as to their treatment as compared with
the treatment of the soldiers of other States.” Many persons in the
border States, as those adjoining the scene of military operations were
called, who were guilty of no disloyal acts, were nevertheless made
victims of spies and detectives, and they and their families suffered
great hardships. One of these was Mr. John Henry Waring, a prominent
and wealthy citizen of Prince George’s County, Maryland, whose property
was confiscated, whose large family, mostly ladies, were banished, and
who was himself imprisoned for the war in Fort Delaware. This was the
work of Baker, the notorious detective, and a more cruel persecution
hardly occurred during the war. Mr. Kelly was appealed to on behalf of
Mr. Waring, and after he was satisfied that injustice had been done
to that excellent citizen, he went to Washington and saw Mr. Lincoln,
and Secretaries Stanton and Montgomery Blair, on behalf of the Waring
family and estate. But Baker had poisoned the mind of Stanton against
the Warings, and, notwithstanding the Secretary’s regard for Mr. Kelly,
he refused the clemency that was asked. Mr. Kelly returned to New
York, and enlisted in Mr. Waring’s favor the powerful co-operation of
Governor Morgan, Archbishop Hughes, Thurlow Weed, James T. Brady, and
about fifty other leading men, and, thus strengthened, he renewed the
appeal for justice and executive clemency. Postmaster General Blair had
become warmly interested in the case, and to him Mr. Kelly confided
the petition of the citizens of New York named above, and Mr. Blair
in conjunction with Mr. Kelly ceased not to press the case until Mr.
Waring was liberated, his family were recalled from banishment, and his
beautiful home and plantation on the Patuxent river were restored to
him.

Mr. Kelly returned from Europe in the fall of 1871, much improved in
health, but not yet restored to his old vigor. The present writer gave
to Mr. J. E. Mallet, of Washington, D. C., who was going to Europe,
a letter of introduction to Mr. Kelly, while the latter was abroad.
Although they were near each other several times in Europe, Mr. Mallet
did not become acquainted with Mr. Kelly until they accidentally met
on the same steamship, the _Republic_, in returning to America. In a
letter published in the Baltimore Catholic _Mirror_, Mr. Mallet gave an
interesting account of this voyage, and of the amusements improvised on
shipboard. “One evening,” said he, “we organized a musical and literary
entertainment. The chairman made a speech, a lady played a fine musical
composition, a gentleman gave a recitation, a young bride sang a
beautiful ballad, Hon. John Kelly, of New York, sang in excellent style
an amusing Irish song, then a duet was sung by two ladies, some one
sang a French song, Father Sheehy sang an Irish ballad on St. Patrick,
and the entertainment concluded, and the assemblage dispersed during
the reading by the Rev. Dr. Arnot, of one of his old sermons.”

“A valued friend had given me a letter of introduction to Mr. Kelly,
to present in France or Switzerland, but I met that gentleman only
on the wharf at Liverpool, and then almost accidentally. Mr. Kelly
has travelled throughout Europe and the Holy Land, and is one of the
most interesting travelling companions whom I have ever met. I was
particularly pleased with his manner of presenting the true history of,
and reasons for certain religious and national practices in Ireland and
Italy, in opposition to the theories and suppositions of certain of our
fellow-voyagers, who ignorantly calumniated the one, and ridiculed the
other.”

During the three years of Mr. Kelly’s absence in Europe, New York
had been given over to every form of official rascality and plunder.
No sooner had he reached the city than he was besieged by leading
citizens, such as Mr. Tilden, Mr. Schell, Mr. Hewitt, Mr. Belmont,
Mr. Chanler, Mr. Clark, Mr. Green and others, all of whom urged him
to take the lead in a movement for the overthrow of the Tweed Ring.
To each one of these gentlemen he said that it was not in accord with
the plan of life which he had marked out for himself for the future,
to re-enter the field of active politics. But his friends redoubled
their importunities. They told him there was no other man in New York,
scarcely one in the United States, so well fitted as himself to head
such a movement, and that in the lifetime of but very few persons did
so grand an opportunity offer itself to serve the people as that which
now awaited him. His friends finally prevailed, his private plans were
changed, and his memorable reappearance in New York politics occurred
in the year 1872. “My health remains about the same as when I saw
you,” said Mr. Kelly, in 1872, in a letter to the present writer. “I
was compelled to take part, for the reason that my old associates
would not take No for answer. My active participation has not helped
me much in point of health, nor does it seem possible for me to live
in New York without being more or less mixed up in politics.” In an
interview published in the New York _World_, October 18, 1875, Mr.
Kelly explained more fully how he was induced to return to politics.
Details omitted, the salient points of that interview were as follows:
“When I returned from Europe in the fall of 1871, it was my intention
to have nothing to do with politics at all. I had been sorely afflicted
by the loss of my family, and I wanted to spend the rest of my life
as a private business man. I was met by a number of leading men, who
told me that during my absence the Democratic party in the city had
become utterly demoralized, and that the Grant Republicans, taking
advantage of this state of affairs, had come into full possession in
this great Democratic city, and they begged me to assume an active
part. I had hundreds of the leading men in the city here at my house,
asking me to take hold and help them up. After much importunity, I
consented, and threw my whole heart into the work. I suppose I have
some foresight. I think I generally see things pretty clearly, and this
is probably why they trust to my judgment. Whenever I fail to win their
confidence it will be an easy matter for them to dispense with me. I
am not commissioned as a leader by any constituted authority. But as
what power and influence I have depend entirely upon the good will and
confidence of the people who choose to recognize me as a leader, and
listen to my advice, I am wholly in their hands, and they can keep me
or reject me any day.”

