The Conkling and Blaine-Fry controversy, in 1866. The outbreak of the life-long feud between the two great statesmen, Roscoe Conkling and James G. Blaine

Preface

It is not to be expected that men of the present time will be interested in an account of contentions in 1866 between Mr. Conkling and an army officer, or even between Mr. Conkling and Mr. Blaine ; but they are concerned in knowing how far investigating committees sometimes go in assumption of power, in failing to duly weigh testimony, in admission of partiality, and in violation of justice.

" The judicial power," says the Constitution, " shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in sucli inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." " No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." There is no pretense that " the Congress " has ever ordained or established investigating committees of the House of Representatives, or the House itself, as part of the " judicial power " of the United States, or as a power of any kind, through which persons may be deprived of life, liberty or property. When our Government was formed, the British House of Commons had pronounced " that whatever is enacted or declared for law by the Commons in Parliament assembled hath the force of law, and all the people of this nation are concluded thereby, although the consent and concurrence of the King or House of Peers be not had thereto." The framers of our Constitution purposely withheld from the House of Representatives

6 PREFACE.

the extraordinary power declared by the House of Commons, and also the power exercised by the Commons, to confiscate property, imprison Judges, cut off men's noses and ears, and commit other like atrocities. Such acts formed precedents to be shunned, not followed. Under our system, every offense calling for loss of life, liberty or property, comes within the jurisdiction of one court or another, ordained and established by or under the Constitution. For a legislative body, by virtue of its so-called "privilege " to punish a citizen without law, judge or jury is inconsistent with the principles of freedom and justice imbedded in, and essential to, our governmental system. Nevertheless, our House of Representatives, by its own dictum, deprives persons of their liberty and good name. That this unauthorized and irresponsible mode of punishment ought to be curbed, there can be no reasonable doubt.

As the action and power of the House of Representatives are discussed in some detail in the following pages, I deem it proper to say that T have the profoundest respect for Congress, and I intend by these pages no breach of privilege and no discourtesy to any department or institution of the Government.

So, too, with individuals upon whose parts I comment, it is not my purpose to injure or offend anyone. My object is to present a plain and correct account of a public matter in which I was misjudged and wronged. In doing that I must hew to the line, let the chips fly where they will.

A committee of the House in the 39th Congress was appointed April 30, 1866, "to investigate the

PREFACE.

statements and charges made by Hon. Roscoe Conkling in his place last week against Provost Marshal General Fry and his Bureau, whether any frauds have been jDerpetrated in his office in connection with the recruiting service ; also to examine into the statements made by General Fry in his communication to Hon. Mr. Blaine, read in the House this day."

This committee failed to investigate the state ments and charges made by Mr. Conkling against me, but made a so-called examination into the statements made in my communication to Mr. Blaine and reported that my letter, which at Mr. Blaine's instance was read at the Clerk's desk by permission of the House, was a breach of privilege by me, and pronounced the statements in it entirely without foundation in truth. The House adopted the committee's report.

From such a finding by the people's representatives there is no appeal, except to the people themselves. It therefore seems incumbent upon me to lay before that high tribunal proof that the statements made by me in 1866 in a letter to Mr. Blaine concernino; a contention in the House between him and Mr. Conkling are true. This forces me to examine in detail the committee's record and ijndings, and is my apology for asking my readers to go, as patiently as they can, through my long and somewhat tedious " Review of the Committee's Report," Chapter V.

J. B. F.

Chapter I. INTRODUCTORY

• ...

