Ohio History Journal

THE LONG MEMORY OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE     by DONALD WALTER CURL   Shortly after his inauguration in March 1889, President Benjamin Har- rison sent to the Republican-controlled Senate a list of nominees for first class diplomatic appointments. Among those named were Robert Todd Lincoln, the former president's son, to London; Frederick D. Grant, an- other former president's son, to Vienna; Allen T. Rice, the publisher, to St. Petersburg; Whitelaw Reid, of the New York Tribune, to Paris; and Murat Halstead, editor of the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, to Berlin. The list, according to the New York Times, was rather dull, "but... re- spectable."1 All of these nominees were confirmed for their posts by the Senate, with the exception of Murat Halstead. In a rare departure from precedent, members of the President's own party refused to give their advice and consent to one of Harrison's nomi- nees for a major diplomatic post. It was rarer still since Halstead was the editor of an outstanding Republican newspaper, a friend and adviser of the President, a confidant of former president Rutherford B. Hayes, an intimate of James G. Blaine, the newly appointed Secretary of State, and a man considered in his own right as a power within the party. Finally, the appointment was thought by some to be one of the best that the President had made. Halstead spoke German, had numerous friendships among German-Americans, and knew the German nation well. He had been in   NOTES ARE ON PAGES 172-173

• 1
 

104                                                OHIO HISTORY

 

Paris at the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War, and when the French

government would not allow him to accompany its troops as a war cor-

respondent, he had crossed over into Germany by way of Switzerland. In

contrast to the French, the Germans welcomed him to accompany their

army. He was personally greeted by Bismarck, who told him how important

he thought it was that Americans have a true picture of the war and was

invited by the Chancellor to mess at the King's headquarters. Later Hal-

stead and his family had traveled extensively in the new Germany, and

one of the editor's daughters had been sent there to school. Why then, con-

sidering the reasonableness of the appointment and Halstead's German

contacts, did the Senate refuse to confirm him in his post?

To understand the action taken by the Senate it is necessary to go

back to 1885 and the Ohio senatorial election of that year. In the fall

elections of 1884 the Democrats had captured both houses of the General

Assembly and thus would name the new United States senator. George

Pendleton, the incumbent, was a distinguished Democrat, but he had fallen

out of favor with the leaders of the party in the state. Henry B. Payne,

a seventy-four year old former Congressman and the father of the treasurer

of the Standard Oil Company, was promoted to succeed Pendleton by John

McLean, the publisher of the Democratic Cincinnati Enquirer and a bitter

business rival of Halstead and his Commercial Gazette.³

Even before the General Assembly had convened, Halstead claimed

Standard Oil money was being used to buy the election for Payne. If just

"one/one hundred part" of the stories he heard were correct, he declared,

money was flowing on a grand scale. He therefore demanded an investigation

before the election. But the legislature refused to investigate the allegations

and chose Payne for the seat in the Senate.4

Halstead occasionally mentioned in his editorials the election that had

swung "on hinges of gold," but no official action was taken until 1886,

when the Republican party regained control of the Ohio House. A Commercial

Gazette article implicated several representatives in the alleged election fraud

and a House committee was formed to investigate the charges.⁵ The com-

mittee produced no legal proof of bribery, but the inability of witnesses to

remember events of less than two years before and the skill that prospective

witnesses showed in dodging the committee's subpoenas convinced the mem-

bers that their findings should be sent to the United States Senate for action.6

In an editorial Halstead reported that even though charges that over a quarter

of a million dollars had been spent to secure Payne's election were made,

the Senate would probably refuse to investigate. He personally felt that

"Payne is guilty, or he is innocent.... The way to settle it is through the

Courts, and the Court in this case is the U. S. Senate."⁷

As had been predicted, the Committee on Privileges and Elections of

the Senate held secret hearings, but by a seven to two vote decided against

an investigation of the charges. Three Republican Senators, William M.