Mr. Kelly’s part in public affairs prior to 1872 had been creditable
and marked by ability, but there were other public men who, in like
circumstances, had attained equal or greater distinction. In the year
1872 he was called upon to prove whether he was endowed with that
highest of all the gifts of Heaven, the capacity to lead men in a
supreme emergency, and it is not the language of eulogy to say that he
displayed consummate ability as such a leader; and that his courage,
coolness and good judgment enabled him to achieve results which no
other citizen of New York, with similar resources at command, and
similar obstacles in his way, could have accomplished.

[Illustration: _yours truly_

_John Kelly_

(AT THE AGE OF 50 YEARS.)]

In a city of a million inhabitants, where a Government had prevailed
for years, such as disgraced Rome in the days of Caligula, when the
tyrant made his horse a Roman Consul; or in the epoch from Tiberius to
Nero, when folly, crime and profligacy ran riot in all departments of
the Empire, such as Tacitus describes so vividly in the Annals, and in
the immortal Life of Agricola; in such a state of affairs it was an
enormous task for John Kelly to head a successful movement against a
Ring intrenched in office, with millions of stolen money at command,
and backed up by a purchased Legislature. This task he undertook and
accomplished, and history will record the fact on its imperishable page
that the gallant attack upon the Ring in the Courts and Legislature,
by Charles O’Conor and Samuel J. Tilden, was not crowned with final
success until John Kelly carried the war into Tammany Hall, and drove
the Ring politicians from its portals. O’Conor and Tilden scotched the
snake in 1871, and John Kelly killed it in 1872. Tammany Hall, the
cradle of American Democracy, whose patriotic Sachems in the year
1819 were addressed in a speech by Andrew Jackson,[61] and in long
friendly letters at the same period by Thomas Jefferson, the elder
Adams, and James Madison,[62] was rescued from disgrace and placed
again in control of honest men in 1872 by John Kelly. Not only the
political organization, but the Tammany Society was wrested from the
control of the Ring. No political contest in the history of the city of
New York was more stubbornly fought on both sides, or has been followed
by happier results to the people at large. If great public service
entitles a man to rank among the worthies of the Republic, John Kelly
won that title when he succeeded in expelling the Ring men from Tammany
Hall. His victory marked an epoch. The Board of Sachems of the Tammany
Society for 1871, and the Board for 1872 tell the story of this great
revolution:

        1871.                        1872.

   _Grand Sachem_:             _Grand Sachem_:
  WILLIAM M. TWEED.           AUGUSTUS SCHELL.

     _Sachems_:                  _Sachems_:
  RICHARD B. CONNOLLY,        CHARLES O’CONOR,
  PETER B. SWEENY,            SAMUEL J. TILDEN,
  A. OAKEY HALL,              JOHN KELLY,
  JOSEPH DOWLING,             HORATIO SEYMOUR,
  SAMUEL B. GARVIN,           SANFORD E. CHURCH,
         ETC.                 AUGUST BELMONT,
                              ABRAM S. HEWITT,
                                    ETC.

On the retirement of Mr. Belmont from the Chairmanship of the National
Democratic Committee, in 1872, that distinguished position was tendered
to Mr. Kelly at the meeting of the National Convention in Baltimore.
But domestic affliction had again visited him about that time, in the
death in New York of his only surviving daughter, his elder daughter
having died some time before in a city in Spain, where her father had
taken her in a vain pursuit of health. Cast down by these afflictions,
Mr. Kelly declined the Chairmanship of the National Committee of
his party, but suggested his old friend Mr. Schell, who was elected
Chairman. “Who is John Kelly?” asked some of the younger delegates at
Baltimore, when they heard his name mentioned as their first choice
by the New York delegation. They were informed by Mr. Schell that Mr.
Kelly was detained at home in the house of mourning, but that he was a
great leader in New York politics, and a true patriot in public life;
and that he had sat in Congress before many of those young men were
well out of the nursery.

It was about this time that the Committee of Seventy set out to reform
the city government, but those worthy old gentlemen soon became engaged
in an amusing scramble for office, and beyond putting their chairman,
General Dix, in the Governor’s chair, and another of their number,
Mr. Havemeyer, in that of Mayor, they did not set the river on fire,
nor perform any of the twelve labors of Hercules. As soon as the
Committee of Seventy became known as office-seekers, their usefulness
was at an end. John Kelly sought no office, for he had to fight a
battle with office-holders, then a synonym for corruptionists, and
he appreciated the magnitude of the struggle more correctly than to
leave it in anybody’s power to say that the Ring men and the Reform
element, the latter marshalled by Tilden and himself, were fighting
over the offices. A mere scramble for office between the Ins and Outs
is always a vulgar thing. When they became place-hunters, the Committee
of Seventy ceased to be reformers. Kelly, with better statesmanship,
sought no office, and would accept none. When every other event in his
life has been forgotten, his memorable battle in the County Convention
of 1872 will still be remembered. A fiercer one was never fought in
American politics. To employ the words of Mr. Tilden, in his history
of the overthrow of the Tammany Ring, Kelly had to confront on that
occasion, “an organization which held the influence growing out of the
employment of twelve thousand persons, and the disbursement of thirty
millions a year; which had possession of all the machinery of local
government, dominated the judiciary and police, and swayed the officers
of election.”[63]

Harry Genet was leader of the Ring men in the Convention.
Prize-fighters and heelers swarmed upon the floor; and when Samuel
B. Garvin was again placed in nomination for District-Attorney, the
fighters and heelers roared themselves hoarse with applause. Mr. Kelly
took the floor to oppose Garvin, when he was interrupted by Genet. He
replied to the latter in scathing language, arraigned him and Garvin
with the utmost severity, and although hissed by the hirelings of the
Ring, and interrupted by volleys of oaths, John Kelly kept the mob in
sufficient restraint until he caught the eye of the chairman, and moved
an adjournment to 3 o’clock the next day. Mr. Schell, who was in the
chair, put the motion to adjourn, and it was carried, in spite of the
protests of the mob.