The so-called Conkling and Blaine-Fry affair occurred in 1 866, a quartei- of a century ago. It has passed almost beyond the domain of feeling with me. I think I can treat it without passion or prejudice. The first time I remember meeting Mr. Conkling was in 1865, when he visited Washington upon the recruiting business in his District. 1 had no real personal acquaintance with him, and I have not a particle of animosity towards him. We met again in General Grant's parlor in 1883 soon after the General's financial troubles, I. was standing near Mrs. Grant when Mr. Conkling approached. She introduced us, and we shook hands. When taking my leave a little later, I walked lip to Mr. Conkling where he sat talking to General Grant, and calling him by name, bade him good night, offering him my hand, which he took, making a polite response. We were then, so to speak, both on the retired list of public service. That was th6 only time I met him after 1866, and no communication or message ever passed between us after that date.

I made Mr. Blaine's acquaintance in Washington in 1863. We were soon upon friendly, even intimate terms. Since 1866 our paths have been far apart ; we have seldom met, and have had but little correspondence, none that I recall of importance concerning the old fracas.

In gallantly repulsing Mr. Conkling's assault upon me in tlie House, Mr. Blaine was moved by a sense of justice and fair play. He was under no obligation to espouse my cause then or guard ray interests subsequently. He was continuously in public life and deserved the prestige of victory in the debate which he enjoyed. It has been said that this quarrel created a hostility between Mr. Blaine and Mr. Conkling which prevented the former and perhaps the latter from being elected to the Presidency. " Politics makes strange bed fellows," but I believe there would have been a rupture between Mr. Blaine and Mr. Conkling if this affair had never occurred. The debate upon the occasion shows feelings and traits which promised anything but harmonious political work. The " withering sarcasm " which these distinguished men hurled at each other in that debate manifested bad feelino; so intense, firmly rooted, and so well grown as to be sure of fruitage sooner or later. A split with lasting consequences between these two Republican members of the House of Representatives, it seems to me, was inevitable. Nevertheless, it is certain that the enmity between Mr. Conkling and Mr. Blaine was an important factor in the affairs of the Republican party, having a marked effect in the convention of 1876, before which both were strongly supported, with the result that Mr. Hayes was chosen, and in the convention of 1880, which nominated General Garfield, who was elected. President Garfield appointed Mr. Blaine Secretary of State, and it is probable that the old feud had much to do with Mr. Conkling's resignation as Senator, his failure to secure a re-election, and his disappearance from public life.

CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY.

In 1884, Mr. Blaine was the Republican nominee for the Presidency, and there is good reason to believ that he would have been elected if he had received th earnest suppoi-t of Mr. Conkling. /i

A committee of the House, the tribunal chosen pj Mr. Conkling to investigate, reported fully and uh-. equivocally in his favor, condemning me directly and ^^ ^ Mr. Blaine indirectly. Nevertheless, friends of Mr.*"^^ Conkling have from time to time come before the public to prove that he was victorious or to defend him against the conse(|uences of his victory. More than once, the report against me by the investigating committee has been shown in the most highly colored light, not so much, I imagine, to injure me, as to reach Mr, Blaine, whose censure by the committee and the House was comparatively indirect.

When the committee's report was made public in 1866, I was advised to apply for a military Court of Inquiry, and Mr. Blaine himself at the time thought such a tribunal desirable, lest the Senate should regard the action of the House as a reason for refusing to confirm my nomination for promotion or appointment in the future.*

* It did not turn out so. All the appointments conferred upon me were confirmed, and commissions were issued to me as follows:

Major- General by brevet, July 17, 1866, " for faithful, meritorious, and distinguished services in the Provost Marshal-General's department."

Brigadier-General by brevet, Jime 10. 1868, " for gallant and meritorious services in the battles of Shiloh, Tennessee, and Perryville, Kentucky."

Colonel by brevet, "for gallant and meritorious services in the battle of Bull Run [1st.], Virginia."

Colonel in the Adjutant Gen3rars department, March 12, 1875.

