PART 8: THE HISTORY OF TAMMANY HALL: A CHAPTER OF DISCLOSURES

The History of Tammany Hall

By Gustavus Myers

CHAPTER XIX
A Chapter of Disclosures
1853-1854

NOW came an appalling series of disclosures regarding public officials.  Acting on the affidavit of James E. Coulter, a lobbyist, charging that there was a private organization 1 in the Board of Aldermen formed to receive and distribute bribes, the Grand Jury, after investigation, handed down a presentment, on February 26, 1853, together with a vast mass of testimony.

“It was clearly shown,” stated the presentment, “that enormous sums of money have been expended for and towards the procurement of railroad grants in the city, and that towards the decision and procurement of the Eighth Avenue Railroad grant a sum so large that would startle the most credulous was expended;  but in consequence of the voluntary absence of important witnesses, the Grand Jury was left without direct testimony of the particular recipients of the different amounts.”2

Solomon Kipp, one of the grantees of the Eighth and Ninth Avenue Railroad franchises, admitted frequently to a member of the Grand Jury that he had expended, in 1851, upwards of $50,000 in getting them.  Five grantees of the Third Avenue Railroad franchise swore that upwards of $30,000 was paid for it in 1852 in bribes to both boards.3  Of this sum Alderman Tweed received $3,000.  Chief among those who bribed the Aldermen were Elijah F. Purdy (one of the line of Grand Sachems) and Myndert Van Schaick, who only a few years before had been the Tammany candidate for Mayor.  A franchise for a surface railroad on Broadway, with scarcely any provision for compensation and with permission to charge a five-cent fare, was given to Jacob Sharp, over five profitable bids from responsible persons.  One applicant, Thomas E. Davies, had offered to give the city one cent for every fare charged.  In another application, Davies, D.H. Haight and others had offered $100,000 a year and the payment of a license fee of $1,000 on each car (the prevailing fee being $20) for a ten-years’ grant, on the agreement to charge a five-cent fare.  There were two other offers equally favorable.4  When Mayor Kingsland had vetoed the bill 5 the Aldermen had re-passed it, notwithstanding an injunction forbidding them to do so.6

Dr. William Cockroft had to pay, among other sums, $500 to Assistant Alderman Wesley Smith to get favorable action on his application for a lease of the Catherine Street Ferry.  After the passage of the grant, Smith demanded $3,000 more, which Cockroft refused to pay.7  Burtis Skidmore, a coal dealer, testified that in the Fall of 1851 James B. Taylor informed him that he had been an applicant for a ferry across the East River to Greenpoint, and that “he bribed members of the Common Council for the purpose of obtaining said grant, and that other applicants for the same ferry gave a larger bribe than he did, and obtained the grant, and that all members of the Common Council whom he had bribed returned to him the money he had paid them, with the exception of Alderman Wood, who kept the money from both parties.”8

John Morrell swore that one of the applicants for the lease of the ferry to Williamsburg applied to some of the Aldermen and was told that it would cost about $5,000 “to get the grant through.”  But a Mr. Hicks, another applicant, was so eager to “get it through” that he gave more than $20,000.9

The lease of the Wall Street Ferry was similarly disposed of. Silas C. Herring testified that he with others was told he could secure it by paying a certain Alderman $5,000.  Herring declined.  James B. Taylor was another applicant, in 1852.  He was informed that it would cost him $15,000.  He offered $10,000, but on the same night “Jake” Sharp offered $20,000 and got the grant.  Taylor also testified that he additionally applied for the Grand Street Ferry lease.  Other parties, however, paid more bribe money and obtained it, whereat one Alderman said that “it was the damnedest fight that was ever had in the Common Council;  it cost them [Taylor’s rivals] from $20,000 to $25,000.”10

The Aldermen extorted money in every possible way.  In defiance of the Mayor’s veto they gave a $600,000 contract for the “Russ” street pavement, afterward found to be worthless, and which had to be replaced at additional cost.  Russ had offered one Assistant Alderman $1,000 to help carry his election the next Fall if he voted favorably.11  Exorbitant prices were paid for land on Ward’s Island, several Aldermen and officials receiving for their influence and votes bribes of $10,000, and others even larger sums.12  The Common Council sold to Reuben Lovejoy the Gansevoort Market property for $160,000 in the face of other bids of $225,000 and $300,000.  Lovejoy, who, it was disclosed, was merely a dummy for James B. Taylor and others, testified “that it would cost from $40,000 to $75,000 to get this operation the purchase of the Gansevoort property through the city government.”13

A coal merchant had to pay money for a favorable vote on his application for a lease of the Jefferson Market property, and another merchant testified to having paid one Assistant Alderman about $1,700 to get a pier lease.14  The Aldermen demanded and received bribes not only for passing measures but for suppressing them, and even invented many “strikes,” as instanced by the case of Alderman Smith, who agreed for $250 to silence a resolution to reduce the Coroners’ fees.15  They demanded a share of every contract made by any city official, threatening, if it were not given, to stop his supplies and have his accounts investigated.16  If a contractor or lessee refused to meet a “request,” the Aldermen retaliated by imposing burdens-upon him and reporting hostile resolutions.17  Applicants for the police force paid the Police Captains $40, and more to the Aldermen who appointed them.  One man was reappointed Police Captain by Alderman Thomas J. Barr for $200, and another, assistant Captain for $100.18

