N' 
 
 
DAVID B. H 
 
 /^ 
 
 The Leadina* Points of his Political Career. 
 
 [Reprinted from The New York Evening Post.] 
 
 Tlie political record of David B. Hill, which is herewith presented, has been 
 comiiiled in accordance with requests for svich a biography which came to the 
 Evening Post from many sources, including the editors of several prominent 
 Democratic journals in different parts of the country. The generally expressed 
 desire was for a concise and accurate statement of those facts and deeds in Mr. Hill's 
 cai'eer which make him objectionable to the independents and to many members of 
 his own party. The record has been made up witli great care, and all its statements 
 are based upon evidence which is ample in every case to substantiate the truth of 
 the assertion made. 
 
 ha% e seen Hill hand money to voters. The state- 
 ment of one of these men, a merchant who has 
 lived in the Third Ward for thirty years, was 
 as follows: 
 
 " I personally saw Hill hand an envelope to 
 an old man who had the palsj-. The man was 
 unable to open it and handed it to one of my 
 clerks. I saw the clerk open it and take out a 
 two-dollar bill and hand it to the old man." 
 
 Both of these men are willing to attest the 
 facts should Hill ever deny that he has person- 
 ally purchased votes. For years Hill openly 
 and boldly bought votes, and scores of lawyers 
 and business men in Elmira will attest to the 
 fact. 
 
 When Hill lirst began to work for political 
 prestige, the Arnots were a political power. 
 The so-called Arnot party comprised the best 
 and most conservative portion of Elmira 
 Democracy. Hill began to build himself up as 
 an opponent to the Arnots. He rallied to him- 
 self all the disreputable elements of the Third 
 Ward, and gradually of the whole city. His 
 tutor at the time was a notorious character 
 named Edward L. Patrick, who was dismissed 
 from the Union Army. He was one of Hill's 
 most intimate friends. 
 
 As Hill grew bolder he openly scoflfed at 
 buying votes of his own party, and in order 
 to overcome his Democratic opponents he hired 
 gangs of Republican repeaters to go from one 
 voting-place to another. In this way he elect- 
 ed delegates at the prmiaries. 
 
 One incident of his early legal career is re- 
 membered. On June 17, 1856, a furious storm 
 lell upon the central counties of the southern 
 part of the Htate. The water poured down, 
 tilling the Chemung Canal and overflowing it. 
 Much damage was done to adjacent property. 
 At the time there was no thought of holding 
 the State responsible. Years afterwards, how- 
 ever, the firm of Smith & Hill re])resented to 
 the farmers that they had a just claim against 
 the State. Tiie fai-mers made an agreement 
 whereby the lawyers were to undertake the 
 case, leceiving nothing if they lost, and the 
 largest part of the damages if they 
 
 EARLY LIFE IN THE POLITICS 
 OF ELMIRA. 
 
 The political life of David B. Hill began in 
 Elmira, N. Y., and that city for nearly thirty 
 years has been the scene of his political activi- 
 ty and methods. He had not been in Elmira 
 long before he was elected a justice of the 
 peace. PoUtics soon became with him a pas- 
 sion, to the pursuit of which everything was 
 subordinated. He cared nothing for literature 
 or general culture, and he never mingled in re- 
 spectable society. From the first he aimed to 
 make himself supreme as a Democratic leader 
 in Ehuira. For this reason he never 
 chose as his associates men who were 
 his equals, and who might subsequently contest 
 his leadership, but he chose as his lieutenants 
 men who were often from the lowest dregs of 
 society. In order to achieve his purpose, he 
 did not hesitate to form a coalition with his 
 opponents in the opposite party in order to de- 
 feat an opponent in his own party. 
 
 Hill took up his residence in the Third Ward 
 of Elmira, and the history of his doings in that 
 ward is the story of the way in which the poli- 
 tics of the whole city was gradually debauch- 
 ed. Democrats and Republicans alike confess 
 that vote-buying has developed there into a re- 
 gular business, and that Elmira to-day is one of 
 the most corrupt cities, politically, in the United 
 States. Prominent citizens trace the begin- 
 ning of this state of affairs to David B. Hill. 
 When he first began his political career 
 the Third Ward had a large float- 
 ing population. It also liad a very 
 heavy negro vote. It was there that he began 
 to build up a political jmwer. There is a com- 
 mon tradition, never denied by Hill, that he 
 went into the Third Ward with fifty crisp one- 
 dollar bills. With these he purcha.sed fifty 
 negro votes. That was in the early sixties. 
 When Hill ran for Mayor votes had gone up 
 to $10, and when he was a candidate for Gov- 
 ernor the price was $2(). 
 
 Two responsible citizens of Elmira have stated 
 to a representative of the Evening I 'ost that they 
 
won. In 1869 Hill's tutor, Patrick, being 
 a member of the Assembly, a bill was passed 
 directing the Canal Appraisers to pay the dam- 
 ages. Hill himself was in the Assembly when 
 the last batch of bills was passed. The ag- 
 gregate amount of these claims was nearly 
 $6,000,000, the greater part being in behalf of 
 the clients of Hill & Smith. One of the awai-ds 
 was for 611,44,5 to James A. Locke, whose whole 
 estate was not worth that amount. In 1875 Gov. 
 Tilden's Canal Commission exposed the nature 
 of these claims. Locke testified that he first 
 learned from the lawyers Smith & Hill that he 
 had been damaged by the State. ' ' Tell us, ' ' 
 said the questioner of the Commission, "in 
 what manner and by whom was this question 
 first presented to you of making a claim? " 
 "I think it was by Smith & Hill," replied 
 Locke. "You got your information in some 
 way?" "I got it from them," replied the 
 
 In the fall of 1870 Hill was elected to the As- 
 sembly, succeeding Patrick, who became a pen- 
 sion agent, and conducted that business in 
 such a manner that he was charged with draw- 
 ing pensions for persons who were dead, was 
 convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary. 
 When his term expired he left the country and 
 has never returned. 
 