Evarts of New York, John A. Logan of Illinois, and Henry M. Teller of

• 2
 

THE LONG MEMORY                                                 105

 

Colorado, joined with the four Democrats on the committee in this de-

cision. The report of the majority cited lack of evidence as the reason for

the rejection. Senator Logan claimed that while there was some evidence

that money might have been used in the Ohio Democratic caucus to secure

Payne's nomination, no evidence had been presented of money being used

in the election itself. He and the committee reasoned that the Senate had

no power to investigate the party caucus.8

A minority report was issued by Republican Senators William P. Frye

of Maine and George F. Hoar of Massachusetts who demanded the Senate

reject the majority's decision. Senator Hoar claimed that failure to in-

vestigate would declare that in the future Senate seats were "subject of

bargain and sale, or may be presented by a few millionaires as a compliment

to a friend." Both Senators rose in the Senate to defend their report and to

attack the power they felt the Standard Oil Company had over some of

their colleagues. Halstead also mentioned that he had heard rumors that

Standard Oil lawyers had been "hanging around... doing dirty work." The

editor even intimated that Evarts, Logan, and Teller had been paid for

their committee vote. This "rottenness in high places," he thundered, would

follow the three Senators to "the end of the days of their life as public men."9

Most critics of the Committee's report did not go as far as the minority

Senators or Halstead, but took the position that the Senate should reject the

report so as to dispel rumors of corruption. The New York Times as-

serted that, "If the Senate were in the least sensitive to imputations upon

its honor it would not permit the Committee's decision to be final."¹⁰ John

Sherman, as a Representative of Ohio, stressed the idea that the people

of his state felt there had been "gross corruption" and had requested the

investigation. If the Senate refused, the suspicions of the Ohioans would

remain.11

Nonetheless, on July 23, 1886, the Republican-controlled Senate, by a

vote of forty-four to seventeen, and with fifteen Republicans voting for

the report, adopted the motion of the majority of the committee. The

Senate had decided not to investigate Payne's election.¹2

Halstead's answer to the upper chamber's decision was to draw up a

"Black List" of Republicans who had voted for the majority report and

against an investigation. These he characterized as "millionaires, servants

of corporations, Logan men, and corruptionists," and he claimed they had

not the "slightest regard for the honor of the Senate or of purity of politics."

His list included: Jonathan Chace of Rhode Island, Shelby Cullom and

John Logan of Illinois, William Evarts and Warner Miller of New York,

John Ingalls and Preston B. Plumb of Kansas, John P. Jones of Nevada,

Harrison H. Riddleberger of Virginia, Philetus Sawyer of Wisconsin, William

Sewell of New Jersey, Henry Teller of Colorado, and Charles H. Van Wyck

of Nebraska.13

Many newspapers in Ohio and across the country, both Democratic and

Republican, denounced the Senate for the action taken and questioned

• 3
 

106                                                OHIO HISTORY

 

the ethics of the three Republican Senators of the committee. Senators

Evarts and Logan decided it was necessary to defend themselves. Senator

Evarts likened the combined voices of the editors to a "crow carnival" and

said, "They all speak at the same time, and they all say the same thing.

They have a greater power of assertion, but great poverty of argument."14

All the Senator had proved to Halstead by his speech was that he could

be "solemn and dreary for a couple of hours and say as little that anyone

cares about as anybody in the world."15

Halstead had been one of the most persistent of the critics of Payne's

election. He had been instrumental in persuading the Ohio legislature to

initiate the investigation in the first place, and he had taken his harangues

against the Republican Senators farther than any of the other editors;

thus when Senator Logan rose to speak, he was much more direct than

Evarts had been and his anger was turned towards the Cincinnati editor.

The Illinois Senator opened his talk by saying his friends had warned him

that he would be "ground to dust" if he attacked the Commercial Gazette,

but that he was not going to attack it, only read from it. He then read

from Halstead's most intemperate, and in general self-repudiated, editorials.