Every city department was corrupt.  It was found that one hundred and sixty-three conveyances were deeded to the Chief of Police, George W. Matsell, and his partner, Capt. Norris, in about a year.19  Matsell was mentioned also as receiving money from about one hundred men who patronized the odious Madame Restell’s establishment in Greenwich street.20  Both the police and Aldermen collected money from saloons, though the Aldermen obtained the larger share, as they had the power of granting licenses.[Now we know why New York has been called a Zoo.DC]

Within three or four years William B. Reynolds received over $200,000 from the city, under a five-years’ contract for removing dead animals, offal and bones, though at the time the contract was made other persons had offered to remove them free of expense, and one had even offered to pay the city $50,000 a year for the exclusive privilege.21  It was owing to Controller Flagg’s action that a contract to index certain city records at a cost of between $200,000 and $300,000, despite the offer of a well-known publisher to do it for $59,000, was canceled.22  Flimsy tenement houses, causing later much fatality and disaster, were built in haste, there being no supervisory authority over their erection.23  The lighting of the city was insufficient, thousands of oil lamps still being used, and these, according to an old custom, not being lit on moonlit nights.24

Both Tammany and Whig Aldermen and officials were implicated in these disclosures.  Such was the system of city government that, though twenty-nine Aldermen were at one time under judgment of contempt of court, and a part of the same number under indictment for bribery, yet under the law they continued acting as Judges in the criminal courts.  According to Judge Vanderpoel, bribery was considered a joke.

A new reform movement sprang up, which quickly developed into the City Reform party.  The reformers proposed, as a first step, to amend the charter.  The granting of leases for more than ten years was to be prohibited, and the highest bidder was to get them; A two-thirds vote was to be required to pass a bill over the Mayor’s veto.  Work to be done and supplies furnished costing more than $250 were to be arranged for on contract to the lowest bidder.  Any person guilty of bribery, directly or indirectly, was to be sentenced, upon conviction, to not above ten years in prison and fined not over $5,000, or both.  The right to sit as Judges of the criminal courts was to be taken away from the Aldermen, as was also the power of appointing policemen.  The Board of Assistant Aldermen was to be abolished, and a Board of Councilmen, consisting of sixty members, was to be instituted in its place, the collective title of the two boards to be “the Common Council.”  The Aldermen were to be elected for two years (as determined in the charter of 1849) and the Councilmen for one year.  An efficient auditing of accounts and claims against the city was called for, and only the more popular branch of the Common Council was to originate appropriations of money.

Tammany had grown suddenly virtuous again, and responding to the public clamor over the disclosures, had declared its devotion to pure government.  At a “reform” meeting of the Young Men’s Union Club, John Cochrane, one of Wood’s lieutenants, who later announced that he would vote “for the devil incarnate if nominated by Tammany Hall,” declared:  “Reform is at home in Tammany Hall.  Its birthplace is Tammany Hall.”  The purification movement advanced so unmistakably that Tammany approved the amendments, and the legislative bill embodying some of them was supported by the Tammany delegation in the Senate and Assembly.

The bill passed, and upon being submitted to the people of the city, in June, 1858, was adopted by the significant vote of 36,000 to 3,000.

One of the benefits due to the City Reform party was the reorganization (1853) of the police under a separate department.  The police were compelled to wear a uniform against which there had been bitter prejudice,25 and the term of appointment was made dependent upon good behavior.

Fortunately for the City Reform party, the division between the “Hardshells” and “Softshells” extending throughout the State caused the nomination of separate Democratic tickets in the Fall of 1853.  There seemed less than ever any vital difference between the professed principles of the two.  Under the name of “National Democrats” the “Hardshells” met in City Hall Park on September 26, and resolved :

“We regret that the Democracy of the city are prevented from holding this meeting in their accustomed hall. ... The Democracy of the city waged in time past a successful war against a corporation which sought to control by money the political destinies of the country.  We now from this time forward commence a campaign against another corporation known as the Tammany Society-a secret, self-elected and irresponsible body of men who have dared to usurp the right of determining who shall and who shall not meet in Tammany Hall. ... The accidental ownership of a small equity of redemption of a small part of the ground upon which Tammany Hall stands may continue to enable the Sachems to prevent the Democracy from meeting within the hall, but we can meet in the park or in the open air or elsewhere.”

The City Reform party nominated acceptable Whigs and Democrats pledged to reform, and obtained a decisive majority in the next Common Council.

CHAPTER XX
Fernando Wood’s First Administration
1854-1856

THOUGH the City Reform party brought about some beneficial changes in the system of city government, its Common Council did not meet public expectations.  The Tribune, the chief supporter of the party, admitted this (May 8, 1854), declaring that much feeling was manifested over the failure of the reformers to realize the public hopes, and attributing the failure “to the power of those representing the great political parties in the two boards to league together and sell out to each other the interests of the city as partizan or personal considerations might dictate.”

Accordingly, preparations were made to overthrow the new party.  Fernando Wood now secured the “Softshell” nomination for Mayor, by packing the convention with his henchmen.  The “Hardshells” held a separate convention, which ended in a row, a part nominating Wood, and the rest Augustus Schell.

Wood successfully intrigued to cause the Whigs to separate from the City Reformers;  and to further divide the opposition, Tammany nominated sham reformers for the lesser city and State offices.  The Whigs nominated for Mayor, John J. Herrick;  the City Reformers, Wilson G. Hunt, and the Native Americans, or “Know-Nothings,” springing to life again, put forward James W. Barker.  Schell, Wood’s Tammany opponent, withdrew in favor of Hunt.