 In the Assembly Mr. Hill became one of 
 the most subservient and useful agents Tweed 
 had outside of the city of New York in car- 
 rying out his schemes for robbing this city. 
 Patrick had served Tweed during the sessions 
 of 1869 and 1870, and it was quite to Mr. Hill's 
 inclination to take up the Tweed connection 
 where his former political mentor had been 
 obliged to drop it. The relations between Tweed 
 and Mr. Hill ripened into partnership in the busi- 
 ness of publishing a newspaper. To aid him- 
 self in his canvass for the Assembly in 1870, 
 Mr. Hill conceived the idea of owning or con- 
 trolling the Democratic Elmira Gazette. He 
 got an option on it and formed a stock com- 
 pany with a capital of .$40,000, half of which 
 was to be paid up. Hill and two other Elmira 
 men took $10,000 of the paid-up stock, and 
 Edward S. Patrick took $10,000 for some 
 person not named. Soon afterwards, how- 
 ever, this "some person" turned out to be 
 William M. Tweed, the great thief. To him 
 Patrick transferred his $10,000 certificate of 
 ownership in the paper. Mr. Hill was elected 
 to the Assembly, where he was owned and con- 
 trolled by Tweed. He voted for the bills that 
 enabled the Tweed ring to consummate their 
 plot against the city, and against the repeal of 
 the Erie Classification Act, that had enabled 
 Gould and Fisk to steal the Erie Railway, as 
 Tweed and his band had stolen money from 
 New York city. He opposed the impeach- 
 ment of Judge Cardozo, and on the floor 
 of the Assembly undertook to apologize 
 
 for that other cornipt* Judge, George G. Bar- 
 nard. 
 
 In 1872 Hill returned to Elmira. He had 
 followed the fortunes of Tweed, but on his 
 downfall be attached himself to Tilden and be- 
 came his lieutenant. Although for several 
 years he held no political office, he engaged in 
 all the local political fights. When Robinson 
 was a candidate for Governor, the Arnot influ- 
 ence was with Kelly. That fact proved a 
 strong leverage for Hill. In 1880 Hill was 
 elected Alderman from the Third Ward, and 
 in 1882 he was elected Mayor of Elmira. At 
 that time a man by the name of ' ' Tom ' ' 
 Gorman was Hill's active worker. Gorman 
 worked indifferently for either party candidate. 
 He had an eye for ' ' what was in it ' ' for him- 
 self. He was wholly unscrupulous. When elected 
 Mayor, Hill placated the Arnot faction by 
 promising to transfer the city deposits to the 
 Arnot bank. Hill afterwards confessed that 
 he owed his election largely to Gorman. On 
 December 28, 1882, he resigned the Mayor- 
 alty to become Lieutenant-Governor. From 
 that time on, although his history is 
 largely that of the chief executive of 
 the State, he has never withdraw from El- 
 mira fights and factions. In person or through 
 his "heelers " he has directed every fight. 
 Invariably he appeal's in Elmira the Sunday 
 before election and all that day his office 
 swarms with his workers, ' ' heelers, ' ' and 
 friends. Hundreds go away with the enve- 
 lopes that constitute the secret of Hill's influ- 
 ence. 
 
 Nearly all his friends and workers are the 
 dregs of the community. He provides libe- 
 rally for them. The following are a few of 
 those who have done his dirty work, have been 
 his intimates, and have been rewarded there- 
 for by him as Governor : 
 
 Roger Sullivan, a man who for years kept a 
 gambling-house in Elmira, appointed to the 
 Department of Public Works in Albany. 
 
 "Billy" Dilmore, a man from Millport, a 
 canal town, sent to Elmira to do disrepu- 
 table political work, appointed to a position 
 in the Department of Public Works at Al- 
 bany. 
 
 "Al" Hitchcock, an active political worker 
 of the lower type, appointed to a position in 
 Albany. 
 
 Mark Eustace, with no particular knowledge 
 of banking, appointed to the Banking Depart- 
 ment. 
 
 Joe Eustace, was Colonel on Hill's staff, be- 
 came so dissipated that he had to be dismissed. 
 Alexander C. Eustace, appointed on the 
 Civil-Service Commission. All the Eustace 
 brothers were Hill's active workers. "Mott" 
 Eustace was a gambler, and it is said that Hill 
 settled a large number of his debts. 
 
 A prominent business man of Elmira, in sum- 
 ming up Hill's career, said : ' 'As a Democrat he 
 never allowed another Democrat to become a 
 leader or get into power. Sooner than permit 
 this he would unite with factions of the op- 
 posite party. He is first for Hill and second 
 for the Democratic party, and rather than 
 yield to other leaders he will disrupt his party. 
 He has debauched the politics of our city, and 
 built whatever power he has from the most dis- 
 reputable elements of his party by means of 
 , money and bribery. ' ' 
 
 
HIS RECORD AS GOVERNOR. 
 
 The Aqueduct Scandal. 
 
 Mr. Hill succeeded to the Governorship on 
 January 1, 1885, when Mr. Cleveland resigned 
 the office because of election to the Presidency. 
 He at once began to work for reelection in 
 November following, and, in order to strengthen 
 himself with patronage, he sought to gain con- 
 trol of the work of constructing a new aque- 
 duct for New York city. The building of the 
 aqueduct had been authorized in 1883, and 
 begun in 1884 under a Commission of three 
 members, all honorable and able men, with 
 the Mayor, Comptroller, and Commissioner of 
 Public Works members ex officio. The Com- 
 missioner of Public Works, when Mr. Hill 
 became Governor, was one Rollin M. Squire, 
 an unprincipled adventurer from Boston, who 
 had been thrust into the office in the last days 
 of 1884 in accordance with a disgraceful com- 
 pact between a Mayor who was leaving office 
 and a mercenary Board of Aldermen. Mr. 
 Hill opened communication with Squire, and 
 entered into an alliance with him by which 
 they mutually agreed to stand by each other 
 through thick and thin. The two worked to- 
 gether for Mr. Hill's reelection, which was ac- 
 complished in November following. 
 