The Senate heard that the editor had once thought General Sherman in-

sane, General Grant a drunkard, Lincoln a no-account, and James G. Blaine

a "sort of broker" in railroad stocks. Logan was able to provoke a great

deal of laughter in the chamber when he commented that he never dreamed

he was a "big enough man" to be attacked by the Commercial Gazette, and

that he deemed it an honor and a compliment to be placed in such illustrious

company.16

The Commercial Gazette answered in an editorial entitled "The Shame of

the Senate and the Lamentable Logan." Claiming that the Ohio Republican

editors were opening their own investigation, the article continued:

It was, we are afraid we must say, simply a vulgarity in the Senator

to be so loud and furious about what Mr. Halstead of the Commercial

Gazette had done, and to follow the beaten track of the boodle black-

guards who have been yelling for years precisely the maliciousness that

the Senator roared.17

General H. V. Boynton, Halstead's Washington correspondent, suggested

an inquiry into Logan's financial dealings. He claimed that former Ohio

governor Charles P. Foster had organized a new oil company in association

with Standard Oil and had let Logan in on the "ground floor" before the

committee had made its report. Boynton thought that a list of stockholders

in Foster's company would show Logan's name and arouse public opinion

to demand the Senate act.18 Nothing was done at the time, but later Foster

told Halstead that, while his company was in association with Standard

Oil, he had never acted as the Standard's agent in the Payne matter. In

fact, he claimed that the officers of Standard Oil were all Republicans, with

the exception of the younger Payne, and would have been glad to have

seen the Senator defeated in his election bid.¹⁹

• 4
 

THE LONG MEMORY                                                   107

 

There were sporadic newspaper attempts to keep the issue of Payne's

election alive over the next few years, but public opinion seemed to accept

the Senate's lack of action as the end of the matter. Halstead and the other

Ohio Republican editors were looking ahead to the presidential election

in 1888, and they found in President Cleveland a much better target for

their assaults than Senator Payne. Thus the incident seemed to be forgot-

ten, but, unfortunately for Halstead, the Senators criticized in the Com-

mercial Gazette were going to prove to have long memories.

During the 1884 election campaign Halstead had edited a New York

City special newspaper, the Extra, for Blaine and the Republican party.

In 1888 his first choice for the Republican presidential nomination was

again the Maine Republican, but when the two had met in Germany in

the summer of 1887, Blaine had insisted that his health would not allow

him to be a candidate. Thus Halstead shifted his loyalty to Ohio's senior

senator, John Sherman.²⁰

When the Republican convention opened in Chicago in June 1888, Sher-

man led the hopefuls in strength, but the Blaine forces were hostile to

the Ohioan; and after a weekend of intrigue and behind-the-scene bargaining,

Benjamin Harrison received the nomination.²¹ Halstead had known Har-

rison since 1848, when both were students at College Hill's Farmers' Col-

lege. While the relationship between the two men had never been extremely

close, they had remained friends over the years and Halstead had supported

Harrison in his Indiana political campaigns. Thus when the convention

made its decision, the editor immediately telegraphed his personal con-

gratulations, and wrote a strong editorial endorsing the candidate. General

Harrison, Halstead declared, was one of the men who saved the Union

and thus "transmitted the glorious heritage which the HARRISON family

helped create, to generations yet to come."²²

The Cincinnati editor was active during the campaign encouraging the

candidate, advising Blaine, who had returned from Europe to tour for

the party, and writing strong pro-Harrison editorials for his newspaper

and for national distribution. He was able to "wave the Bloody Shirt"

much more effectively in 1888 than he had four years previously, since

he could compare Harrison's war record to Cleveland's hiring of a sub-

stitute. When President Cleveland's partisans claimed he had been a factor

in producing a new spirit in the South, the editor scoffed that "the Leopard

can not change his spots, and the narrow-minded, tyrannical, vote-sup-

pressing Bourbonism of Dixie crops out once in a while.^"23 Halstead felt

that the election, as in 1884, would turn on the vote of New York and

Indiana and that the National Committee was not being liberal enough

in its Hoosier spending. He therefore suggested that campaign funds col-

lected in Hamilton County be sent directly to the Indiana state commit-

tee. At the same time he cautioned Harrison not to expect large contribu-

tions from Cincinnati, as many local businessmen had pledged their re-

sources to the success of the Cincinnati Centennial Exposition and thus

had to curtail their other spending.²⁴

• 5
 

108                                                 OHIO HISTORY

 

On the day after the election Halstead telegraphed his congratulations

to the new President-elect: "Victory worthily won.... Honor and fame and

glory and the confidence and congratulations of millions are yours."²⁵ The

editor also had advice to give Harrison on the composition of his cabinet.