The disreputable classes, believing that his success meant increased prosperity to themselves, energetically supported Wood, and the liquor-dealers formally commended him.  In the city at this time were about 10,000 shiftless, unprincipled persons who lived by their wits and the labor of others.  The trade of a part of these was turning primary elections, packing nominating conventions, repeating and breaking up meetings.  Most of these were Wood’s active allies.

He needed them all on election day.  With every resource strained to the utmost, he won by a close margin.  He was credited with 19,993 votes; Barker with 18,553; Hunt, 15,386, and Herrick, 5,712.  Tammany, therefore, succeeded, though in a minority of over 17,000 votes.

Upon assuming office, Wood surprised his followers by announcing that he would purge all offices of corruption and give good government.  His messages were filled with flattering promises and lofty sentiments.  At the outset he seemed disposed for good.  He closed the saloons on Sunday, suppressed brothels, gambling houses and rowdyism, had the streets cleaned, and opened a complaint book.  The religious part of the community for a time believed in him.  He assumed personal charge of the police, and when a bill was introduced in the Legislature to strip him of this power, the foremost citizens called a mass meeting to support him.

The troubles between the “Hardshells” and “Softshells” continued throughout the year 1855.  When the latter held their county ratification meeting in the Wigwam and the name of their nominee for Street Commissioner was announced, the “Hardshells,” who had come thither with a nominee of their own, Raised an uproar, whereupon “the factions on both sides went to work and pummeled each other pretty soundly and highly satisfactorily to the lookers, for at least ten minutes.”

The election of 1855 was of little consequence.  All eyes were now turned to the coming contest of 1856.  Before the end of a year Wood had begun to reveal his real nature.  Many of the decent element that had for a time believed in him began to turn against him.  He had also made himself unpopular with certain powerful Sachems by not giving them either a share, or a large enough share, in the spoils.  His appointments were made wholly from a circle of personal friends who were more attached to him than to the Tammany organization.  Knowing the folly of expecting a renomination from Tammany, as it was then constituted, he set about obtaining it by trickery.

Inducing Wilson Small, a Custom House officer holding a seat in the general committee, to resign, Wood had himself substituted.  Then he personally assumed control of the primary election inspectors in every ward, so as to manipulate the election of convention delegates.  He caused the appointment of an executive committee, which was to have the entire choice of inspectors in every instance in which the general committee failed to agree.  This new committee was composed mainly of his friends, and he named himself chairman.

His henchmen incited divisions in such of the wards as were not under the control of his inspectors, and the contests, upon being referred to the “executive committee,” were of course decided in Wood’s favor.  Thus he appropriated a great majority of the delegates to the nominating convention.[Swear politician is just another word for criminal,the state now acts as a criminal mafia,or cartel if you like,until the People recover(might not have ever had it) 'The Power of The State,we will continue as economic slaves to the abomination they have created.The State can only watch over it's people, never rule.What we are witnessing is the mistake of the State DC]

“It is well known,” wrote Peter B. Sweeny and J.Y. Savage, secretaries of the Tammany General Committee, in a long statement denouncing Wood’s thimble-rigging “that for many years this primary system has been degenerating until it has become so corrupt as to be a mere machine in the hands of unprincipled men, by which they foist themselves before the people as the nominees of a party for office in defiance of public sentiment.”1  Sweeny and Savage charged further than when the primary elections took place under this patent process for cheating the people, the ballot boxes were stuffed and detachments of police were stationed at every poll to aid Wood’s agents and bully his opponents.  A sickening mass of evidence of corruption was at hand, Sweeny and Savage recounted.

Wood was renominated by the city convention, and at an hour when most of his opponents on the general committee were absent, he had that body endorse his nomination by a vote of 56 to 26, nearly all of those voting being office-holders by his grace.

He also arranged a reconciliation between the “Hardshells” and “Softshells.”  With a show of traditional Tammany custom, the “Softs” marched in Indian file to the Stuyvesant Institute, the headquarters of the “Hards,” and the reunited leaders marched back to Tammany Hall — in pairs, arm-in-arm.  The “Hardshell”-“Softshell” contention thus became a thing of the past.

But Wood’s personal enemies in the Wigwam were not to be appeased, and they nominated a candidate to oppose him — James S. Libby.  Bitter feelings were aroused.  At the Wood ratification meeting in the Wigwam, October 22, both Wood and Anti-Wood men crowded in, and then ensued another of those clashes for which Tammany Hall had become so celebrated.  When John Kelly mentioned Wood’s name the Anti-Wood men raised a din and smothered the speaker’s voice.  The Wood men, growing enraged, “pitched into the Anti-Woodites hot and heavy, and for a time a scene of the wildest clamor ensued.  A general fight took place in front of the speaker’s stand and all round the room.  Blows were given and exchanged with great spirit, and not a few faces were badly disfigured.”  After a few planks had been plucked from the stand and wielded with telling effect, the Wood men won.  “The great body of the Libbyites were kicked out of the room and down the stairs with a velocity proportionate to the expelling force behind.”

The City Reform party was far from being satisfied with Wood’s administration.  In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that by the time of his second year in office the blackness of his administration exceeded anything known before.  Seasoned men fancied they knew something of corruption, extravagance and malfeasance in the City Hall, but by 1856 they better understood the growth of these under a reckless and unprincipled Mayor.

The saloon power had grown until it controlled the politics of the city.  In every groggery could be found a crowd of loafers and bruisers who could always be relied upon to pack a primary or insure or defeat the election of certain nominees. In these saloons the ward politicians held their meetings, and the keepers were ready at all times to furnish persons to parade, carrying partisan banners they could not read, or to cheer at mass meetings at the drop of a handkerchief.  The saloon-keepers also furnished cheap illegal voters, ballot-box stuffer's and thorough-bred “shoulder-hitters,” to intimidate peaceable citizens, or as a last resort, to smash the ballot boxes.