 Soon after election Squire went to the Gov- 
 ernor and told him that, in order to get the of- 
 fice of Commissioner of Public Works, he had 
 signed a pledge to administer that office in all 
 respects as one Maurice B. Flynn, a contract- 
 or, wished him to ; that he supposed this pledge 
 had been destroyed, but had discovered that it 
 was still in existence and was about to be made 
 public as a means of getting him out of office. 
 The Governor advised Squire not to resign, but 
 to hold on to his office, assuring him. Squire 
 subsequently testified, that ' ' he would support 
 me (Squire) through it all, unless I should do 
 something so bad that a criminal court 
 would convict me." The Governor kept 
 this promise faithfully, though after 
 making it he was shown a copy of the pledge 
 which Squire had signed. Knowing the exist- 
 ence of this pledge, he entered into a compact, 
 or ' ' deal, ' ' with the Republican leaders of the 
 Legislature to pass a bill so reorganizing the 
 Aqueduct Commission as to put Squire in vir- 
 tual control of its work. The partners to this 
 ' ' deal ' ' on l^he Republican side were Speaker 
 Husted, Senator Hoysradt, and Hamilton 
 Fish, jr., and on the Democratic side Gov. 
 Hill, John O'Brien, aqueduct contractor and 
 Chairman of the Democratic State Committee, 
 and William L. Muller, a former law partner 
 of Gov. Hill. They had a bill passed 
 which provided for the appointment by 
 the Governor of three new Aqueduct 
 Commissioners at a salary of $5,000 
 each, and the removal of the Mayor and 
 
 Comptroller as ex-officio members, leaving 
 Squire as the sole official representative of the 
 city on the Commission. After the bill had 
 passed, the Governor appointed Hamilton Fish, 
 jr., one of the new Commissioners, thus keep- 
 ing his bargain with the Republicans. Before 
 he had given his approval to the bill he was 
 shown a copy of Squire's pledge, and then the 
 pledge itself, as proof of Squire's character, 
 and as a reason for refusing to put 
 such great power in his hands, but he declined 
 to be influenced at all by it. 
 
 One of the first acts of the reorganized Com- 
 mission was to open bids for the work of con- 
 structing an important section of the new 
 aqueduct. The bid of O'Brien & Clark, the 
 former being the John O'Brien alluded to 
 above, was f 54, 000 higher than the lowest bid. 
 Gov. Hill sent his friend Muller to members of 
 the Commission asking them to vote to accept 
 O'Brien & Clai'k's bid as a personal favor to 
 himself, and a majority of the Commission 
 acceded to the request. As soon as they 
 were awarded the bid, O'Brien & Clark, in 
 defiance of law, at once sold out their contract 
 to one of the lower bidders for $30,000 clear 
 profit. The full meaning of this transaction 
 will appear later on in this narrative. 
 
 The new Commission went into power in 
 May, 1886. In August following, William M. 
 Ivins, having obtained possession of the pledge 
 which Squire had given to Flynn, published it, 
 and Mayor Grace at once began proceedings 
 for Squire's removal, basing the demand for it 
 upon this pledge. The Governor was forced to 
 accede to the demand by public sentiment. At 
 the time of doing so, the Governor made pub- 
 lic denial that he had ever seen a copy of the 
 pledge before its publication. 
 
 In 1888 the scandals about the doings of the 
 Aqueduct Commission became so great that an 
 investigation was ordered by the Senate. It 
 was shown by unimpeachable testimony that 
 in the campaign for his own reelection in 1885, 
 Gov. Hill had drawn two notes, one for $10,- 
 000 and the other for .«5,000, the proceeds of 
 which had been used to defray campaign ex- 
 penses. The first was drawn to the order of 
 William L. Mullei , and was endorsed by Mul- 
 ler, and by John O'Brien and Heman Clark, 
 the two heaviest contractors for aqueduct 
 work. The note was cashed by O'Brien, 
 and charged to him on the books of the 
 firm. The second note was endorsed by Muller 
 and Alton B. Parker, and was cashed by John 
 Keenan, the alleged ' ' boodle-holder ' ' in the 
 Broadway Railway scandal. Keenan was 
 afterwards repaid by John O'Brien. Mr. 
 O'Brien contributed $500, Alton B. Parker 
 $500, and other friends of the Governor similar 
 amounts. It was to pay these notes that the con- 
 tract was awarded to Clark & O'Brien, though 
 their bid was $54,000 above the lowest, for 
 
Mayor Grace and Squire testified that they 
 were asked to vote in favor of that bid in order 
 that tlie Governor's notes might be paid. The 
 testimony also showed that both notes were 
 finally paid by O'Brien & Clark, presumably 
 out of the S30,000 profit made on that bid. 
 
 It was also shown by the testimony during 
 the investigation that Gov. Hill had heard of 
 the Squire-Flynn pledge several months before 
 it was made public ; that Squire told him of it 
 in December, 1885, and again in January, 1886 ; 
 that a copy of it was shown him in March, 
 1886, and the original in May, 1886. Yet, after 
 all this knowledge, he had entered into a com- 
 pact with Squire, had addressed him in letters 
 asking for patronage as ' ' Honorable ' ' and 
 "My Dear Sir," had united with the Republi- 
 cans of the Legislature in passing a bill to put 
 the aqueduct work into his control, and had 
 been profiting in many ways, including the re- 
 ceipt of $1.5,000 of public money, from his asso- 
 ciation with him. Yet when the pledge was 
 made public, he was forced to remove Squire as 
 a dishonest official, thus admitting that the 
 pledge was prima-facie proof of his worthless 
 character. For their friendly services in his 
 behalf the Governor subsequently appointed 
 John O'Brien receiver for the Broadway Rail- 
 way, and made Mr. MuUer a Commissioner of 
 Claims. 
 
