The Writings of Carl Schurz/From Horace White, January 24th, 1885
FROM HORACE WHITE
Confidential.
My dear Schurz: My interview with Governor Cleveland has left this impression on my mind; that his present inclination is to appoint Bayard, Secretary of State, Whitney, Secretary of Treasury, Garland, Attorney-General and J. Q. Adams,[1] Postmaster-General or something else. He asked my opinion of Trumbull without being led up to it by me in any way. So I infer that he had had Trumbull in his mind for some time. I did lead up to Adams, and he said that he had mentioned Adams to some of his friends without, however, intending that any inference should be drawn from it. Then he added that the name of Adams would go a great way in any Cabinet and that since J. Q. had been a consistent Democrat from the war period down, no objection could be raised against him on that score. He holds the same opinion of Judge Abbott that you do and expressed it in almost the same words.
I used every argument that could be thought of against the appointment of Whitney—in a temperate way of course. I need not recapitulate them to you. He met them all with counter-arguments, or rather he stated whatever was to be stated on the other side. He may have done this for the purpose of drawing me out and seeing how much I was opposed to Whitney. I have considerable hope that when he comes out of his comparative seclusion at Albany and meets real public opinion, the present inclination of his mind—if I am right in my interpretation of it—may be overborne.
His objections to Bayard as Secretary of the Treasury are based upon Bayard's political affiliations in New York. His (Bayard's) intimate associates, he says, are men who believe in patronage as a means of political advancement and are as case-hardened in this respect as Tom Platt, Geo. Bliss or Barney Biglin. Bayard himself, he concedes, is above all such base and paltry considerations, but he thinks that these men would, nevertheless, have their way with him.
This is a matter which, of course, cannot be communicated to Bayard himself. He is so high-mettled that he would sheer the track at once and refuse to come within gunshot of the Cabinet in any capacity, and I think we must try to land him there even if the Treasury is bestowed elsewhere. I know that Governor Cleveland wants him for Secretary of State, and considering the present state of complication and bedevilment in that quarter, it is worth an effort to get him there if the other plan fails.
The first thing to be done is to keep Whitney out. Judge Schoonmaker proposes Daniel Manning as a counter-nomination. Manning is a banker, a man of good repute, much better known to the country than Whitney, and a man of experience. I should say that he would be one of the few men left from whom the choice could be made, if Bayard is not taken. D. Willis James is another. Hewitt would be an excellent choice if his health were sufficient. But Manning gave me to understand that he favored the appointment of Whitney. Godkin had a talk with Stetson yesterday. Stetson stated with great positiveness that Whitney was not a candidate for the place, that he distrusted his own ability to fill it and that if his (Whitney's) opinion were asked as to the fitness of the appointment of himself, or anybody so little known to the country as himself, he would say no. This is another puzzle! Most people would say that if this is his frame of mind he can solve all difficulties and save the party from a great risk by taking himself out of the way. Governor Cleveland told me that he had not made a pledge to any human being for a place in the Cabinet, or any other place, and that he should not do so until he had consulted certain party leaders, among whom he mentioned Carlisle and Lamar. He inquired particularly how long you would be away and said that he would have been extremely glad to see you at Albany but could not blame you for not coming. I think that a letter from you guided by the information which you now have would be very useful. Of course it must not be known how you have derived the information, although I do not consider that I am violating any confidence in telling you things which he would have told you if you had accepted his invitation to call upon him at Albany.
Regarding the reappointment of Postmaster Pearson [of New York]—the thing is quite feasible provided the Independents will signify in writing their desire for it. Curtis objects to this, because it looks like a division of spoils—so much for so much. That is, he objects to the “signing of paper.” He thinks that the appointment ought to be done “out of hand,” as altogether the fittest thing to be done, etc. Of course if that were practicable it would be the best thing. But Governor Cleveland said that it might embarrass him in other cases to reappoint Mr. Pearson on his own motion. A multitude of other Republican postmasters would claim the same consideration and it would be extremely difficult to deal with them. Reasons as plenty as blackberries might exist for their non-retention but it would be hard to make the public understand them, etc.
I enclose you Curtis s letter so that you may be fully possessed of his views. My own opinion is that we cannot under the circumstances refuse to “make it easy” for Governor Cleveland to do what we desire in the premises although it may be well to have the paper signed by Ottendorfer, Hewitt and some other leading Democrats. Mr. Ottendorfer told me that he would cordially coöperate if Democratic coöperation were desirable. I should qualify all this by saying that Governor Cleveland did not promise to reappoint Mr. Pearson, but indicated that his personal inclination lay that way.
Governor Cleveland is strongly opposed to the silver coinage, and from some remarks which he made I infer that he has no liking for the pending treaties.
The impression I got of Governor Cleveland is that he is an honest, true-hearted, single-minded man, who has mastered the civil service question and is inflexible in his intention to carry out that reform in the spirit of his recent letter, but that as to the great mass of National questions, which will come up for daily treatment, his information is extremely defective and that he is liable to make many and even serious mistakes unless his daily advisers and associates are men of experience, training and proved political ability.
P.S. Please write me what you think of Curtis's objections.
- ↑ Eldest son of Chas. Francis Adams, Sr.