The saloon-keepers were largely above the law.  A disingenuous bill, passed in 1855, ordered the saloons to be closed on Sunday, but made no provision for enforcement.  They were accordingly kept open, likely enough through assurances from Wood that the owners would not be molested.  Their support of the Mayor was well nigh unanimous.

It was the domination of politics by this element that caused great irritation and disgust.  But the opposition to Wood was hopelessly divided.  It had to contend, moreover, with the adverse factor of the introduction into the campaign of national issues.  The fear of the new Republican party was sure to bring out a heavy vote for Buchanan and Breckinridge, and on the strength of this wave Tammany reasonably expected to be again swept into power.

The City Reformers had greatly declined in numbers, but they again came forward for the contest, nominating Judge James R. Whiting.2  The Native American party, still maintaining its bitterness against the control of politics by foreigners, chose Isaac O. Barker, and the Whigs, Anthony J. Bleecker, making, with Wood and Libby, five Mayoralty candidates.

Though backed by the dregs of the city on the one hand, Wood did not neglect to secure some “respectability” on the other.  During the campaign he received a testimonial signed by some of the leading bankers and merchants, praising him and his administration and expressing the hope of his reelection.  Nearly all of the signers, it was afterwards disclosed, profited by Wood’s placing of city funds or buying of city goods.

Wood sought to force every man on the police force to subscribe to his election fund, one policeman, who refused to contribute, being kept on duty twenty-four hours at a stretch.  From this source alone he gathered in from $8,500 to $10,000.

On election day the scum of the town shouted, repeated and bruised for Wood.  Candidates were traded openly, and bribing was unconcealed.3  The majority of the policemen were off on furlough, given by the Mayor as head of the Police Department, assisting actively for his reelection.  At the polling places, so terrific was the competition for the millions of city plunder, that the Wood and Anti-Wood men fought savagely.  In the Sixth Ward the Wood partisans, upon being attacked, retreated for the while, and coming back, armed with brickbats, clubs, axes and pistols, set upon and routed their foes.  The police meanwhile calmly looked on, until the riot was at its height, when they made a show of concern by firing fifteen or more shots, all of which fortunately went astray.  The Wood partisans then broke the ballot boxes to pieces and carried off the fragments for kindling wood.  In the Seventeenth Ward the Anti-Wood men destroyed some of the Wood boxes;  and in the First, and most of the other wards, the day was enlivened with assaults, riots and stabbings.

The count of the vote gave Wood, 34,860;  Barker, 25,209;  Bleecker, 9,654;  Libby, 4,764, and Whiting, 3,646.  The Buchanan electors carried the city with 41,913 votes; Fillmore, the American candidate, and Fremont, Republican, were allowed respectively 19,924 and 17,771 votes.  Tammany Hall obtained a serviceable majority in the Common Council.

The Republicans maintained that 10,000 fraudulent Democratic votes were cast in New York City and Brooklyn, and credited Wood with having profited by the most of those cast in this city.  It was not an unreasonable contention, in view of the enormous increase over the vote of two years before.[And it has only gotten worse DC]

A few days after the election a meeting in Tammany Hall, called to celebrate Buchanan’s triumph, resolved that next to the success of Buchanan and Breckinridge, “the brightest and most signal achievement of the Democratic party, at this election, was the triumphant election of Fernando Wood !”

CHAPTER XXI
Wood’s Second Administration
1856-1859

UNDER Wood’s second administration city affairs went from bad to worse.  The departments reeked with frauds.  The city paid Robert W. Lowber $196,000 for a lot officially declared to be worth only $60,000 and to two-thirds of which, it was proved, Lowber had no title.  Controller Flagg charged that both the Mayor and the Common Council were parties to it.1  Fraudulent computations and illegitimate contracts were covered by false entries.2  Amounts on the ledger were revised so as to steal considerable sums from the city outright.3  To Bartlett Smith had been awarded a contract for grading certain streets.  Before beginning work, however, the Legislature created Central Park out of that very territory.4  Smith demanded $80,000 from the city “for trouble in arranging to do the grading”—a claim the Common Council allowed, but Flagg refused to pay.

It was generally charged that Wood sold the office of Street Commissioner to the notorious Charles Devlin 5 for $50,000 cash, with certain reservations as to the patronage and profits.  Devlin recouped himself;  for an investigation revealed that he spent half a million dollars on contracts of which he was either the real contractor or surety, and on which he made the prices 75 per cent higher than they ought to have been.6  Of how much the city was plundered it was impossible to find out, since no reliable accounts of expenditures were kept in the Finance Department.7  Not a few officials, relinquishing offices paying about $2,500 a year, retired loaded with riches and surrounded by friends whom they had enriched.  Wood himself was now reputed to be worth $400,000.