 How He was Re-elected in 1888. 
 
 All this occurred between January, 1885, 
 and July 20, 1888. In 1887 Gov. Hill put him- 
 self squarely on the side of the liquor interests 
 of the State by vetoing a reasonable and most 
 desirable high-license bill. He vetoed a simi- 
 lar bill again in 1888, and in that year vetoed 
 for the first time a ballot-reform bill. He se- 
 cured a renomination for Governor in 1888, 
 and was reelected, though the Democratic 
 Presidential candidates failed to carry the 
 State. How he managed to do this was ex- 
 plained by the Tribune, chief organ of the Re- 
 publican side of the bargain, in its famous con- 
 fession of February 14, 1890, as follows : 
 
 " Many people fancy, because Gov. Hill car- 
 ried New York when President Cleveland was 
 defeated, that a plurality of the voters in the 
 State would support him again. But in that 
 contest, as people here well know, Hill succeed- 
 ed only because he was able to sell a Presidency 
 for a Governorship.'''' 
 
 This view of the case was corroborated by 
 Col. James M. Varnum, Chairman of the last 
 Republican Convention in this State, who said 
 in a sperch on October 8, 1891, alluding to the 
 joint appearance of Cleveland and Hill at a 
 Democratic mass-meeting : 
 
 ' ' If Mr. Hill had confined himself to national 
 issues; if he had not gone into State issues; 
 if he had not thought more of himself than 
 he did of his party, Grover Cleveland would 
 
 now be President of the United States, and 
 you all know it. To-night the betrayer and 
 the betrayed are sitting on the same plat- 
 form.'" 
 
 Strong Democratic testimony on the same 
 point was furnished by the Hon. Smith M. 
 Weed, one of the most powerful leaders of the 
 party in New York State, when he said, in his 
 personal organ, the Plattsburgh Republican, 
 on January 31, 1891; 
 
 ' ' Immediately after the Presidential election 
 of 1888, it is fresh in the minds of Democrats 
 all over the Union what a cry went up of 
 treachery in the Democratic camp of this 
 State. New York was the pivotal State in 
 that election, as it is in all close Presidential 
 elections. And when the returns came in, and 
 it was found that Cleveland, the Democratic 
 President, was defeated in and by New York, 
 while Hill, the Democratic candidate for 
 Governor, was elected in the same State, we 
 all remember what followed. Treachery on 
 the part of Gov. Hill was openly charged, 
 and the cry was caught up by Democrats from 
 the Atlantic to the Pacific. Democrats of 
 this State need not be reminded of the 
 odds against which they fought in combat- 
 ing that idea. . . . We said in our own 
 mind, such monumental treachery as is charged 
 is not possible. And xve made the best of the 
 rather poor stock of available argument ma- 
 terial to establish the belief that Gov. Hill 
 played fair.'''' 
 
 The Hon. Henry Watterson, editor of the 
 Louisville Courier-Journal, said in a letter 
 which he sent to Gov. Hill on November 12, 1890 : 
 
 ' ' Outside of the State of New York there is a 
 well-nigh unanimous demand among the rank 
 and file of Democrats for the nomination of 
 Mr. Cleveland. This is too strong for the 
 party leaders and managers to resist. . . . 
 You are powerless to prevent it, but you can 
 defeat the election of the ticket. There are 
 Democrats in every part of the Union who 
 believe that you did this in 1888. I know that 
 to be false. I know exactly what happened, 
 and I have steadily defended you in public and 
 in private. But it will cling to you as long as 
 you live — even as the bargain, intrigue, and 
 corruption story clung to Clay — and will meet 
 you in every national convention, if it be not 
 dissipated by some act on your part great 
 enough to blot it out. In default of this, if 
 you have any hope of the Presidency, it will 
 defeat that." 
 
 The Enemy of Ballot Reform and the 
 Friend of Liquor. 
 
 In 1889 Gov. Hill vetoed another ballot-re- 
 form bill and another anti-liquor bill, known as 
 the Excise Commission Bill, accompanying the 
 latter act with a veto message which was filled 
 with abusive language towards all the persons 
 
who had been iiLstrumental in its construction 
 and passage. In 1890 he vetoed another bal- 
 lot-reform bill, the best in tde series, and used 
 all his influence to prevent desirable anti-liquor 
 legislation. In the same year, the present de- 
 fective Ballot Act was passed, having been 
 drawn to meet his objections, and was approv- 
 ed by him. In 1891 he stood sponsor for an 
 excise bill drawn by the liquor-dealers in their 
 own intei'est, and selected at their request a 
 member to introduce it in the Assembly. 
 
 In March, 1891, he refused to recognize Gov. 
 Bulkeley as the chief executive officer of Con- 
 necticut, and to honor the latter's requisition 
 for the surrender of fugitive criminals from 
 justice in Connecticut. In taking this position 
 he assumed, for the first time in the history of 
 an American State Government, the powers of 
 a court of last resort in deciding the validity of 
 the title of the Governor of another State to 
 the office he was holding — a position which 
 the Supreme Court of Connecticut has since 
 shown to be entirely erroneous, as well as ridi- 
 culous, by deciding in favor of the validity of 
 Bulkeley's title. The result was suuply to 
 make New Yoi'k State a safe harbor of refuge 
 for Connecticut criminals. 
 
 His Theft of the Legislature. 
 