In all these cases my appointments were confirmed by the Senate. When part of them were acted upon, Mr. Conkling was a member of the Senate ; and he was a member of the House when the others were considered

But I maintained that it was not for me to seek or avoid investigation, I felt that I had performed my duties honestly and efficiently, and that time would bring me Justice. That belief and the condition of public affairs induced me to remain silent. The desperate, protracted and exhausting civil war was over. The great armies which I had much to do in raising had been mustered out, and their components had returned to civil pursuits. The whole country was rejoicing over the return of peace, and the Government and people were concentrating their thoughts and energies upon the reconstruction of the States lately in rebellion, and upon the establishment of harmony and good feeling. I was unwilling to thrust myself forward for a vindication which I felt time would bring. While waiting for the verdict of time, my grievance has become old and dry, and I have hesitated to ask the public to touch it, though others from time to time have bi'ought it up to my detriment.

The New York Herald of June 4, 1888, gave place to an elaborate and able article by Mr. George C. Gorham, with the caption in large letters, " Justice to Mr. Conkling." Mr. Gorham says in his opening : " I should be recreant to the strongest ties of friendship which bound me to him, and false to the promises I made him, if I failed to give his explanation of the two matters concerning which he felt he had been mis- Judged. In doing this, censure must fall on some, for the truths that alone can set him right convict others of outrage and wrong." One of the two matters concerning which Mr. Gorham gives Mr. Conkling's " explanation " is the Conkling and Blaine-Fry matter.

Mr. Gorham's account of it is incomplete and unjust to me, I noticed the article in a letter wliicli was published as follows in the Herald of June 10,

1888:

To THE Editor of the Herald : —

I do not suppose that in his article, published in the Herald of the 4tli inst., Mr. George C. Gorham gave a thought tome. No doubt his only purpose in quoting the report made against me by a committee of the United States House of Representatives in 1866 was to sustain his contention that Mr. Conkling got the better of Mr. Blaine in an acrimonious debate in which the former attacked and the latter defended me in the House of Representatives. But I feel called upon to say a few words. It is true that a committee of the House, after a so-called investigation, reported, and the House adopted, a resolution saying that statements made by me in a letter conceining Mr. Conkling were "wholly without foundation in truth," and that they ''originated in no misapprehension of facts," but " in the resentment and passion of the author."

Mr. Gorham shows the great injustice done to Mr. Conkling by politicians, and he closes his article by citing in Mr. Conkling' s favor the sentiment, to which I fully accede, that "the strength of a man's character is better shown by what he endures than by what he performs. ' '

I make no charge of corruption, conspiracy or malice, either in the committee or House, but I am prepared to show as clearly as Mr. Gorham has shown for Mr Conkling that I was deeply wronged. But I cannot ask the public to listen to my desiccated grievances. Instead of that, however, possibly your readf^rs will permit me to say that I have been an officer of the army more than forty -one years, having entered at the age of twenty. During all that time 1 have never been plaintiff or defendant in a suit, have never been called before a court martial or court of inquiry, have never been under charges or under arrest, and, so far as I remember, have never received from civil or military authority an order or letter conveying censure or reproof.

Accepting Mr. Gorham' s statements as correct, he shows that, with envy, hatred and malice in their hearts, a host of Republican politicians, among them editors. Senators, Cabinet Ministers and the President of the United States, conspired to humiliate and destroy so good and great a man as Roscoe Conkling ; and that, in spite of Mr. Conkling' s ability, purity, strength and courage, the conspiracy drove him from public life in a state of disgust that attended him to the

CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY.

grave, and with a reputation that Mr. Gorham thought called for defence in some particulars at his hands. In the light of Mr. Gorham' s demonstration concerning this great man, it is not worth while to trouble the public with an account of how a comparatively obscure army officer, the head of a military bureau, which necessarily bore heavily upon the political affairs of every Congressional district, got injured when the two leading politicians of the party Mr. Gorham brings to attention, fought over him. Personally I knew Mr. Conkling only as a " good hater" ; but I venture the assertion in all candor that he did not need the defence Mr. Gorham has made for him -the defence of a zealous friend and an accomplished writer, but a defence which places in a despicable light many of the politicians and methods of the party of which Mr. Conkliug was an able and conspicuous member. JAMES B. FRY.