He told him that Blaine wished to be made Secretary of State and that he

too felt the former candidate should be included in the cabinet.²⁶ The

editor wrote later that he did not believe any Ohio men should be appointed.

John Sherman was the man most often mentioned for a cabinet post, but

Halstead declared this was merely a double-purpose scheme to crowd

Blaine out as well as to create a vacancy in the Senate for the Ohio General

Assembly to fill. Sherman, he said, would rather stay in the Senate.27 On

the other hand, Halstead, as a loyal son of Ohio, suggested facetiously,

a cabinet composed entirely of men of his state: John Sherman, Secretary

of State; Joseph B. Foraker, Secretary of War; Charles Foster, Postmaster

General; Charles H. Grosvenor, Secretary of the Navy; Mark Hanna, Sec-

retary of the Interior; William McKinley, Secretary of the Treasury; and

Benjamin Butterworth, Attorney General. He suggested this highly un-

orthodox cabinet because when Garfield, in 1881, had been driven to dis-

traction attempting to fill his cabinet, he had told the editor, "Confound

it, if I could make a cabinet entirely of Ohio men I could get up a right

good one, and I believe I would in that way beat anything I could do by

going outside.^"28

Halstead feared that his long letters of advice might bore the President-

elect, but Harrison wrote that he would not "consent on any terms to be

without your occasional letters... which throw a gleam of sunshine across

a sky that is otherwise dark." Besides, he said he occasionally discovered

"a vein of thought and valuable suggestions" in the editor's letters. More-

over, Harrison mentioned that he had been unable to write his inaugural

address and hinted that he might like some help from a "well equipped

newspaperman."²⁹

Many people wrote to Halstead asking him to use his influence and

friendship with Harrison to gain them appointments to various government

positions. B. W. Chidlaw, an old teacher of the editor, wished to be made

a visitor to West Point. Halstead answered that this was such a "modest

ambition" that he was sure it could be granted, but when another man re-

quested his aid in securing the post of minister to Belgium, he answered

that it was impossible, as "the habit of the administrations has been to

reserve Belgium for millionaires.^"30 Halstead did urge the candidacy of

Whitelaw Reid, his old friend and fellow newspaper publisher, for the post

of minister to England.31

When the new President announced the appointments to his cabinet

after the inauguration, Halstead found his advice had been taken in several

cases. Blaine led the list as Secretary of State and no Ohioan had been ap-

pointed, though on the death of William Windom in 1891, Charles Foster

was given his post as Secretary of the Treasury. Also, as the editor had

recommended, when the President sent his nominations to the Senate for

• 6
 

THE LONG MEMORY                                                 109

 

first class foreign missions, Whitelaw Reid was included, but as Minister

to France, not England. While not discussed in the Halstead-Harrison cor-

respondence but only rumored in the press for about a week before hand,

the nominee for the post of Minister to Germany was to be the Cincinnati

editor, Murat Halstead.³²

Harrison by this nomination was repaying a campaign debt, but Halstead

also was eager for the German appointment, as he was in poor health and

believed a few years in Europe and away from the everyday worries of

the journalistic world might act as a restorative. Moreover, the Commercial

Gazette was in financial difficulties and the editor's policies were under

attack by both his associates and his creditors. Halstead's anti-southern

editorials, which he had started after Blaine's defeat in 1884 and continued

through the 1888 election, had angered Cincinnati businessmen who had

recently completed the twenty million dollar Cincinnati Southern Railroad

in an attempt to regain from that region some of the trade that had been

lost since the war. In fact, it was rumored that salesmen from St. Louis,

Louisville, and Chicago carried issues of the Commercial Gazette to show

southern businessmen in order to woo their trade from Cincinnati houses.³³

Thus the German post would allow the Cincinnatian to make a graceful

exit from a generally bad situation.

On March 28 the Senate, in executive session, received the report of

the Foreign Relations Committee on the first class diplomatic nominations.

According to the New York Times, Payne, a member of the committee,

had not been informed of the meeting, and so all nominations were re-

ported favorably and without committee fight, but later, on a motion to

confirm, six Republicans voted with the Democrats to reject Halstead.