 Immediately after the election of November, 
 1891, when it was apparent that the upper 
 branch of the Legislature was in doubt. Gov. 
 Hill set on foot a plan to secure a Democratic 
 majority in it by manipulating the county 
 canvassing boards in several districts. The 
 control of the Senate was finally decided 
 by the action of the State Canvassing 
 Board, controlled blindly by the Governor, 
 in two cases — one known as the Sherwood 
 case, another as the Dutchess County 
 case. In the Sherwood case the question turn- 
 ed upon the eligibility of the Republican candi- 
 date, Sherwood, who was holding a city office 
 at the time of the election. The Court of Ap- 
 peals held that he was ineligible, and left the 
 questions of whether his Democratic competi- 
 tor were elected or not, or whether a new elec- 
 tion should be ordered, to be passed upon by 
 the Senate. The Canvassing Boai'd declared 
 Sherwood not elected, though the Court of 
 Appeals had expressly said that the ' ' State 
 Canvassers have no jurisdiction as to the eligi- 
 bility " of a candidate, thus departing from 
 their purely ministerial functions and assuming 
 a power which the Constitution places solely 
 in the hands of the Senate. 
 
 In the Dutchess County case the County 
 Board of Canvassers, by juggling with the 
 figures of the election as returned to them by 
 the inspectors, thi-owing out some which had 
 been cast for Deane, the Republican candidate, 
 and transferring othei's which had been cast 
 
 for him to the total of his opponent, Osborne, 
 figured out a bogus majority for the latter and 
 drew up a certificate of his election. This is 
 known as the Mylod cei-tificate. The clerk of 
 the Board refused to sign it, whereupon Gov. 
 Hill summoned him to Albany, and having 
 gone through with a pretence of giving him a 
 formal hearing, though he had declared him 
 guilty in advance, removed him from office and 
 appointed one Storm Emans to succeed him. 
 
 In the meantime the Mylod certificate had 
 been sent to the Secretary of State at Albany. 
 The Republicans took the case before Justice 
 Barnard of the Supreme Court, a Demo- 
 crat who reviewed the conduct of the 
 Canvassing Board, declared the Mylod 
 certificate to be based upon an illegal and 
 erroneous count, and granted a man- 
 damus restraining the Board of State Canvass- 
 ers from canvassing the Mylod certificate. 
 " The State Board," said the Justice, " has a 
 return which does not indicate the true result. 
 It is proper that the Boai'd should hold its hand 
 until the true record reaches it. ' ' This was on 
 December 5. Seven days later Justice Barnard 
 went over the case again, adhered to his for- 
 mer decision, and issued an order to the Coun- 
 ty Canvassing Board and the new County 
 Clerk, Mr. Emans, to forward a certificate 
 of election for Mr. Deane to the State 
 Canvassing Board. The County Canvassing 
 Board made a new canvass, prepared a certifi- 
 cate of Deane's election, Emans signed it, and 
 on the evening of December 31 mailed three 
 copies of it to Albany, as required by law, one 
 to the Governor, one to the Compti-oller, 
 and one to the Secretary of State. After 
 he had mailed them a telegram reached 
 him informing him that Judge Ingra- 
 ham had granted an order restraining him 
 from forwarding the corrected returns to 
 Albany. Emans took a night train for Al- 
 bany, and caused it to be understood that he 
 intercepted the returns on their way from the 
 Albany Post-office to the offices of the Gov- 
 ernor and Secretary of State, and took them 
 from the hands of the messengers. 
 
 It came out in court that the certificates had 
 reached the State offices before Emans 
 got to Albany. Mr. Rice, the Secretary 
 of State, confessed that the copy addressed 
 to him was in his possession, lying un- 
 opened upon his desk, when Emans appeared 
 and demanded it. He confessed also that when 
 Emans asked for the certificate he showed no 
 order restraining him from sending it, and that 
 he gave the envelope back to Emans on the lat- 
 ter's statement that he had forwarded the cer- 
 tificate under a misapprehension. Emans went 
 also to the Governor's office and induced one 
 of the Governor's messenger-boys to find the 
 Governor's copy in his mail and return it to 
 him. Isaac H. Maynard, Deputy Attorney 
 
General of the State, went to the Comptrol- 
 ler's office and obtained the third copy from 
 his mail from one of the Comptrollei-'s messen- 
 gers. The Governor's messenger testified that 
 when he told the Governor what he had done, 
 the Governor expressed his approval. 
 
 It is as clear as noonday that there must 
 have been a perfect understanding among 
 Emans, Hill, Rice, and Maynard for the ab- 
 straction of those three copies of the returns 
 from the mails, and hence from the official 
 flies of the State. Why did they not wish to 
 have them remain in the files? Simply because 
 if they were allowed to remain, the seat of 
 Dutchess County in the Senate could not 
 be stolen, and a Democratic majority 
 in that body could not be gained. 
 After these mailed copies were stolen, two 
 other copies, equally authentic and valid, 
 were offered to the Secretary of State and 
 the Comptroller, and were refused on the 
 ground that they had not come by mail. Yet 
 the Secretary of State had in his possession 
 another return, the so-called Mylod certificate, 
 which had not come by mail, awarding the 
 seat to the Democratic candidate. Justice 
 Barnard had said of this Mylod certificate: 
 " The State Board of Canvassers has a return 
 which does not indicate the true result. It is 
 proper that the Board should hold its hand 
 until the true record reaches it. ' ' This ' ' true 
 record," so declared by two Democratic 
 Justices of the Supreme Court, was the one 
 which Emans, Hill, Rice, aud Maynard had 
 purloined from the mails and the public 
 flics. The Coiu-t of Appeals, passing on the 
 order of the Supreme Court Justices, 
 affirmed them, pronounced the Mylod certi- 
 flcate to be the result of ' • an illegal and erro- 
 neous canvass, ' ' and said that ' ' if another re- 
 turn should be sent to the Board, projierly 
 authenticated and containing the result of the 
 legal action of the Board of County Canvassers, 
 the State Board could canvass it. ' ' When the 
 State Board met, immediately after receiving 
 this verdict from the Court of Appeals, the Sec- 
 retary of State, as Chairman, declined to say 
 whether or not he had received the legal return, 
 and the Board canvassed the illegal Mylod cer- 
 tiflcate and stole the seat. This is the reason 
 Emans, Hill, Maynard, and Rice robbed the 
 mails, defled the courts, and violated their oaths 
 as public officials. If they had not done so, they 
 could not have stolen control of the State 
 Senate for their party. The Governor re- 
 warded Mr. Maynard for his share in this dis- 
 reputable work by appointing him a Judge of 
 the Court of Appeals ! 
 