The next day the same emissaries of the Ring were there to overwhelm
the Convention again, but this time Kelly was prepared for them. He
had a force stationed at the doors of Tammany Hall, and no man, not a
delegate to the Convention, and not provided with a delegate’s ticket,
was allowed to enter the building. The police and city authorities were
on the side of the desperadoes, but no policeman was allowed inside
the premises. This bold stand of Mr. Kelly had the desired effect. By
his personal intrepidity, and readiness to resist attack, he cowed the
rowdies, and no others but delegates got into the Convention. Garvin
was defeated, and Charles Donohue was nominated for District-Attorney.
Abram R. Lawrence was nominated for Mayor. It was in that day’s
struggle that the backbone of the Ring was broken, and it ceased to
be a compact organization, and melted away after that day’s defeat.
Havemeyer of the Committee of Seventy was elected Mayor, with Lawrence
a close second, and O’Brien a bad third. Phelps beat Donohue for
District-Attorney. But Reformed Tammany, in spite of predictions to the
contrary, polled a surprisingly large vote, and although it did not
elect, it was a vote of confidence in John Kelly, and discerning men
saw that the future belonged to the old organization. Mr. Havemeyer,
who had been an excellent Mayor in early life, now proved a failure.
His defiance of the Supreme Court in the case of Police Commissioners
Charlick and Gardner raised a storm of indignation about his head,
and led to his reprimand by Governor Dix, who threatened his removal
from office. Charlick and Gardner had been indicted for a violation of
the election laws, and Mr. Kelly was very active in bringing on their
trial. They were convicted by the Jury, and sentenced by Judge Brady
to pay a fine of $250 each, but conviction carried with it a still
severer penalty, forfeiture of their offices and disability to fill
them by reappointment. The Mayor’s attempt to reappoint them was an act
of surprising folly, but when the Governor’s reprimand reached him,
with the statement that his age, and near completion of his term of
office, alone saved him from removal for contumacy, Mayor Havemeyer’s
rage vented itself in an extravagantly abusive attack on John Kelly.
He held Mr. Kelly responsible for the trial of Charlick and Gardner,
and after astounding the community by defying the Supreme Court with a
vain attempt to re-instate the guilty officials, he brought the matter
to an impotent conclusion by pouring out a torrent of abuse upon John
Kelly, and assailing his record for honesty when he was Sheriff of New
York. During all the long years which had elapsed since Mr. Kelly had
held that office, not one syllable had ever been uttered derogatory to
his exalted character for honesty as Sheriff, until Mayor Havemeyer
made his reckless charges. Smarting under a sense of humiliation after
the Gardner-Charlick fiasco, the Mayor allowed bad temper to get the
mastery of his judgment, and the explosion of wrath against Mr. Kelly
followed. The animus of the attack was perfectly apparent on its face,
and the good sense of the people was not imposed upon by the revengeful
ebullitions of the angry old gentleman. Mr. Kelly promptly instituted a
suit for damages, but on the very day the trial began, by a remarkable
coincidence Mayor Havemeyer, stricken by apoplexy, fell dead in his
office. The passionate events of the moment were forgotten, and a sense
of sorrow pervaded the community. Mr. Havemeyer’s long and honorable
career was remembered, and the unfortunate passage in his last days
was generally, and justly imputed to the misguided counsels of his
friends.

The Tammany Democrats were completely victorious at the election of
1873. Those able lawyers, Charles Donohue and Abram R. Lawrence, were
elected to the Supreme Court. The late William Walsh and the late Wm.
C. Connor, both excellent men, were elected County Clerk and Sheriff.
Again, in 1874, victory perched on the standards of Mr. Kelly. This
time its dimensions were larger. In addition to a Mayor (Mr. Wickham),
and other city officers, a Governor (Mr. Tilden), and other State
officers, were chosen by overwhelming Democratic majorities.

Mr. Kelly had been the first man to suggest Mr. Tilden’s nomination for
Governor. His splendid services in the war on the Ring pointed him out
as the fit candidate of his party. Tired out, after his long labors,
Mr. Tilden, in 1874, went to Europe to enjoy the first holiday he had
allowed himself for years. But such was his confidence in the judgment
of Mr. Kelly, that a cable message from that friend was sufficient to
cause him to cancel his engagements in Europe, give up his tour, and
take passage in the first steamer for New York. The Canal Ring was
in motion against Tilden’s nomination, and Kelly, who had found this
out, thought there was no time for delay. Tilden at first expressed
disinclination for the office, but the Tammany Chief had set his heart
on his nomination, and the author of these pages has heard Mr. Tilden
say that Mr. Kelly’s persistency finally controlled his decision, and
won his acquiescence. One of the leading delegates to the Convention of
1874 was Mr. William Purcell, editor of the _Rochester Union_. “To John
Kelly,” said Purcell editorially, shortly after the election, “more
than any other man does Governor Tilden owe his nomination and his
majority at the election. Governor Tilden was personally present at the
nominating convention, in close counsel with Mr. Kelly, than whom he
lauded no man higher for his personal honesty, his political integrity,
and his purity of purpose.”

Mr. Tilden was a constant visitor at Mr. Kelly’s house during this
period, and no two men could have evinced more respect and friendship
for each other. The last time Mr. Tilden attended a meeting in Tammany
Hall was at the election of Sachems on the third Monday of April, 1874.
The late Matthew T. Brennan and others ran an opposition or anti-Kelly
ticket, and so anxious was Mr. Tilden for the defeat of this movement
that he came down to the Wigwam, and took an active part in favor of
the regular ticket. He sat with Mr. Kelly, and when the result was
announced warmly congratulated him upon the victory.