Sherman, acting both as majority leader of the Senate and as a friend of

the Cincinnati editor, realized that a number of his Republican colleagues

were ready to vote against Halstead and so had prepared his strategy. When

the result of the vote was announced, he immediately moved for reconsid-

eration. With the chance gone of using the Republican majority to push

the confirmation through, the majority leader began a series of delaying

tactics designed to give Halstead's Democratic friends, among them Henry

Watterson of the Louisville Courier Journal, time to change a few votes

among the Senators of their party.³⁴

During the debate that followed Sherman's motion, the objections to

the editor's nomination were disclosed. As might be imagined, almost all

of them stemmed from the Commercial Gazette's attacks on the Senate

and on the Republican Senators who had voted against the Payne inquiry.

The Senate adjourned for the day before the vote to reconsider could be

taken.35

The next day the upper chamber devoted almost three hours in executive

session to Halstead's case. Two speeches were made in his favor, and

Senators Stewart, Teller, Evarts, and Payne spoke in opposition. Both

Evarts and Stewart argued that Halstead's temperament was such that

he was unsuited for a sensitive diplomatic post. Evarts characterized him

• 7
 

110                                                OHIO HISTORY

 

as "hasty, intolerant, hot-tempered," while Stewart asserted, "Our relations

with Germany should be peaceful, and it would not be safe to entrust

them to a minister so aggressive and impulsively warlike." Payne was re-

ported as saying, "If the nomination had been to Russia, with a proviso

that the nominee should go on to Siberia, and never return, he would

gladly vote for confirmation." Senator John C. Spooner of Wisconsin, in

speaking for confirmation, argued that a journalist could not be held ac-

countable for everything his newspaper published during the heat of a

campaign. If he were held accountable, the Senator said, only a "few

could hope to pass unscathed into the golden realm of office-holding." In

an effort to gain further time, Sherman announced that he wished to reply

to the nominee's critics before the vote was taken, so the Senate adjourned

once more without making a final decision.³⁶

On the third day of executive session three Republican Senators, includ-

ing Sherman, spoke in the editor's behalf. At the close of their remarks

the motion was put and by a vote of twenty-five to nineteen, the Senate

decided not to reconsider. Six Republican Senators voted with the Demo-

crats against the motion, while only two Democrats, Senators Joseph Black-

burn of Kentucky and Wilkinson Call of Florida, joined the remainder

of the Republicans on Halstead's side.37 Of the thirteen members of the

Senate in 1886 who appeared on Halstead's "Black list" of "millionaires,

servants of corporations, Logan men, and corruptionists," only seven re-

mained as Senators in 1889. Four of these, Teller, Evarts, Plumb, and

Ingalls, voted against reconsideration. Of the other three, Shelby Cullom

and Philetus Sawyer were both paired with other Senators, but had an-

nounced they were against reconsideration, while John P. Jones did not

vote. Senator Stewart, who had spoken against confirmation and was Jones's

colleague from Nevada, was also absent. The other two Republican Senators

who voted against the motion were Henry L. Dawes of Massachusetts and

Matthew Quay of Pennsylvania.³⁸ The plan to pick up enough Democratic

votes to put the nomination across had not succeeded. The Democrats

were satisfied to sit still and "enjoy the trouble in Republican ranks."³⁹

Writing from Washington, General Boynton said that the six Republicans

had sunk their positions as Senators to the "level of their characters." In

an article which covered three and a half columns on the Commercial

Gazette's front page, Boynton sketched the careers of the Senators in an

extremely vindictive manner. Senator Evarts was accused of lobbying for

acts before Congress in which large amounts of money were involved, of

forcing the Diaz Government of Mexico to confirm railroad grants for his

New York friends while he was Secretary of State under Hayes, and also

of purchasing his election as Senator from the New York Republican caucus.