 In a contested case in Onondaga County, ap- 
 plication was made to the Supreme Court for a 
 mandamus compelling the County Canvassing 
 Board to send back some defective returns to 
 the inspectors of election for the correction of 
 
 clerical errors, and was granted by Justice 
 Kennedy. Gov. Hill, in a published and au- 
 thorized interview, denounced Justice Kenne- 
 dy's act as "most outrageous, " and assigned 
 a Democratic Justice of the Supreme Court, 
 Morgan J. O'Brien of New York city, to sit in 
 special session in Justice Kennedy's district. 
 He did so, and sustained Justice Kennedy's 
 course in his subsequent decisions. When Jus- 
 tice Kennedy's mandamus was served upon 
 the Canvassing Board, one of its mem- 
 bers took some of the defective returns 
 and left town for several days, thus pre- 
 venting their correction. While he was absent 
 Gov. Hill summoned the clerk of the Board, 
 who had refused to sign a certiflcate issued to 
 the Democratic candidate on the defective re- 
 turns, to Albany, and removed him from office. 
 At the hearing, when the clerk attempted to 
 speak in his own defence, the Governor said to 
 him: "You shut up! You have nothing to 
 say here." When the member of the Can- 
 vassing Board who had disappeared with the 
 defective returns came back. Justice Kennedy 
 sentenced him to fine and impiisonment for 
 contempt of court. Before he could enter 
 upon his imprisonment Gov. Hill pardoned 
 him, assimiing a power which had never before 
 been exercised by a Governor, and which high 
 constitutional authorities (io not believe he 
 possessed. 
 
 TAMMANY-HILL OPPOSITION AND 
 SUPPORT. 
 
 What the Kftcct of it Has Been in 
 the Past. 
 
 As the country is being told a great deal just 
 now about the seriousness of the Tammany- 
 Hill oppo.sition to the nomination of Mr. Cleve- 
 land this year for President, it is worth 
 while to recall former instances of simi- 
 lar opposition in recent years. AVhen Mr. Til- 
 den was the most prominent candidate in 1876, 
 with a nearly solid New York State delegation 
 behind him, John Kelly, as boss of Tammany 
 Hall, went to the St. Louis Coiavention with a 
 special train of 150 followers. He opened a 
 headquarters and hung out a placard with this 
 inscription : 
 
 ' ' The city of New \ ork, the largest Demo- 
 cratic city in the Union, is uncompromisingly 
 opposed to the nomination of Samuel J. Tilden 
 for the Presidency, because he cannot carry 
 the State of New York. " 
 
 As a final effort, after personally visiting all 
 the other State delegations and arguing his 
 case, Kelly distributed the following circular: 
 
 As the friends of Gov. Tilden from New 
 York are industriously circulating a report 
 among the delegates to the Convention from 
 other States that the opposition in the State of 
 New York to his nomination emanates from 
 parties either without personal character or 
 having little political influence, it is 
 proper that the facts should be laid 
 before the delegates assembled, that 
 they may be enabled to judge in 
 an intelligent and impartial manner of the 
 truth of these statements, and shape their 
 
actions accordingly. The following partial and 
 very incomplete list of prominent "New York 
 Democrats who oppose Mr. Tilden's nomina- 
 tion, on the ground that he cannot carry his 
 own State or the country, is the best answer to 
 these statements, and is all the evidence it is 
 deemed necessary to furnish, viz. : 
 
 Augustus Schell, 
 John Kelly, 
 Win. R. Travers, 
 Maj.-Gen. Henry, 
 August Belniout, 
 W. Slocum, 
 Judge Gilbert, 
 Horatio Seymour, jr.. 
 Chancellor J. V.L. Pruyn, 
 Mr. Wheaton, 
 De Witt C. West. 
 Ex-Atty,-Gen.Dan. Pratt 
 Erastus Corning, 
 S. S. Cox, M.C.. 
 Fernando Wood, M.C., 
 Judge Comstoek, 
 Roger A. Pryor, 
 Ex-Gov. Hoffman, 
 Chief -Justice Sauford E. 
 
 Church, 
 Justice Allen, 
 Justice Miller, 
 
 D. C. Littlejohn, 
 Lt.-Gov. Allen C. Beach, 
 Judge Charles Donohue, 
 Wm. G. Fargo, 
 Amasa J. Park, 
 
 E. O Perrin, 
 
 J. O. Whitehouse, 
 Charles B. Walker, M.C., 
 Erastus Brooks, 
 
 James S. Thayer, 
 Judge J. H. Clute, 
 C. A. Walrath, 
 Sidney Webster, 
 Delos De Wolf. 
 Elmore P. Ross, 
 H. O. Cheesebro, 
 Ex-Attorney-Gen. M. B 
 
 Chaplin, 
 Supt. D. C. Howell, 
 Gen. George Magee, 
 The Messrs. Aruott, 
 .J. B. Parsons, 
 Isaac McConihe, 
 Moses Warren, 
 Robert H. Waterman, 
 William R. Roberts, 
 E. L. I>onnelly, 
 Frederick Smythe, 
 Judge Charles Holmes, 
 Senator W. C. Lamout, 
 Col. Samuel North, 
 Frank Abbott, 
 G. W. Millspaugh, 
 John Rankin, 
 J. Stewart WeUs, 
 J.'M. Nelson, 
 S. L. Mayhew. 
 Sherburne B. Piper, 
 Charles T. Duryea, 
 Judge John I. Reed, 
 
 and numerous other leading and representative 
 Democrats. 
 