In the latter part of January, 1875, a few weeks after Mr. Tilden’s
inauguration as Governor, the author spent a morning at his residence
in Gramercy Park, and there met ex-Governor Seymour and Mr. Kelly,
in company with Governor Tilden. The conversation of these three
distinguished men, in the abandon of social intercourse around the
hearthstone of Gramercy Park, was very agreeable and entertaining.
The author was an attentive listener and observer, and afterwards, on
the same day, wrote out in his diary his impressions of these three
celebrated New Yorkers. Although ten years have elapsed since those
impressions were written, they are here reproduced in the exact words
in which they were then put down in the diary, without the alteration
of a single sentence:

[Conversed with Messieurs Seymour, Tilden and Kelly at 15 Gramercy Park
to-day. Big fellows all of them, but entirely distinct types. Let me
see if I can depict them.

Horatio Seymour is a man well advanced in life, tall, well-shaped,
though rather spare in build, with a beaming open countenance, a
bright speaking eye, expressive mouth and a large nose. The marks
and lines of the face and forehead are deep and strong. His language
is quite Saxon in its selection and character, words of one or two
syllables prevailing. His expression of thought was clear enough to
be taken down by a stenographer as prepared utterances. His range of
subjects is large, and his treatment of each ready and versatile.
It is conversation all the time, not platform or stump-speaking.
The fault with him seems to be one which any person of such eminent
parts might be liable to—it is an occasional tendency to diffusion,
a Narcissus-like disposition to dwell on the shadow mirrored in the
wave; not vanity, but an introspective play of thought. His mental bent
is speculative, which perhaps accounts for his sometimes presenting a
thought under a great variety of aspects. He throws out an opinion, and
follows it up by a profusion of suggestive considerations. Instead,
however, of pausing after the stroke was dealt, he would now and again
keep on elaborating his points until the conversation began to expand
into a disquisition. The key remained conversational still, while the
range was widening. But let an interruption occur, and the ex-Governor
knew how to conclude with a hasty stroke or two. His descriptive power
is good, but not so good as his reach and closeness of observation into
general principles, and his capacity to grasp and develop causes and
effects. He is more of a philosopher than a delineator, and has humor
too, which draws the laugh at will.

Governor Tilden is a spare, close-cut man, of rather a nautical
appearance. You might mistake him in a crowd for a weather-beaten old
tar retired from the deck of a man-of-war, to enjoy a little needed
repose. His movements and quiet speech suggest the idea to a stranger
of a cold, formal, negative man, reticent, receptive, and not easily
to be enlisted in ordinary matters. Five minutes conversation with him
will suffice to upset such an opinion. First you will most probably be
struck with his eyes, which have an indefinable expression. It would
be spectral, if it were not now melancholy, and again indicative of a
womanly tenderness. There is a peculiar play in them which expresses
a great deal. His voice is low, and one might suppose, till he begins
to converse, that he is a better listener than talker. The forehead is
gnarled and concentrated, and on phrenological principles would not
indicate a marked presence of the intellectual faculties, considered
by itself; but if you draw an imaginary line from the tip of the ears
across the head, it is evident that the brain power from the brows
to this line is proportionately very large, and phrenologically very
strong. His nose is a decided aquiline, the mouth full but compressed,
and the chin prominent, and indicative of a marked preponderance of
the vital forces. His conversation is more nervous than Seymour’s,
but not so copious. He seems better pleased with the suggestion than
elaboration of ideas. He can, however, when you don’t want to talk but
to listen, throw an analytical strength into his expressions which
sustains his reputation for sagacity and vigor. Governor Tilden is
classical in diction. The right word is used all the time, although
not a shadow of art is perceptible in the language. He seems bent
on convincing you by what he has to say, and not by his manner of
saying it. His method of reasoning is logical and exhaustive, and yet
it is analytical and not synthetical. He leaves his listener to draw
conclusions. He is less given to generalization than to subtle methods
of mastering subjects. He has a quiet way of talking, and of saying
trenchant, sententious things. Governor Tilden strikes me as a man who
would be very slow to gain popularity by dash of manners or exterior
conduct, but as having grit in him, and a genius for accomplishing what
he undertakes. He is already named in several quarters as a prominent
Democratic candidate for the next Presidency.

John Kelly, leader of Tammany Hall, remains to be described. He is a
very different man from Seymour or Tilden. An English traveler once
heard Daniel Webster on the stump in an interior New England town. As
he gazed at “Black Dan” with his massy brows playing with ponderous
thought, and his great arm and big body swaying back and forth in
obedience to the ideas he was expressing, the first impression of the
Englishman was: “Why this man Webster, with his herculean frame and
sledge-hammer fist, would have proved the most formidable gladiator
that ever entered the arena—if Providence had not given him a still
bigger head than body. He is a magnificent creature considered as
an animal, but a still more magnificent man.” Kelly answers this
description. The New York _Herald_ once compared him to General
Grant on account of his quiet manners and reticence. He stands two
or three inches under six feet, weighs about two hundred and thirty
or forty pounds, is active and firm in step and movement, and from
his leonine aspect must be the envy of those who delight in the manly
art of self-defence. His forehead is massive and broad, with a wealth
of phrenological development; over his physiognomy are the lines of
decision and benevolence of character. The under jaw is large and
firmly set, imparting to his face an air of command and resolution. In
conversation he is modest and direct, and seldom speaks of himself.
That he is a man of action is at once revealed to the observer. He has
humor and a keen appreciation of the amusing side of human nature. His
manners are quiet and frank, but underneath there is discernible a
cool and commanding spirit. A mingled air of _bonhommie_ and sternness
proclaims to all that he knows how to command obedience as well as
respect, and if once fairly aroused no man can confront an enemy with
sterner mien, or more annihilation in his glance. Those who have seen
him in stormy public place, where such qualities alone avail, have
often witnessed this quiet man’s transformation into the fiery ruler of
his fellows.[64]]