Preston B. Plumb of Kansas was charged with having stolen the property

of one A. L. H. Crenshaw of Jackson, Missouri, while he was a major in

the Union army. "For many years Senator Plumb has been building his

political edifice upon this foundation." John J. Ingalls, also of Kansas,

was denounced as another Senator whose election was under a cloud of

• 8
 

THE LONG MEMORY                                                111

 

"bribery and corruption." Henry M. Teller was reproached for granting

patents for large amounts of unearned land to the railroads and for "de-

frauding widows and soldiers and orphans" while he was President Arthur's

Secretary of the Interior. Henry L. Dawes was accused of being involved

in the Credit Mobilier scandal. "Of course Senator Dawes would have no

sympathy with a man who had been in the habit of telling the truth in a

blunt way about Senators."40

Richard Smith, co-owner of the Commercial Gazette, published a signed

editorial in which he declared Halstead's rejection was based entirely on

his criticism of the Senate for refusing to investigate the Payne election.

"The issue for next fall has been made in Ohio by Mr. PAYNE. It can not

be avoided. The defeat of HALSTEAD was the result of revenge. Now let the

people of Ohio demonstrate the folly of revenge.^"41 General Boynton agreed

that Senator Payne had demanded Halstead's defeat for "vindication," and

that the Republican Senators had only rallied "to the coal-oil standard."

The Washington correspondent pointed out that his employer, having long

acquaintance with Germany and German affairs, was recognized as eminently

fitted for the appointment. Not only had authorities on international affairs

both at home and abroad praised Halstead's qualifications, but Germans

themselves had commented on the suitability of the selection. Boynton de-

clared that the six Republicans might have had an excuse for their action

if the question had arisen about Halstead's fitness for the post, but as it

was, it could be concluded they had acted only from spite.⁴²

Newspaper opinion in the country had been generally favorable when

Harrison announced Halstead's nomination. The editors of the Philadelphia

News, Detroit Free Press, Covington (Ky.) Commonwealth, and many

other newspapers had essentially agreed with the Chattanooga Times, which

called Halstead "something erratic" but said he was an expert in the

German language, well liked by German-Americans, and could be depended

upon to stand up for American interests. On the other hand, the editor of

the Indianapolis Sentinel thought the only advantage to his nomination

was that he would be out of the country for four years "to the distinct gain

of decent journalism."43

When the editor's appointment failed to gain confirmation, public opinion

once more seemed to be on his side. Many editorials echoed the one written

by Richard Smith in the Commercial Gazette in which he declared that

"the tainted Republican Senators" had done Halstead a great service. He

predicted a newspaperman would be bored with the dull order of diplomatic

life and claimed that Reid would be home from France in less than a year.

Moreover, he felt the votes of the six Republican Senators had raised Hal-

stead to the highest rank within the journalistic field.⁴⁴

Several newspapers saw Halstead as a martyr to journalistic freedom.

The Senate, the New York World proclaimed, must realize it "can not

muzzle the press by withholding offices from editors. And it will invite a

plainer speech than its members may relish if it tries."⁴⁵ Henry Watterson

in his Louisville Courier-Journal also felt freedom of the press was an issue

• 9
 

112                                                OHIO HISTORY

 