New York City.

My letter, so far as I know, elicited no response or inqiiii'}', and I let the subject drop.

In an article in the New York Sun of June 14, 1891, Mr. George Alfred Townsend says: " In 1869 Mr. Blaine said to me, Conkling is as smart as he can be," and Mr. Townsend adds : " Fry appears to have left Blaine without evidence." I think the following pages prove that I did not leave Mr. Blaine without evidence.

Recently, moreover, a life of Roscoe Conkling, by his nephew, Mr. Alfred Conkling, has appeared. The subject, and perhaps the treatment of it, entitles this work to a place in history. The formal presentation by such high authority as Mr. Gorham, Mr. Townsend and Mr. Alfred Conkling of a case in which I have long been deeply concerned makes it proper, I think, to give my account of the matter. I may add that an editorial article in the New York Evening Sun of January 21, 1890, entitled, "The Truth of History respecting Hoscoe Conkling and J. G. Blaine," makes

CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY.

some erroneous and unjust mention of me, saying: ^'It is not generally known that Mr. Conkling intended to prosecute General Fry for criminal libel, but some one betrayed Mr. Conkling's purpose, and General Fry went to California, beyond the reach of criminal process." Friends in all quarters of the country liave brought to my notice reprints of this article in local papers. The substance of the article will be covered by the general remarks to follow, but I may say here that 1 never heard of any intention on Mr. Conkling's part to prosecute me, that I distinctly invited charges more than once, and that 1 remained on duty in Washington from the close of the investigation in July until I was relieved from duty there in the following November ; that I then went to California, my regular military station, not of my own volition, but in 'pursuance of regular military orders.

When the time came for closing the Bureau of the Provost Marshal-General, I addressed to the Secretary of War a letter as follows :

' ' In closing this office, as required by law, and transferring the records and unfinished business to another Bureau, in accordance with your orders, I beg leave respectfully to urge that, in case of any charges or allegations of improper official conduct on my part, I may be allowed access to the records of this office, and an opportunity for explanation, and that a full investigation be had of everything which the Department may deem worthy of official notice."

So far as I know no charges against me ever reached the War Department, and nothing in the nature of accusations is to be found there.

Chapter II. THE OUTBREAK IN THE HOUSE

In the House of Representatives, on the 24tb day of April, 1866, a bill providing for tlie reorganization of the army being under consideration— the 20th section of which provided for the permanent establishment of the Bureau of the Provost Marshal General, and giving him the rank of Brigadier-General — Hon. Boscoe Conlding said :^

' ' I move to strike out section 20 of that bill. My objection to this section is that it creates an unnecessary office for an undeserving public servant ; I have never heard any serious attempt to justify by argument the permanent continuance of an officer whose administration during th*e war has had in it so little to commend, and so much to condemn.

' ' I protest against any promotion or reward for the officer whose interests are involved in this section. He holds already the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel in the Staff Department.

" Indeed, by accident, if the pending billsliall pass, he will be elevated to a yet higher grade ; but as he stands now, his pay amounts to $3 500, or thereabouts.

' ' I think that, for the present, is enough for him. He has suffered nothing, and lost nothing, in the war, that I ever heard of, and I protest, in the name of my people, and in the name of the people of the Western Di\ ision of New York, against perpetuating a power under which they have suffered beyond the capacity of any man adequately to state in the time allotted to me.

'• Central and Western New York have a right to feel, and do feel deeply on this subject. My constituents remember, and other constituencies remember, wrongs done them too great for forgetfulness, and almost for belief, by the creatures of this Bureau, and by its head.

" We in the Western Division of New York had sent to rule over us as Assistant Provost Marshal General an officer of the Veteran Re-

* For debate in full, see Appendix A.

serve Corps*; a man who never saw a battle, who never received a scratch, or suffered a day's sickness in the military service.