The extraordinary victories of the Tammany Democracy for several years
after Mr. Kelly became its leader, at length aroused jealousies and
rivalries, and it began to look as though the successful leader had
enemies in Printing-house Square. Perhaps the editors thought they
should have been consulted more frequently in regard to nominations
and other matters, and perhaps Mr. Kelly made a mistake in not oftener
seeking their advice. At all events, an animated newspaper fire was
opened upon him in 1875. He was called a boss, a dictator; “one man
power” was furiously denounced; and so savage was this onslaught, that
if the editors had not modified their expressions after election,
and even begun again to speak handsomely of him, one might have
imagined that John Kelly was a veritable Ogre, a lineal successor
to Tweed, instead of the destroyer of Tweedism. But it was all only
a custom of the country at elections, and not an expression of the
editorial conscience. No man occupying a high place ever escapes these
fusillades; John Kelly formed no exception to the invariable rule.
At the election of that year the Tammany ticket was badly defeated.
Replying to these denunciations against the Tammany Chief, Mr. Abram
S. Hewitt, then Chairman of the General Committee of the Tammany
Democracy, made a speech, October 30, 1875, in the course of which he
said:

“The assertion that John Kelly is a dictator is an insult to Tammany
and its members. All organizations must have leaders, and no one but
John Kelly could have done the work that he has performed. The city
of New York owes to that calumniated man honors that statues could not
adequately pay. There is no desire in John Kelly’s breast so strong as
to be relieved from his present onerous position but if some one of
respectability was not found to do such labors, the city of New York
would be soon as uninhabitable as a den of wild beasts.”[65]

One of the shrewdest political observers who has figured during recent
years in New York politics, was the late Hugh J. Hastings, editor
of the _Commercial Advertiser_. As a Republican he was opposed to
Democrats, but he had the blunt candor to speak of John Kelly in the
following manner:

“On the ruins of Tweed rose Kelly, of Tammany Hall, and Tilden,
Hewitt, and Cooper joined his Court, and were numbered among his
legions. Under Kelly the condition of society has improved in the
city, and we might add the municipal government,—all know there was
great room for improvement. Kelly has ruled the fierce Democracy in
such a manner that life and property are comparatively safe. It is a
fearful responsibility to hold this wild element in check. Beasts of
burden may easily be managed by a new master. But will the wild ass
submit to the bonds? Will the unicorn serve and abide his crib? Will
the leviathan hold out his nostrils to the hook? The mythological
conqueror of the East, whose enchantments reduced wild beasts to the
tameness of domestic cattle, and who harnessed lions and tigers to his
chariot, is but an imperfect type of the man who can control the wild,
whiskey-drinking and fierce spirits that make up the worst elements
of this great city. It requires a great man to stand between the City
Treasury and this most dangerous mass. It demands courage, activity,
energy, wisdom, or vices so splendid and alluring as to resemble
virtues. Again we say, dethrone Kelly, and where is the man to succeed
him?”[66]

The spirit of faction, the curse of New York politics from the
beginning of the century, was again distracting the Democratic party.
New York and Albany are natural political antagonists, as were Carthage
and Rome of old.

The Constitutional Conventions of 1821 and 1846, by enlarging the
elective features of government, had greatly relieved New York, and
greatly diminished the power of the Albany Regency, but the love of
power is inbred in man, and special legislation at the State capital
still holds the giant metropolis in political leading strings. During
Mr. Tilden’s administration as Governor, he and his old friend Mr.
Kelly became involved in unfortunate differences as leaders of rival
wings of the Democratic party of the State. It were useless here to
recapitulate the story of this disastrous breach between two statesmen
who had done so much when acting together to purify the public service;
each occupying the place he held at the wish, and by the powerful
assistance of the other; Kelly in Tammany at Tilden’s urgent request,
and Tilden called back from Europe by a cable dispatch from Kelly to
run for Governor of New York. It were worse than useless to revive the
bitter memories of the strife. Let them be buried in oblivion. A few
weeks before the St. Louis Convention in 1876, Mr. Tilden called upon
Mr. Kelly, and talked over old times. Before leaving, the Governor
humorously remarked:

“Now John, you are my sponsor, or political godfather. You found me
not inclined to take any office two years ago, and you insisted that
I should take the nomination for Governor. No matter what differences
may have arisen since, remember John, you are my sponsor.” Mr.
Kelly smiled, but was non-committal. But that visit, and graceful
reminiscence of a happier day in their political lives did its work
well. Let the brilliant Philadelphia editor, Alexander McClure, tell
the sequel. In a letter to his paper from St. Louis, announcing Mr.
Tilden’s nomination for the Presidency, Mr. McClure said:

“The work of the Convention was then done, but it was electrified by
the appearance on the main aisle of the full-moon, Irish face of John
Kelly, the Anti-Tilden Tammany Sachem. Those who hissed and howled at
him yesterday, now greeted him with thunders of approval, and called
him to the platform. When he appeared there a whisper could have
been heard in any part of the hall, and when he gave in his adhesion
to Tilden and Hendricks, and pledged his best efforts for their
election, he was crowned and welcomed as the returning prodigal of the
household.”[67]

Right nobly did John Kelly keep that pledge. Rutherford B. Hayes came
in from the rural districts of New York 30,000 ahead of Samuel J.
Tilden. When he reached the Harlem River he found that Tammany Hall
had given Mr. Tilden 54,000 majority in the city of New York, and had
wrested the Empire State from the Republicans. President-elect Tilden
sent a message of congratulation on that memorable election night to
John Kelly, and his warmest salutations to the invincible tribe of
Saint Tammany, as “the right wing of the Democratic Army.”

By changing dates and names, it will be found that Mr. Kelly’s services
in the Cleveland campaign of 1884 were an exact repetition of his
services in 1876. He gave the same loyal support to Grover Cleveland
that he had given to Samuel J. Tilden. He held his forces in hand
magnificently, and if the high honor may be attributed to any one man
of carrying New York through the most desperate conflict ever waged
within her borders, safely out of the very jaws of defeat, to the
Democratic column, that honor belongs to Honest John Kelly. To save
Grover Cleveland, Kelly sacrificed every man on his local ticket, every
dear friend who bore the Tammany standards on that eventful day, which
decided the destinies of the United States for the next four years.