 When the Convention assembled, Kelly en- 
 deavored to have this circular read to it, but 
 was prevented. 
 
 Mr. Tildeu carried the State of New York 
 that year by 33,000 Democratic majority. 
 
 In 1880 John Kelly went to the Cincinnati 
 Convention at the head of a Tammany delega- 
 tion, strongly opposed to Mr. Tilden and in 
 favor of Gen. Hancock as the candidate. Mr. 
 Tilden withdrew his name before the balloting 
 began, and Gen. Hancock was nominated. 
 After the nomination John Kelly mounted the 
 platform and made a speech in which he said : 
 
 Your Chairman has told you that, by your 
 action of to-day in nommating Gen. Hancock, 
 you have unii ed the Democracy of the State of 
 New York. He has told you truly. The great 
 State of New York cannot be carried unless 
 there be a. united Democracy in that State. 
 Now that we are united, I think that it will be 
 safe for me to sav to this Convention that there 
 can be no doubt as to what the result will be in 
 that State in November next. . . . Let me 
 again pledge to the Convention that there can 
 be no question whatever as to the result. 
 
 Col. John R. Fellows, representing then the 
 County Democracy, was called to the plat- 
 form, where he shook hands with Kelly and 
 made a speech in which he said : 
 
 Gentlemen of the United States: Your 
 action to-day has been superb. You have re- 
 stored all differences existing in the ranks of 
 the Democratic party. ... I only stop to say 
 that New York has but one response to make 
 to Democratic nominations ; she gives Demo- 
 cratic majorities. We will write on our ban- 
 ner in November 50,000 majority in the name 
 of a united Democracy as the tribute of the 
 Empire State. 
 
 Gen. Hancock lost the State of New York 
 and Garfield carried it by 21,000 majority. 
 
 InlS84Johu Kellj', at the head of a Tam- 
 many delegation, went to Chicago and bitterly 
 opposed Mr. Cleveland's nomination. His 
 spokesmen were ' ' Tom ' ' Grady and Bourke 
 Cockran, both of whom assured the Conven- 
 tion when Cleveland was put in nomination 
 that he could not carry the State of New York. 
 It is conceded that Tammany, under Kelly's 
 lead, "knifed" the National Democratic 
 ticket of Cleveland and Hendricks in the elec- 
 tion of that year, but Cleveland carried the 
 State in spite of that treachery. Proof of 
 Kelly's treachery is to be found in the election 
 figures, for the Democratic vote fell off heavily 
 in all the Tammany strongholds. Additional 
 proof appears in the 'Autobiography and Per- 
 sonal Reminiscences ' of Gen. B. F. Butler, jtist 
 published, for on page 983 Gen. Butler makes 
 this confession of the conspiracy in which he 
 and John Kelly, as the boss of Tammany Hall, 
 and the New York Sun had engaged for the 
 defeat of Cleveland in the interest of Blaine 
 and the protective tariff : 
 
 Looking at the men who were gathered 
 around Mr. Cleveland and at the doctrines 
 they entertained, I thought I foresaw great 
 danger to the country in his election. If the 
 Republican jyarty won, the jjreservation of the 
 tariff ivas assured. I thought I would see, by 
 a fusion of the Greenback party and the Demo- 
 crats in the Western States and in New Jersey 
 and New York, if enough votes could not be 
 procured to prevent the election of Mr. Cleve- 
 land by getting enough electoral votes for the 
 fusion ticket. I labored assiduously through- 
 out the campaign to this end. ... In 
 Indiana the fusion failed, those having chai'ge 
 of the fusion party in that State, for some rea- 
 son never explained to me, having given way. 
 In West Virginia and New Jersey the fusion 
 also failed. The only hope was then in my 
 drawing enough votes from the Democratic 
 ]:)arty from the State of New York to prevent 
 its throwing its vote to Cleveland. / was suji- 
 ported by the strongest man, the one of the 
 greatest influence that I knew in the State of 
 Neiv York, Mr. John Kelly, ivho represented 
 the opposition to Mr. Cleveland. 
 
 In 1888 Cleveland was renominated by accla- 
 mation, and there was no opposition to him in 
 New York or any other State. The RepubU- 
 cans carried New York that year by 1-1:,000 
 majority, and Mr. Hill carried it for Governor 
 by 19,000 majority, for reasons which have 
 been made plain in the subdivision of his record, 
 which is entitled : ' ' How He was Reelected in 
 1888. ' ' He will not be able to sell a Presidency 
 for a Governorship this year, as no Governor 
 is to be chosen. 
 
 DATES OF PREVIOUS NEW YORK 
 CONVENTIONS. 
 
 1876. . (Tilden the candidate) April 28 
 
 1880. . (Hancock the candidate) . . .April 21 
 1884.. (Cleveland the candidate) ..June 19 
 1888.. (Cleveland the candidate) ..May 16 
 1892. . (Hill wants to be) Feb. 22 
 
NEW YORK'S UNCERTAIN VOTE. 
 