Even the Judiciary was held in general contempt.  The Lowber fraud (see previous page) was promptly excused and the defendant exonerated by the courts.  In November, 1855, a City Judge was tried for corruption in having entered a nolle prosequi in a certain case.  The verdict was “not guilty,” with this remarkable addition:  “And the jury are unanimously of opinion that in the entry of the nolle prosequi by the City Judge he has been guilty of irregularity, and it is the unanimous recommendation of the jury that Judge —— resign.”  He resigned.8  In December, 1855, during a trial for murder in the Supreme Court, counsel for the defendant exclaimed:  “I know the jury have too much intelligence to pay any regard to the assumptions of the Court.”9  A man was killed at a prize fight.  The Coroner, after stating the evidence at the inquest, concluded:  “If the persons implicated are tried before our Court of Sessions they will have reason to congratulate themselves, as it is a difficult matter in this city to convict a person charged with any other crime than theft.”10  In January, 1856, the seat of one of the Judges of the Supreme Court was contested by two candidates, both claiming to have been elected by popular vote.  Both asserted the right to sit;  in opposition to the opinions of the Judges sitting, one of the contestants took and kept his seat by pure “nerve.”11

A new city charter, adopted in 1857, changed the date of municipal elections to the first Tuesday in December, and provided for an election for Mayor and Common Council in December, 1857.  The change was aimed partly at Wood.  He had probably expected severe opposition of some kind, for he had early begun planning for the continued control of the Tammany General Committee, so as to secure a renomination.

In the primary elections, late in 1856, for delegates to this committee for 1857, a majority favorable to Wood had been elected, after violence and ballot-box stuffing in every ward.  The Wood men took possession of the Wigwam and elected Wilson Small chairman.  The rival party met in another place and organized a general committee.  Each put forward the claim of “regularity.”

As the “usages” of the party required that the “regular” committee should have legal possession of Tammany Hall, it was necessary to determine which that committee was.  Then the Sachems stepped in.  Seven of them — a majority of one — were Wood’s personal enemies.  By a vote of seven to five the Sachems concluded to order the election of a new general committee, which was to have all known Democrats enrolled into associations.

“Tammany Society,” said the “seven Sachems’” report,

“is the undisputed owner of Tammany Hall;  and the right to control the use of that building which is inherent in its ownership has been fully secured by the lease.  The Council is determined that their action shall vindicate fully the rights and powers of the venerable society of which they are officers; and also, prove a safe and efficient barrier against the tide of corruption and fraud which is sapping the power of the great party to which the society has adhered during the whole period of its existence.”

At the society’s annual election, on May 20, the Isaac V. Fowler, or “reform” ticket, had the names of some men of note — Samuel J. Tilden, Elijah F. Purdy, Peter B. Sweeny, Edward Cooper, William H. Cornell, John McKeon and Emanuel B. Hart — while Wood’s candidates were inferior hack politicians and nonentities.  The “seven Sachems” had previously managed to get into the Wigwam unobserved by the Wood men, and had rapidly elected nearly sixty new members, all their own partisans, to the society.12  These voted at the election, enabling Wood’s opponents to beat him by a majority of sixty.13  Then the “seven Sachems” turned Wood and his men out of the Wigwam.

In a public address, the Wood men thereupon declared the society an irresponsible body of less than four hundred members, one-third of whom held no communication with the Democratic party, and that of its thirteen Sachems seven were “Libby bolters.”  “What, then, is the issue ?” asked the address.  “Shall the Sachems rule the people;  or shall the people rule themselves ?  Shall the Sachems of this close corporation, to procure offices for themselves and friends, be permitted, unrebuked by.  the people, to exercise this omnipotent, dictatorial, supervisory power over the great Democratic party, its organization and interests, to rule out or rule in your general committees whenever it suits their caprice or selfish purposes ? ”

The control of the police force was considered as necessary as ever to success at the election.  The changes of 1853, from which much was hoped, had, proved of little benefit.  The force was in a chaotic state.  Political and pecuniary reasons alone guided the appointment of policemen.  No record of merit was kept;  there was no systematic instruction of policemen in their duties except as to drill.  Some Captains wore uniforms, others refused.  When an applicant appointed to the force was tested for qualifications in reading, a large newspaper was given to him, and he was told to read the title.  Murder abounded, and the city was full of escaped convicts.14  One of the most important provisions of a special act of 1857 was the transfer of the police from city control to that of the State.  Unwilling to surrender so effective a hold, Wood resisted the Legislature’s action.  For a time there were two police departments — the Metropolitan force, under the State Commissioners, and the municipal police, under the Mayor — each contending for supremacy.  One day a part of the two forces came into collision in the City Hall, and twelve men were wounded.  It was found necessary to summon the militia to quell the disturbances, and Wood was arrested.  Finding resistance useless, he submitted grudgingly to the new order.15

The police being so disorganized, the criminal classes ran the town.  Chief among Wood’s supporters were the “Dead Rabbits” or “Black Birds,” — a lawless “gang” who overawed certain portions of the city and who had a rival in the “Bowery Boys,” whose sole profession seems to have been to pack primaries, break ballot boxes and fight the “Dead Rabbits.”  On July 4, 1857, the “Dead Rabbits,” presumably having nothing else to do, attacked a body of police in Jackson street.  A band of “Bowery Boys” hurried to the front, and a pitched street battle ensued, pistols and muskets being procured from neighboring places.  Barricades were thrown up in the most approved Parisian style.  The result was the killing of ten and the wounding of eighty persons, some of whom were innocent bystanders.  This was the most deadly of the numerous collisions of these “gangs.”  As they had a powerful political influence, the police did not molest them.16

As a member of the Metropolitan Police Commission, Mayor Wood about this time was instrumental in giving out a contract for 4,000 glass ballot boxes, at $15 apiece.  It was disclosed in James Horner’s affidavit before Judge Davis, in the Supreme Court, in November of this year, that the city needed no more than 1,200 of the boxes; that Wood’s brother had secured the 4,000 boxes at a cost of less than $5 apiece and that the Mayor was to share in the $40,000 of expected profits.