When John Kelly was appointed Comptroller of the City of New York by
Mayor Wickham, in 1876, the debt of the municipality which had been
uniformly accumulating under his predecessors until it reached over a
hundred million of dollars, was first arrested in its upward course,
and brought into a line of rapid reduction. In four brief years he had
reduced the debt $12,000,000, thus justifying the encomiums of the
press at the time of his accession to the office. The New York _Herald_
of December 8, 1876, the day after his appointment, said editorially:

“Mr. Kelly will make a very good Comptroller. He has firmness, honesty
and business capacity. He is the right man in the right place, and a
great improvement on Mr. Green. He will guard the treasury just as
jealously as the present Comptroller, without being impracticable,
litigious and obstructive. The people of New York will be satisfied
with Mr. Kelly.”

The New York _World_ of the same date, after dwelling editorially upon
his great ability, said:

“Mr. Kelly’s honesty and integrity are unquestioned, even by his
bitterest political opponents. He is a native of New York city.
Beginning life as a mechanic, by his energy and industry he very soon
made himself a manufacturer and a merchant. He sat for one term in the
Board of Aldermen, and was twice elected to Congress. At Washington he
handled questions of national importance with ability and decorum, and
by the force of his native good sense soon took rank above many men
who had more experience than he in the national councils. He is best
known to New Yorkers of the present day as the leader of the Tammany
organization, as the man who took hold of that ancient society after
it had been deservedly defeated, disgraced and overthrown under the
management of members of the old Ring. He reorganized it, filled it
with new life, and weeded out the men who helped to bring reproach
upon it. The property-holders and taxpayers of this city are to be
congratulated that the administration of their financial affairs has
fallen into such worthy hands, and will be entrusted to a man of Mr.
Kelly’s perspicacious brain and known probity.”

The New York _Evening Express_, of the same date, referred to Mr.
Kelly’s eminent fitness for the office, and to his services in the
election of Mr. Tilden to the Presidency, and said, editorially:
“Speaking in a political sense only, Mr. Kelly has well earned this
office, and even a higher one, for to him more than any other man is
the credit due for the immense Democratic majority in this city, which
gave the state to Governor Tilden.”

The New York _Sun_, of the same date, said editorially:

“Mr. Kelly is an honest and capable man, willing to do a great deal
of hard work, well fitted to look after the important and varied
business of his office, and the financial interests of the city. He is
the most popular man of the party that governs this city, and stands
well with the community at large. He will make a good Comptroller.
When the nomination of Governor Tilden was made in St. Louis Mr.
Kelly promised to do all in his power to insure the success of the
people’s choice. During the campaign Mr. Kelly’s labors were arduous
and continuous. He gave time and strength and money, and even deferred
his marriage until the fight should be over. That Mr. Kelly might have
secured the Mayoralty or any other local office for himself, had he so
desired, is no secret. That he was urged against his will to take the
Comptrollership is asserted by his friends as a fact.”

An interesting event in Mr. Kelly’s life is incidentally alluded to by
Mr. Dana in the preceding article from the _Sun_. This was his second
marriage, which took place on the 21st of November, 1876. His wife is
an accomplished lady in every sense of the word, the good helpmeet,
such as the Scripture describes. The following, account of the wedding,
is taken from the New York _World_:

“As announced in _The World_ of yesterday, promptly at the hour of 8 in
the morning, the ceremonies began that were to end in the marriage of
Mr. John Kelly to Miss Teresa Mullen, a niece of Cardinal McCloskey.
About 7.30 the very few who were to participate in the event assembled
at Cardinal McCloskey’s house in Madison avenue, where, in the private
chapel of His Eminence, the marriage was to take place. This alone was
a compliment of the highest order in Church etiquette, doubtless owing
to the relationship of the bride to His Eminence. The little company
invited to witness the ceremony was gathered together in the parlor of
the mansion. The party consisted, besides Mr. Kelly, of Mr. Francis D.
Cleary, brother-in-law of the bride; Mr. Edward L. Donnelly, Colonel
George W. Wingate, and Mr. Kelly’s nephew, Hugh Kelly. Above stairs
was assembled the bride with her two sisters, Mrs. Francis D. Cleary
and Miss Mullen. At the hour appointed the Rev. Father Farley made
his appearance at the parlor door, and announced that all was ready.
The gentlemen at once arose and proceeded to the chapel on the third
floor, Mr. Kelly and Father Farley being last. On the way to the chapel
Mr. Kelly was joined by the bride, and, arm in arm, the couple slowly
passed up to the double _Prie-Dieu_, before the altar under the escort
of Father Farley. Meantime all had taken their respective positions in
the beautiful little chapel, in the order peculiar to Catholic Church
etiquette. All knelt in silent prayer for some few moments, when the
venerable Cardinal made his appearance, preceded by the Rev. Father
Farley, Very Rev. Vicar-General Quinn, and one handsome little boy
dressed like a miniature Cardinal, who acted as candle-bearer to His
Eminence.

“The Cardinal in his scarlet robes then took his place before the
altar, with the Vicar-General to his right, and Father Farley and the
acolyte to his left. Immediately behind His Eminence knelt the future
husband and wife, side by side. After a moment’s silent prayer the
Cardinal began the services. Laying off the mozetta, the Vicar-General
and Father Farley enrobed His Eminence. The amice, alb, cincture,
pectoral cross, stole, cope and mitre having been placed upon his head
and shoulders, the Cardinal turned to perform the marriage ceremony.
The vestments worn were white and gold. The ring was blessed, and the
Cardinal said: ‘John Kelly, do you take this woman to be your lawful
wife?’

‘I do.’

‘Do you promise to love and cherish her until death?’

‘I do.’ And so likewise vowed Teresa Mullen to love and honor John
Kelly until death.