as a result of the Senate's action. He declared the real message in the

rejection was warning from the Senate to newsmen to be careful when

dealing "with that body or any of its members.^"46

Several newspapers suggested that Halstead had become an attractive

candidate for the Senate by that body's action on his nomination. The

Boston Evening Traveller discussed some other famous rejections by the

Senate. Isaac Hill of New Hampshire had been appointed Second Comp-

troller of the Treasury by Andrew Jackson, but his confirmation failed

in the Senate. Eighteen months later he was sent to sit in that body

by the people of New Hampshire. The newspaper recalled also Martin

Van Buren's humiliation by the Senate when he was nominated as Min-

ister to England by Jackson. The Evening Traveller did not suggest Hal-

stead as a presidential candidate, but mentioned that Payne's term ex-

pired in 1891 "and stranger things have happened than that Murat Halstead

should be his successor."⁴⁷ The New York Sun also saw the Senate's action

as benefiting Halstead, declaring he had been elevated to "the category

of our most attractive and most discussed citizen."48

Many of the editor's friends immediately took up the idea of his candidacy

for the Senatorship. Former President Hayes wrote that he hoped the

campaign could be fought on the issue of buying and selling Senate seats

and told Halstead, "Don't decline." The latter answered that some of his

friends were suggesting that he run for governor in the fall and not wait

until 1891 to make a political race. Hayes felt the important point was to

make "a fight. . . which has a bone in it," and that Halstead could be ef-

fective running for either office.49 Charles Foster indicated that he would

support the editor if he wished to run for governor, and declared that Hal-

stead had the sympathy of a large segment of voters because of the Senate's

action, which had made his candidacy timely. But as for the rumors that

the editor wanted Payne's Senate seat, the former governor said, "you are

treading on my toes." Others agreed that a political race by the Cincinnatian

would have "dramatic elements," but unlike Foster, most felt that Halstead

would have his best chance in trying to "succeed Boodle Payne."50

While the Senate was debating his nomination, the controversial journal-

ist was seriously ill in Cincinnati. On March 20 he had been stricken with

an acute attack of rheumatism complicated by erysipelas. By the middle of

April he had returned to his editorial duties, but suffered a relapse which

affected his heart. As a result of these problems, it was decided that the

rejected nominee needed a long rest and so he made arrangements for a

family vacation in Europe.51

During his European trip his friends and the Commercial Gazette kept

alive the idea of his candidacy for political office.52 Upon his return to Cin-

cinnati these friends, who included Governor Foster, Frederick Hassaurek,

the publisher of a German language newspaper in Cincinnati, and Richard

Smith, arranged for a public welcoming reception to be held at the Music

Hall.53

The Republican party had never seriously considered nominating Halstead

for governor and instead ran Foraker once more. As for the Senate seat, the

• 10
 

THE LONG MEMORY                                                   113

 

election of a Democratic General Assembly in the fall ended all hope for a

Republican choice. As Payne was now eighty, he was not reelected. Instead

the Ohio Democrats chose Calvin S. Brice, a millionaire party "angel."

The official choice of the Republican caucus was former governor Foster,

although one state senator bolted the caucus and cast a vote for Halstead.⁵⁴

In summary, it may be said the Republicans who voted against Halstead's

confirmation as ambassador to Germany claimed they had done so to uphold

the dignity of the Senate. Boynton declared their motives were private

and personal revenge. As usual, the truth probably lies some place between

the two extremes and contains elements of both. It is extremely difficult

to judge what might be called "arrogance of power." None of these Senators

had to face an electorate, as all were chosen by their state legislatures. They

had gained their places because they were men of wealth and influence

or because they had risen to the highest ranks in their state party organ-

izations. Thus Halstead's claims in the Commercial Gazette might be per-

sonally annoying to them, but they did not hurt the legislators politically

who were from Nevada or Colorado or Kansas; the Senators, at this time,

could punish Halstead for his presumption without worry for their own

careers. Teller, in fact, remained in the Upper House for twenty more years,

until 1909. The Senate was much like a club, a very exclusive and power-

ful one, and, as in most clubs, there was a feeling of pride in membership.

If the club is attacked, a member must come to its defense, or the pride

of membership is lessened. Thus Halstead, who had questioned the dig-

nity of that august body, had to be punished. Contrary to the suggestion

of some newspapers, the issue was never one of freedom of the press. No

one was questioning Halstead's right to publish articles critical of the

Senators, but at the same time no one could seriously think that the

Congressmen would not resent the personal attacks contained in them.

Halstead had on numerous occasions before his defeat at the hands of

the Senators suggested that the election of the members of that body was

too far removed from the people. Thus when legislation was introduced in

the 1887 Congressional session to approve an amendment for the election

of senators by the people at large, he claimed there was pressing need for

such a change. While it would be almost thirty years before the editor's

cry of "Purify the Senate" was heeded and the Seventeenth Amendment,

which called for the direct election of Senators, was passed, Halstead's

controversy with the maverick Senators helped to contribute to the grow-

ing reputation of the upper chamber as a millionaires' club, and ultimately

to the movement for reform.⁵⁵ As the New York Times said, Halstead

may not have been allowed to represent the United States in Berlin, but

he came out of the whole affair far more creditably than the six Republican

Senators.56

 

 

THE AUTHOR: Donald W. Curl is

Associate Professor of History at Florida

Atlantic University.

• 11