Wood neglected no means of ingratiating himself with the masses.  The panic of 1857 suddenly deprived over 80,000 mechanics and laborers in the city of employment.  Wood proposed the employment of the idle on public works, and the buying by the city of 50,000 barrels of flour and an equal amount of other provisions to be disposed of to the needy at cost.17  The Common Council failed to see the value of this plan, but did appropriate a sum for public works in Central Park, the better share of which went to contractors and petty politicians.  To win the good will of the Roman Catholics, becoming more and more a power, the Common Council gave over to the Roman Catholic Orphan Asylum a perpetual lease of the entire plot from Fifth to Fourth avenue, Fifty-first to Fifty-second street, at a rental of $1 a year.18

So resourceful was Wood and so remarkable his political ingenuity that though he and his general committee were driven out by the Tammany Society, he nevertheless brought things about so that the Democratic convention in Tammany Hall, on October 15, renominated him for Mayor, by 75 votes to 12.  The Tammany General Committee thereupon openly repudiated him, and the curious complication was presented of a candidate who was the Tammany “regular” nominee, yet opposed by both the society and the general committee.

Instantly a determined citizen’s movement to defeat him sprang up.  The city taxes had nearly doubled in the three years of Wood’s administration and were now over $8,000,000, of which over $5,000,000 had already been signed away in contracts or spent in advance of collection.  Yet the Common Council had recently resolved to spend the exorbitant sum of $5,000,000 on a new City Hall.  The Mayor vetoed the resolution only when the most intense public opposition was manifested.

A committee of citizens, representative of the Republicans, Democrats and Native Americans, nominated Daniel F. Tiemann, a paint dealer, and a member of Tammany Hall, but who was an Alderman and as Governor of the Almshouse had made a good record.

To Wood’s support there concentrated the preponderance of the foreign born, the native rowdies and the usual mass blinded into voting for the “regular” ticket.  The gamblers, brothel-keepers, immigrant runners and swindlers of every kind bought and cheated for him in the belief that the reformers would drive them from the city.  Wood had taken the precaution to manufacture thousands of voters.  From the Wigwam, where the Wood partisans backed up their right to meet with fists, drummers-up were sent to bring in prospective citizens.  Upon promising faithfully to vote the Tammany ticket, a card, valued at fifty cents, was furnished gratuitously to each.  It was addressed to a Judge who owed his election to Tammany, and read :

“ Common Pleas :
          “ Please naturalize the bearer.
                    “ N. Seagrist, chairman.”19

From 3,000 to 4,000 voters, it was estimated, were turned out by this process.

The sentiment of certain politicians may be taken from John Cochrane’s 20 remark that “he would vote for the devil incarnate if nominated by Tammany Hall.”  Meanwhile they took care to make out Wood to be a much-abused man.  At the ratification meeting in Tammany Hall, on November 23, long resolutions were passed, fulsomely flattering Wood and asking voters to remember that if Wood was assailed, so Jefferson, Jackson and Daniel Webster were pursued to their graves by harpies.  The voters were asked not to be deceived by the abuse of the graceless, godless characters and disappointed demagogues.20

Wood and his partisans strained every nerve for success.  But it was a futile effort.  The opposition won, Tiemann receiving 43,216 votes, to 40,889 for Wood.  His large vote, however, showed the dangerous strength of the worst classes of the city, and boded ill for the years to come.

The opposition of the Tammany Society and the general committee having been responsible for his defeat, Wood made renewed efforts to regain sway over both.  On their part, elated at his supposed downfall, the Anti-Wood members of the general committee decided to expel Daniel E. Sickles and C. Godfrey Gunther, two of his supporters, and met for that purpose in the Wigwam on December 9, 1857.

Wood’s followers thought proper to impress upon the general committee a sense of their strength.  Accordingly, their fighting men were present in full force, awaiting an opportunity to mingle in the proceedings.  The probability of a violent row increasing momentarily, the Metropolitan police were summoned to Tammany Hall.  For a time they kept the hostiles within bounds; but the bar was well patronized, and large delegations of the “Dead Rabbits” and “shoulder-hitters” from the wards were flowing in constantly.

At 9 o’clock a desperate fight was begun in the center of the bar-room, amid intense excitement.  By using their clubs unsparingly, the forty policemen succeeded in separating the combatants, though not before a young man, Cornelius Woods, had been shot in the shoulder with a slug.  Unwilling to draw upon themselves the resentment of the influential ward politicians, the police made no arrests.  The meeting broke up without definite action being taken in the matter of expelling the two supporters of Wood.

The first and chief point in the struggle for the control of the organization was, as usual, the control of the Tammany Society.  Both factions were alive to this necessity.  On April 13, 1858, 150 members of the society met at the Westchester House, Bowery and Broome streets, where it was announced that 212 members were pledged to vote for Anti-Wood Sachems.  Some of these members were seeking the ascendancy for their own benefit, while others were not active in politics at all, but had become disgusted with Wood’s methods and men.  At the election, six days later, the Anti-Wood ticket, headed by Isaac V. Fowler and Nelson J. Waterbury, won by a majority of nearly 100, 378 members voting.  More than twenty members who had not been at an election of the society for twenty years or more, and a large number who had eschewed voting for ten years, hastened, some from distances, to deposit their votes.  Three came from Hudson, a number from Albany, two from Washington, and one from Cincinnati.

The result was Wood’s forced withdrawal from the organization.  He immediately started a Democratic organization opposed to Tammany and upon the same lines.  It was known generally as “Mozart Hall,” from the name of the assembly room in which it met.  Wood denounced Tammany, declaring that its nominees were chosen by five members of the Tammany Society, in a parlor, and ferociously expressed his determination to wage war upon the society as long as he lived until (this reservation was added) “it opened its doors.”