“A few more prayers, and His Eminence turned from the kneeling couple,
leaving them man and wife. The crozier, mitre and cope were laid aside;
and His Eminence, putting on the chasuble, commenced the nuptial Mass,
_pro sponsis_. The gospel of the Mass is the recital of the marriage of
Canaan, when Christ changed the water into wine. The Mass progressed
slowly to the communion, when the newly-married received the Sacrament.
Just after the _Pater Noster_, the two kneeling on the step of the
altar, His Eminence read from the missal, with mitre on head, the long
prayer imploring from God harmony and peace in the domestic relations
of the newly-married, and praying that if God should bless them with
children, they might be brought up in the fear of the Lord. This over,
the Mass soon ended. After the Mass the little congregation and the
clergy withdrew, leaving the Cardinal, and Mr. and Mrs. Kelly together.
A few kind words of encouragement, and advice, and congratulations
were administered by the Cardinal; and, while he remained to say a few
prayers, Mr. and Mrs. Kelly joined their friends, and received their
well wishes.”

       *       *       *       *       *

In concluding this volume the author regrets that he has not found room
for more of Mr. Kelly’s speeches. They are all full of good sense, and
occasionally they display a high order of eloquence. The present plan
did not admit of their introduction. One, however, must be included, as
it illustrates the witty side of his character, and was spoken of by
those who heard it as a very happy after-dinner speech. It was made
before the Lotos Club, January 11, 1879, at the dinner given to Mayor
Cooper, soon after that gentleman had entered upon his duties as Mayor
of the city of New York.

The following is the report in the _Herald_ of January 12, 1879:

“The seating capacity of the large dining room of the Lotos Club was
taxed to the utmost last evening. Mayor Cooper, and the retiring Mayor,
Smith Ely, Jr., being the guests of the club. About ninety members and
guests found seats at the tables, and nearly as many more, who were
present during the delivery of the speeches, had to content themselves
with standing room. Mr. Whitelaw Reid, president of the club, presided
at the middle table, and at the heads of the upper and lower tables,
respectively, sat the vice-presidents, Noah Brooks and Dr. Charles J.
Pardee. Among the persons present as members or guests were Postmaster
James, Chauncey M. Depew, Augustus Schell, John Kelly, Judge Noah
Davis, Robert B. Roosevelt, Peter Cooper, Charles H. Chapin, Paul Du
Chaillu, Dr. Isaac I. Hayes, Colonel Thomas W. Knox, George Osgood,
Frederick B. Noyes, Moses Mitchell, Drs. Hammond, Arnold and Callen,
and General Barnum.


COMPTROLLER KELLY’S SPEECH.

Mr. Kelly was very cordially greeted when, in answer to a pressing
call for ‘a few words,’ he rose to speak.

“_Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Lotos Club:_— I have read
frequently in the papers of the Lotos Club, but never before had even
the honor to know where it met after it left Irving Place, and when
asking to-night where the Lotos Club was, I was informed that it was
directly opposite the Union Club. I do not know what progress the Lotos
Club has made in life since its organization, but certainly you are at
a point in this city—on Fifth avenue—where they say the aristocracy
live. If this is a specimen of the aristocracy I am entirely content to
mix with them at all times. (Applause and laughter). As the president
of the Club has said, you have a mixture here of all kinds, and that
political discussions are never brought among you. I will say that that
is a very friendly state of society when you can come together and talk
of everything but politics. I have always noticed in life, particularly
in public affairs, that the first topic broached was politics, and it
usually commenced by abusing somebody. (Laughter). Now that has been
my misfortune. I got along very well in my early political life. I had
very little said against me, but I found after a few years that I was
about as bad a fellow in the estimation of some people as could be
found in this community, or any other. (Laughter). But it don’t worry
me a bit. (Laughter). I have got to that state of mind that I feel
if a man is conscious that he is trying to do his best, as well as he
can understand it, he need care very little what may be said about
him. (Applause). A man’s conscience should at all times be his master.
(Applause). Now, I do not think that politics should be brought into
discussion here. Mayor Cooper has a very important duty to perform.
Probably he can hardly realize yet the amount of labor he must go
through, and no man can tell until he gets into the Mayor’s office.
I suppose our friend Ely here, when he first entered on his duties,
considered it a light place, but he was not there long before he saw
that the labor was immense. I do not mean to say that the intellectual
labor is immense, but the responsibility connected with the office. I
am exceedingly anxious, so far as I am concerned, that Mayor Cooper’s
administration may be successful. (Loud applause.) Mayor Cooper is not
the representative of a party; he leaves the party behind him. And he
undoubtedly will be successful, because I sincerely believe that he
has the full interest of the people at heart, and that he will do his
best to serve them. (Applause.) I have said so since his election,
and I said so before his election. People have various opinions about
parties. Our friend Reid here sometimes scolds, but probably if he
knew the truth he would not say such things about public officers as
he does. (Laughter.) I do not mean to say that he will allow himself
to be prejudiced or biased, but he will get a notion in his head, and
say, ‘That fellow is not doing right, and I will take him to task for
it,’ and so he goes at it. (Laughter.) Mayor Cooper now has the support
of the press of this city, but he will probably find that before the
end of his term the press will begin to find fault with him. Then
Mayor Cooper will say, ‘I have not done anything in particular that I
know of that they should abuse me. Damn the fellow; I will go and see
him.’ (Great laughter.) I do not mean to say that Mr. Cooper will do
that either, because he is a very sensible man, but I know that our
friend Ely did it repeatedly. (Great laughter.) I have often gone into
his office after he came in in the morning. He had read the papers at
home, and was full of them. Down he comes to the office, slaps his hat
on his head, and off he goes to the _Times_. The _Times_ man tells
him, ‘Well, we will look into this thing.’ (Laughter.) He has not got
a satisfactory answer from the _Times_, and off he starts for our
friend of the _Tribune_. Then Mr. Reid says, ‘Well, Mr. Ely, I don’t
know; there are various opinions about this matter. I cannot give you
a positive answer about it. I will look into the thing, and let you
know.’ (Laughter.) So, Ely goes the rounds. Back he comes disconsolate.
He says, ‘I have seen all these fellows of the press, and they are
all alike, they are abusing me for nothing. They can’t do that. I
have been in the leather business, and I refer them to that trade.
Go and ask Schultz; go and ask any fellow down in the Swamp whether
I ever took anything that didn’t belong to me.’ (Laughter.) Then he
becomes a philosopher and says, ‘What is the use of talking? They are
only one man. Each controls his paper, and has individual opinions.
The ‘boys’ are with me. (Loud laughter.) I will throw myself on the
‘boys.’ (Renewed laughter.) ‘They can say what they please about me.’
After a few days pass down he comes to the office again, and says,
‘The _Times_ is raising the devil this morning,’ and so the thing goes
on. (Laughter.) Now, gentlemen, I will say this. You have a very large
city. Some people in public office must be censured. It is necessary,
probably, sometimes that they should be, for it often has a beneficial
effect. There is a large number of people who will say that there has
been no reform in the city government, and will never take the trouble
to find out whether there is or not. During the time Mayor Ely has been
in office great progress has been made; but I venture to say that,
while the debt of the city has been reduced $6,300,000 inside of two
years, by the end of the term of the present Mayor, if things should
continue in the same way, as there is no reason why they should not,
you will find that the debt will have been reduced from $3,000,000 to
$4,000,000. (Applause.) That will be an accomplishment of $10,000,000
inside of four years. (Applause.) Yes; I venture to say that if I
remain in office—whatever has occurred, let that pass; I do not refer
to it—but if he and I work together in the interests of the city, the
debt in the next two years will be reduced $8,000,000. (Applause.)
I wish Mayor Cooper all the success in public life that any friend
of his can wish him, and I assure him and his friends that so far as
the official business of this city is concerned, there will be no
disagreement between us on matters which are really in the interest of
the people. (Long continued applause.)