' ' I could not I'emam silent when I know that in my own district and elsewhere men who stood up honestly and attempted to ' resist bounty jumpers' and thieves were stricken down and trodden under foot by General Fry.

' ' I affirm that the only way to acquit him of venality is to convict him of the most incredible incompetency."

When Mr. Conkling began the foregoing speech, Mr. Blaine was talking to a friend in the diplomatic gallery of the House, but his quick ear caught the tenor of the remarks, and he hurried to his seat, and getting the floor replied as follows :

' ' I am in a very weakly condition of health to make the brief explanation due to the Military Committee. But I wish to state why the Committee reported this section of the bill in regard to which the gentleman from New York shows so much feeling. I believe that among the earliest acts of the gentleman from New York at this session of Congi-ess was the introduction of a resolution which was adopted by this House, directing the War Department to report uj)on the expediency of abolishing the office of Provost Marshal General. In the routine of business the answer of the Secretary of War came to the Military Committee, and among the papers was a letter from Lieutenant-General Grant; there was also an elaborate paper from Genei'al Townsend. They were referred to a Sub-Committee. The Committee, upon a full review of the papers, and especially of the letter of Lieutenant-General Grant, reported this section. "

Mr. Blaine had read at the clerk's desk Gen. Grant's letter dated Dec. 14, 1865, as follows :

" Sir : — In reply to your letter of the 13th, in reference to desertions, I would make the following remarks : I do not think the present method of recruiting as carried out sufficient to fill up the regular army to the force required, or to keep it full when once filled. The duty is an important one, and demands, I think, the exclusive attention of an officer of the "War Department aided by a well organized system extending over the country. I think the officer best fitted for that position by his exj^erience during the present war is General Fry, and would recommend that the whole subject of recruiting be put in his hands. He should also have charge of the apprehension of deserters. ' '

* This offer was assigned by me at request of the Secretary of State, W. H. Seward.

After the reading of this letter from Gen. Grant, Mr, Blaine added :

"The House will observe that the Committee upon Military Atfairs acted precisely in accordance with the recommendations of the Lieutenant-General as contained in the letter which has just been read. The Committee's report was made in express conformity with the recommendations of that officer' s letter, which came officially before the Committee, and which was not smuggled in in the manner in which the letter read by the gentleman from New York comes before us. That is not an official letter, it is an unofficial note. The letter just read by the clerk is an official note communicated to this House by the Secretary of War on a regular call, and referred by the House to the Committee on Military Affairs.

"Mr. Speaker, I do not supi^ose that the House of Representatives cares anything more than the Committee on Military Affairs about the great recruiting frauds in New York or tlie quarrels of the gentleman from New York with Gen. Fry, in which quarrel it is generally understood the gentleman came out second best at the War Department. I do not think chat such questions ought to be obtruded here. Though the gentleman from New York has had some difference with Gen. Fry, yet I take pleasure in saying that, as 1 believe, there is not in the American army a more honorable or high-toned officer than General Fry. That officer, I doubt not, is ready to meet the gentleman from New York or anybody else in the proper forum.

' ' I must say that I do not think it is a very creditable proceeding for the gentleman from New York here in his place to traduce General Fry as a military officer where lie has no opportunity to be heard. I do not consider such a proceeding the highest specimen of chivalry that could be exhibited. The gentleman from New York has had his issues with General Fry at the War Department. They have been adjudicated upon by the Secretary of War, and I leave it for the gentleman to say whether he came out first best. I do not know the particulars, the gentleman can inform the House. All I have to say ,is, and in this I believe I speak the sentiment of a majority of the members of the House, that James B. Fry is a most efficient officer, a high-toned gentleman, whose character is without spot or blemish, a gentleman who stands second to no officer in the American army, and he is ready to meet the gentleman from New York and all other accusers anywhere and everywhere.