Each hall, as a matter of political business, made the most virtuous and the strongest claims of being the true Democratic organization.  Each execrated the other and announced itself as the sole, valiant, sincere upholder of Democracy.

Wood’s enemies made haste to guarantee their ascendancy when, on December 28, the Sachems ordered elections for the committees to be held on December 30, thus giving but one day’s notice of the event.  Moreover, they forced upon all persons accepting membership in the committees, a pledge that in case of their election they would support the Tammany organization and all nominations made under its authority, and disclaim allegiance to any other organization, party or clique.

The election of delegates to the various nominating conventions, in the Fall of 1858, was attended by the customary disorder.  Wood’s partisans were everywhere inciting trouble.  At O’Connell’s Hall, on Mulberry street, a crowd, seeing that the result was unfavorable to their side, split the ballot boxes and threw them into the street.  The “Dead Rabbits,” scenting trouble, appeared hastily, and a fight ensued on Hester street, in which two of them were shot.

This municipal election was the first in which the Democratic voters of Irish nativity or lineage insisted on a full share of the best places on the party’s ticket.  Previously they had seldom been allowed any local office above Coroner.  Their dominance on the Tammany ticket again roused the “Know-Nothing” sentiment, and a combination of Native Americans, Republicans and independents resulted.  The combination secured 16 of the 24 Councilmen.

The politicians were now confronted with a registry act, which omitted the blunder of that of 1840 in applying only to New York City.  This measure became a law in 1859, despite the stubborn opposition of Tammany, some of whose leaders, Isaac V. Fowler and others, issued an address asking Democrats to arise and defeat it.  Failing to defeat it, they resolved to circumvent it by means of the Board of Supervisors, which was required to appoint the registry clerks.  This body was by law divided equally as to politics, the Legislature calculating that this would insure fair dealing.  But by the purchase of the vote of one of the Republican Supervisors for $2,500,21 the Tammany members were enabled not only to redistrict the city to their own advantage, but to appoint trusted tools as registrars.  For appearances’ sake they allowed a Republican registry clerk here and there.  Of 609 registrars appointed, the Republicans secured about 75;  and of the whole 609, 68 were liquor-sellers, 92 were petty office-holders, 84 were supposed gamblers, and 50 of the names were not in the city directory.  The Tammany leaders held daily private caucuses, and made a list of henchmen with extreme care, in order to exclude Wood from any influence with the registry clerks.  William M. Tweed, a member of the board, generally named the men, and Elijah F. Purdy boasted that Tammany demanded the appointment of none but Democrats, and that they (the Tammany Supervisors) meant to sustain their party at any and all hazards.  Having the registry clerks, Tammany Hall could revel in false registry and repeating.  Good citizens, dejected at the outlook, were sure of a repetition of the frauds of former years.

Seeking to satisfy all parties, Mayor Tiemann failed to satisfy any.  He was accused of using the official patronage for the advantage of Tammany Hall, in the hope of getting a renomination from it in 1859.  He and his chief office-holders appointed to the office the most notorious fighting men and ruffians in the city.  The Tammany leaders did not favor him, possibly because they thought William F. Havemeyer a man of more weight, popularity and respectability.

Accordingly they nominated the latter.  Wood had himself nominated by Mozart Hall, and the Republicans chose George P. Opdyke, a millionaire.  In this triangular contest the Tammany men felt that the force of Havemeyer’s good record would put them in power.  Singularly, however, with all its manipulation of the registry lists, and the excellent character of its nominee, Tammany lost.  The Irish voters sided almost solidly with Wood, and the lowest classes of the city, fearing the election of a man so distasteful to them as Havemeyer or Opdyke, used all their effectiveness for Wood, who received 29,940 votes, against 26,913 for Havemeyer, and 21,417 for Opdyke.

It was conceded that much of the worst part of Tammany’s strength had gone over to Wood.  This fact was suggestive, to a degree, of Wood’s assurance, considering the declaration in his letter of acceptance of the nomination that he favored “excluding the bullies and rowdies from public employment and of dealing summarily with that class of outlaws.”

Although Tammany had nominated a good man, for the sake of sliding into power upon the strength of his reputation, its lesser candidates were generally incompetent or of bad character;  half a dozen of its nominees for Councilmen were under indictment for various crimes.

next
The Tweed Ring

1 William H. Cornell, a sometime Sachem, was, according to the affidavit of Coulter, the head of this organization.

2 Documents of the Board of Aldermen, Vol. XXI, part 2, No. 55.

3 Documents of the Board of Aldermen, Vol. XXI, part 2, No. 55, pp. 1333-35, and p. 1573.  See also The History of Public Franchises in New York City by Gustavus Myers in which full details are given of the briberies attending the grants of the Eighth, Ninth and Third Avenue Railroad franchises, and other franchises.

4 Proceedings of the Board of Aldermen, Vol. XLVIII, pp. 530-37.

5 Ibid., p. 532.

6 For violating this injunction one Alderman — Oscar W. Sturtevant (a Whig) — was sentenced to a nominal fifteen days in prison and to pay a fine of $350, and the other offending Aldermen were merely fined.  The courts afterward annulled the Sharp franchise.