 Nothing has been more conclusively estab- 
 lished concerning the political character of 
 New York than that the State contains a bodj' 
 of independent voters sufficient in number to 
 cause the defeat of any candidate who is ob- 
 jectionable to them. Ihis fact has been recog- 
 nized by all competent political authorities for 
 years, and has led them to jait down the State 
 regularly among those which are always 
 "doubtful" in a Presidential election. Sey- 
 mour carried it for President in 1868 by only 
 about 10,000 Democratic majority, though in 
 the same election Hoffman's ma joi'ity for Gov- 
 ernor on the same ticket was nearly ~8, 000. In 
 1870 Gov. Hoffman was reelected by 33,000 
 majority, and two years later Gen. Grant car- 
 ried it by ovei' .'53,000 Republican majority for 
 President and John A. Dix by the same ma,- 
 jority for Governor. In 1874 it turned com- 
 pletely about and gave Mr. Tilden for Govern- 
 or a Democratic majority of over .50,000. In 
 1870 Mr. Tilden carried it for President by 
 nearly 33,000 majority, and three yeai-s later 
 Mr. Cornell, a Republican, was elected Governor 
 by 42,000 plurality over two opposing Demo- 
 cratic candidates, thougli he received nearly 
 35,000 less votes than the combined vote of 
 his Democi'atic opponents. The State had thus 
 remained steadily Democratic in State and 
 national elections for five years, yet when the 
 Presidential election of 1880 arrived, Garfield 
 carried it over Hancock by nearly 21,000 ma- 
 jority. 
 
 All these oscillations were due to the chang- 
 ing back and forth of the independent votei's. 
 They voted for Grant because they could not 
 bring themselves to support Greeley in 1872, 
 and they voted for Tilden in 1874 and in 1876 
 because they had confidence in him as a re- 
 former, based tii'st upon his light against the 
 Tweed ring, and second upon his fight against 
 the canal ring. In 1879 the independent vote 
 was cast for Robinson for Governor, and he 
 would have been elected had not Tammany 
 run John Kelly against him and thus allowed 
 the Republican candidate to slip in. In 1880 
 Gen. Hancock's amusing observations about 
 tariff being a "local issue" cost him the confi- 
 dence of the independent voters, and the State 
 swung back to the Republicans. In 1882 came 
 the most overwhelming demonstration yet 
 made of the possibilities of this uncertain vote, 
 when Cleveland, as the Democratic candidate 
 for Governor, carried the State by a majority 
 of over 192,000. This result was due to the 
 use of machine b^ss-ship by President Arthur 
 in forcing the nomination of Mr. Folger as the 
 Administiation candidate for Governor. The 
 independents refused to support him, and 
 voted for Cleveland, while the Blaine Repub- 
 licans stayed away from the polls by thou- 
 sands. In the Presidential election of 1884 
 Cleveland carried the State by the narrow ma- 
 jority of 1,047, though he received a total vote 
 which was 30,000 greater than that cast for 
 him in 1882. Had he been supported loyally 
 by Tammany, his majority would have been 
 much larger. In 1885 Gov. Hill carried the 
 State by 11,000 majority, though his total vote 
 
 was nearly 34,000 less than that which was 
 cast for Cleveland for Governor in 1882, and 
 over 62,000 less than that which was cast for 
 Cleveland for President in 1884. 
 
 The Blaine Republicans, according to the 
 Tribune, and in obedience to its advice, re- 
 frained from voting for their candidate be- 
 cause the Mugwumps supported him. In 1888... 
 Mr. Harrison carried the State by 14,000 Re- 
 publican majority for President, and Mr. Hill 
 carried it by 19,000 Democratic majority for 
 Governor. "But in that contest," said the 
 Trilnme on February 14, 1890, "as people here 
 well know. Hill succeeded only because he was 
 able to sell a Presidencj' for a Governorship." 
 
 There was a very notable oscillation in the 
 Congressional elections of 1890, when the 
 Democrats carried the State by a total ma- 
 jority on Congressmen of over 75,000. This 
 was distinctly traceable to the independent 
 vote and the tarift'-reform issue. In the elec- 
 tion of last November, in which Mr. Flower re- 
 ceived a majority of nearly 48,000 for Gov- 
 ernor, the same issue was paramount, and Mr. 
 Cleveland, as the personitication of it, took a 
 leading part in the campaign, and was the 
 means of bringing the great body of the inde- 
 pendent voters to Mr. Flower's suppoi't. The 
 chief arguments which induced these voters to 
 support Mr. Flower were that his election was 
 absolutely necessary to the cause of tariff re- 
 form, and that if he were successful, tariff re- 
 form and sound money would be the leading 
 issues in the next Presidential campaign. 
 
 The absui'dity of Mr. Hill's position since 
 this last election, in view of all these facts, is 
 obvious. No sooner was the election over 
 than he began to force himself upon the party 
 as its Presidential candidate, and to deny that 
 tariff reform and sound money had played 
 any part in the election by announcing himself 
 as opposed to both. As if these peformances 
 were not a sufficient defiance to the independ- 
 ent voters of the State, he added to them the 
 further offences of stealing control of the Le- 
 gislature, and then, with thefl as his chief claim 
 to the Presidential nomination, calling a State 
 Convention of his party at such a date as would 
 enable him through his power over the party 
 machine to have a delegation of his own tools 
 chosen to represent the New York Democracy 
 in the party's National Convention. If he were 
 to carry his plan forward to success, were to 
 capture from the National Convention his 
 nomination for the Presidencj^, he would tail 
 to carry the State of New York by An enor- 
 mous majority. No man can study the figures 
 of the elections since the war, as we ha-'e 
 quoted them, and escape this conclusion. 
 There is a body of independent voters in the 
 State, ranging, according to provocation, 
 from 10,000 to 100,000, which could never be 
 induced to vote for a candidate of his charac- 
 ter. This fact is already so obvious, and 
 Democrats in other States, as well as in New 
 York, perceive it so plainly, that short work 
 will be made of Mr. Hill's pretensions when 
 the National Convention bends itself to their 
 consideration. 
 
 This iximphlet is for sale by The Evening Post, 20G Broadway, New York. Price 
 cents a copy or $1.50 a hundred. Fostaf/e or ex])rcssage extra.