Speeches were made during the evening by Dr. Isaac I. Hayes, Chauncey
M. Depew, Robert B. Roosevelt and Judge Noah Davis.”

       *       *       *       *       *

As this volume goes to press Mr. Kelly, who has been indisposed
recently, is again recovering his health. His severe labors in the
recent Presidential campaign brought on an attack of his old trouble of
insomnia. He is now steadily improving, and rides horseback for one or
two hours every day. Referring to his sickness, the New York _Times_ of
December 12, 1884, contained the following remarks:

“The substantial shoes of Mr. John Kelly stand unoccupied in Mr.
Kelly’s Sixty-ninth street mansion, and their owner is taking all the
ease which ill-health and restlessness will admit of. Those shoes are
the object of a great deal of attention. In all the 50,000 voters in
the Tammany Hall organization, there is not one fit to succeed him as
the head of the party.”

       *       *       *       *       *

The _Times_ might have added that there is no one in Tammany Hall who
desires to succeed Mr. Kelly, and that he has held the leadership of
that ancient organization nearly five times as long as any other leader
in the whole history of Tammany. But there are other men of no mean
ability in the ranks of that organization. They are all the friends,
and not the rivals, of the subject of this memoir.

The chief events of John Kelly’s past life are, at least in outline,
now before the reader. The task which the author set out to perform is
discharged, to tell the truth about a distinguished citizen, and to let
him speak for himself, both in his public and private career, during
the past forty years.

       *       *       *       *       *

Mrs. Kelly, and two bright little children, a daughter and son, have
brought the sunlight back again to John Kelly’s home, where, after this
imperfect sketch of his remarkable career, we leave him a happy man,
and an honored citizen.


FOOTNOTES:

[53] _New York World_, Oct. 18, 1875.

[54] _New York Herald_, November 19, 1868.

[55] Life of S. J. Tilden, by T. P. Cook, p. 101.

[56] _New York Herald_, November 20, 1868.

[57] _New York Herald_, November 22, 1868.

[58] Life of S. J. Tilden, by T. P. Cook, p. 121.

[59] A Description of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, p. 37.

[60] Extract from a recent letter of Bishop Ireland to the author.

[61] Niles’s Register, Vol. 16, p. 28.

[62] Niles’s Register, Vol. 17, pp. 387-8.

[63] Life of S. J. Tilden, by T. P. Cook, p. 129.

[64] Extract from Author’s Diary for 1875.

[65] New York _Herald_, October 31, 1875.

[66] _New York Commercial Advertiser_, November 20, 1878.

[67] _Philadelphia Times_, June 30, 1876.



THE END.



  Transcriber’s Notes

  pg v Changed: gratify this curioisity
            to: gratify this curiosity

  pg 44 Changed: attemps to stifle the voice
             to: attempts to stifle the voice

  pg 49 Changed: upon a confinding people
             to: upon a confiding people

  pg 57 Changed: in the colums of at least
             to: in the columns of at least

  pg 59 Changed: the oppresssd were wiped away
             to: the oppressed were wiped away

  pg 62 Changed: the waterfall murmering
             to: the waterfall murmuring

  pg 124 Changed: the teritorial legislation known
              to: the territorial legislation known

  pg 171 Changed: been working in a conmon
              to: been working in a common

  pg 180 Changed: render this movemont effective
              to: render this movement effective

  pg 190 Changed: month of March, 1550
              to: month of March, 1850

  pg 190 Changed: United States will never entruss
              to: United States will never entrust

  pg 221 Changed: figured so conpicuously under
              to: figured so conspicuously under

  pg 258 Changed: respective politcal parties
              to: respective political parties

  pg 263 Changed: the world doats on
              to: the world dotes on

  The accents on resumè and nèe, and the open single quotation mark
  before ‘What is the use ... on page 307, were printed that way.




*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The life and times of John Kelly, tribune of the people" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.