7 Document No. 55, p. 1219.

8 Ibid. p. 1310.

9 Ibid. p. 1403.

10 Ibid. pp. 1426-28.

11 Document No. 55, pp. 1575-76.

12 Ibid., p. 1282.

13 Ibid. p. 1445.  In 1862 the Council resolved to buy back this same property for $533,437.50 and repassed the resolution over Mayor Opdyke’s veto on January 3, 1863, thus, as the Mayor pointed out, entailing a new loss to the city of over $499,000, though the property had not increased in value.  Proceedings of the Board of Councilmen, Vol. LXXXVIII, pp. 723-25.

14 Document No. 55, p. 1572.

15 Document No. 55, p. 1219.

16 Ibid., pp. 1395-96.

17 Ibid., pp. 1397-98.

18 Documents of the Board of Aldermen, Vol. XXII, No. 20, pp. 59-54.

19 Ibid., No. 43, p. 79.

20 Ibid.

21 Documents of the Board of Aldermen, Vol. XX, No. 32 and Vol XXII, No. 41.

22 Ibid., Vol. XXX, part 1, No. 16.

23 Ibid., Vol. XX, No. 5.

24 Ibid., No. 6.

25 The general extent of this prejudice may be judged from the fact that at this time a number of suits were pending in the courts, seeking to restrain the city from enforcing an earlier order compelling uniforms to be worn.

---

1 This statement was published officially in the New York newspapers, September 27, 1856.

2 Whiting, according to the testimony of James Perkins, before the Senate Investigating Committee in 1833, had been the chief lobbyist in the task of securing the notorious Seventh Ward Bank charter in 1831.  It is a striking commentary on political standards of the day that unrebutted charges of such a nature formed no bar to the advancement of a politician to such distinctions as those of Judge, District Attorney and reform candidate for Mayor.

3 Josiah Quincy related, in a lecture in Boston, that while in New York City on this election day, he saw $25 given for a single vote for a member of Congress.  Upon expressing his surprise, Quincy was told that this man could afford to pay it.  If reelected, it would be a money-making operation.  He had received $30,000 at the last session for “getting a bill through,” and at that rate could afford to pay a good price.

1 Documents of the Board of Aldermen, 1859, No. 16.  The courts decided later in favor of Lowber.  As Controller Flagg refused to pay the claim on the ground of no funds being “applicable,” Lowber caused the Sheriff to sell at auction, in October, 1858, the City Hall with its equipment and paintings to satisfy a judgment of $228,000, including damages, costs and interest.  Mayor Tiemann bid the City Hall in for the sum of $50,000, and turned it over to the city when reimbursed.  Documents of the Board of Alderman, 1859, Vol. XXVI, No. 1.

2 Ibid., Vol. XXIII, No. 42; also Ibid., Vol. XXV, No. 10.

3 Ibid.

4 The Act was passed July 21, 1853.  This was one of the very few public-spirited measures of the time.  Tammany, however, immediately began to utilize the measure, through contracts for the clearing and improvement of the park, to the profit of its leaders and followers.

5 Devlin was appointed by Mayor Wood to succeed Joseph S. Taylor, deceased.  At the same time Daniel D. Conover was selected for the post by the Governor, who claimed the right of appointment.  The Mayor used inflammatory language, a turbulent mob gathered, and the militia had to be ordered out to prevent serious violence between the partizans of each.  (Assembly Documents, 1858, No. 80.)  The courts later decided in favor of Devlin.

6 Devlin was removed from office by Mayor Tiemann in April, 1858.

7 Report of Special Common Council Committee, October 22, 1857.

8 Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, November, 1856.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

12 Statement to the author by Douglas Taylor, one of the “seven Sachems.”

13 Of this action Talcott Williams (Tammany Hall, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1898) says:  “For the first time, the Tammany Society, which is only the landlord of the political body which leases its hall, exercised its singular power of deciding between rival organizations.”  This, of course, is a decided error.  Repeated instances of the activity of the society in this direction have been given in this work.

14 Assembly Documents, 1857, II, part 2, No. 127.

15 Assembly Documents, 1858, No. 80.  The chaos produced during this dispute was extreme.  Members of one force would seize and liberate prisoners taken by the other force, combats were frequent, and peaceable citizens were often unable to secure protection.

16 This riot is briefly treated in Document No. 80.

17 Proceedings of the Board of Alderman, Vol. LXVII, pp. 157-60.

18 Ibid., Vol. LXVIII, p. 140.

19 This reference to Seagrist was handed down in an Aldermanic committee’s report some years before:  “... Thomas Munday, Nicholas Seagrist, Captain Norris, Mackellar and others were charged with robbing the funeral pall of Henry Clay, when his sacred person passed through this city.”  Documents of the Board of Aldermen, Vol. XXII: No. 43.

20 Cochrane later followed Wood into Mozart Hall, but subsequently returned to Tammany Hall.  He was elected to Congress, serving one term.  He raised a regiment at the outbreak of the Civil War, and in June, 1862, was made a Brigadier-General.  He was elected Attorney-General of the State in 1863.  In 1879 he joined the Greeley movement.  He held various local offices, both in 1879 and in 1883 being elected to the Presidency of the Board of Aldermen.  As late as 1889 he was a Sachem.  He died in 1898, in his 85th year.

21 Statement of William M. Tweed before a special investigating committee of the Board of Aldermen, 1877 (Document No. 8, Documents of the Board of Aldermen, Vol. II, pp. 15-16).  Isaac V. Fowler, Tweed testified, furnished the $2,500 which was paid to Peter R. Voorhis, a Republican member.  Tweed further stated, that besides himself there were in the conspiracy Elijah F. Purdy, William C. Conner, Isaac Bell, Jr. (a Sachem) and John R. Briggs.