And, Sir, when I hear the gentleman from New York rehearse in the House, as an impeachment to General Fry, all the details of the frauds in New York which General Fry used his best energies to repress with iron hand, a sense of indignation carries me beyond my personal strength, and impels me to denounce such a course of proceedings."

To this Mr. Conkliiig replied :

" Mr. Speaker, if General Fry is reduced to depending for vindication upon the gentleman from Maine, he is to be commiserated certainly. If I have fallen to the neces-ity of taking lessons from that gentleman in the rules of propriety or of right or wrong. God help me. I say to him further that I mean to take no advantage, such as he attributes, of the privilege of this place or the absence of General Fry. On the contrary, I am ready to avow what I have here declared anywhere. I have stated facts for which I am willing to be held responsible at all times and places. I say further that the statements made by the gentleman from Maine with regard to myself personally, and my quarrels with General Fry and their result are false. ' '

"What," asked Mr. Blaine, " does the gentleman mean to say was false?" "Imean, " replied Mr. Conkling, "to say that the statement made by the gentleman from Maine was false."

Mr. Conkliiig's flat contradiction of Mr. Blaine's statement concerning quarrels with me put before the House and the country an issue of fact between the two.

The debate, which was continued upon that occasion, is given in full, in Appendix A.

As soon as I learned what had been said in the House on the 24th of April (which I think was from the newspapers next morning), I began a letter * to Mr. Blaine, completed and dated April 27, thanking him for defending me, and confirming the correctness of what he said concerning Mr. Conkling's hostility to me.

* For letter in full see Appendix B.

Two or three personal friends were consulted in the preparation of the letter, and a rough draft was shown to Mr. Blaine, by whose advice some of the expressions were sharpened. When completed, the letter was shown to General E. C. Schenck, then Chairman of the House Military Committee. By none of these persons was it even hinted to me, so far as I remember, that the letter might or could be treated by the House as a breach of privilege.

I did not pi-epare the letter to be read in the House, had no power to have it read there, and did not ask the House to have it read there.

But I intended Mr. Blaine to use it as he thous-ht best, to have the benefit of all there was in it in his favor, and intended also in some way to get it before the public in vindication of myself against Mr. Conkling's unexpected, unjust and violent attack upon me personally and officially.

I wrote the letter, as I thought I had a right to do, in defence of myself against defamatory statements made to the world, through the U.S. House of Representatives, and I had no intention of committing a breach of privilege.

Among the rules of the House there was one to the effect that a member who read as a part of his speech a letter which violated the privileges of the House was himself responsible, but if he had the same letter read from the clerk's desk, and made it a part of his speech, the responsibility did not rest upon the member, but upon the House itself which permitted the reading. Mr. Blaine had my letter read from the clerk's desk and escaped technical responsibility for breach of privilege by virtue of the nice rule just mentioned.

The House, however, was determined to assert its high privilege, and being unable or unwilling to blame itself for the alleged breach it had permitted, and also being stopped by its own rules from holding the member who introduced and used the letter, fell back upon the writer of the letter. As I have always admitted my responsibility for the letter, I do not desire to make use of this attitude of the House, but I am willing that others should judge its fairness and consistency.

On the 30th of April, Mr. Blaine arose in his place in the House upon the issue of fact already mentioned between him and Mr. Conkling, and said :

' ' I hold in my hand a letter from Provost Marshal-General Fry, which I ask to have read at the clerk' s desk for the double purpose of vindicating myself from the charge of having stated in debate last v^eek what was false, and also for the purpose, which I am sure will commend itself to the House, of allowing fair_play to an honorable man in the same forum in which he has been assailed. I wish further to say that if on investigation I had found I was in error in the statement I have made touching the member from the Utica district of New York [Mr. Conkling], and Provost Marshal-General Fry, I would, mortifying as it would have been, have apologized to the House. Whether I was in error or not, I leave to those who hear the letter of the Provost Marshal-General. ' '