Class F- 6 f: 4- 
 
 CoBiightN: 
 
 -3 
 
 CCEXRIGHT DEPOSm 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 ■BIT 
 
 A. ELW»>:>D CORNIS'G 
 
 AUTHOR OF whjlzjlm. mc '\~x:lzy. a 2::«3_iJzi:-^jL = 
 
 WILI. CAai-SXQ>«. A 7 ^A^HZlAJl STUDY; ETC 
 
 lii 
 
 XZW YORK 
 
 THE L.\X:.IZRZ 7V3_:5HZS'G CO. 
 
 191s 
 
Copyright, 1918, by 
 A. ELWOOD CORNING 
 
 Published October, 1918 
 
 E66f 
 
 OCi 30 1^18 
 
 / 
 
 BVRR PRINTING HOUSE, NEW YORK 
 
 ©Cl.A5l)0r>50 P 
 
 \v 
 
TO MY FRIEXD 
 
 Captain J^amilton :If isffj, 3^r. 
 
 THIS BRIEF MONOGRAPH 
 
 THE WRITING OF WHICH HE MADE POSSIBLE 
 
 IS GRATEFULLY DEDICATED 
 
 BY THE AUTHOR 
 
I 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER FAGB 
 
 Introduction 7 
 
 I. Early Life and Beginnings in Politics . 11 
 
 II. In Congress — State Election of 1846 — 
 
 Lieutenant-Governor 23 
 
 III. Governor of New York . 30 
 
 IV. United States Senator — European Travel 
 
 — Public Service During the War . . 35 
 
 V. Secretary of State 49 
 
 VI. The Treaty of Washington 59 
 
 VII. The Treaty of Washington, continued . 75 
 
 VIII. The Cuban Rebellion — The Virginius 
 
 Affair -85 
 
 IX. Relations with San Domingo — The Cur- 
 rency Veto 93 
 
 X. In Retirement — Man and Statesman . . 104 
 
 [5] 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 By Honorable John Bassett Moore, LL.D. 
 
 Professor of International Law and Diplomacy in Columbia 
 
 University 
 
 THE author of the present sketch has asked me to con- 
 tribute an introductory word. My interest in his 
 subject has induced me to comply. 
 Upwards of forty years have elapsed since Hamilton 
 Fish relinquished the post of Secretary of State, and, on the 
 verge of his seventieth year, ended his public career. When 
 drafted into the cabinet of Grant, it was twelve years since 
 he had held public office. Prior to that interval, he had 
 served as a member of the national House of Representa- 
 tives; as Lieutenant-Governor, and then as Governor, of 
 his native State; and as a Senator of the United States. 
 He had neither extolled his own virtues, nor sought popu- 
 lar favor and admiration by rhetorical efforts. In the Con- 
 gress he had made no speeches; and in the various official 
 positions he occupied his activities, so far as they found 
 formal expression in words, were recorded in grave State 
 papers which comparatively few persons ever saw and still 
 fewer cared to read. 
 
 Nevertheless, in his day and generation he enjoyed an 
 exceptionally large measure of public confidence. As a 
 trustee of ecclesiastical, educational, and benevolent institu- 
 tions, to which, when not in public life, he gave much of 
 his time and thought; as the associate and adviser of men 
 of affairs and men of business, of men who desired sound 
 
 [7] 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 and stable conditions rather than opportunities for adven- 
 ture, he was held, by reason of his breadth of view, sure- 
 ness of judgment and practical capacity, in the highest 
 esteem. These respect-compelling qualities he carried into 
 public office, where, united with a keen sense of honor and 
 strict integrity, they enabled him to advance the general 
 welfare and to elevate the standards of service. 
 
 In the administration of the foreign affairs of his coun- 
 try, he achieved his greatest usefulness. He undertook 
 the task at a critical time, when many difficult questions 
 were pending, and when intelligence, experience and steadi- 
 ness were peculiarly requisite. Some of these questions 
 antedated the Civil War, but others were of later origin, 
 while the most important and most menacing of all, that of 
 the so-called Alabama Claims, arose out of that great con- 
 flict. 
 
 In the treatment of these complications, Hamilton Fish 
 was an opportunist only in the sense that he **took occasion 
 by the hand." His aims were clear and definite, and were 
 steadily pursued. His prime objective was peace with 
 reciprocal justice. In his adherence to this noble and prac- 
 tical ideal, he had his official chief's full and loyal support. 
 It is true that the particular measures he recommended 
 were not invariably those that most strongly appealed to 
 the President ; but, as events vindicated his wisdom. Grant, 
 who was peculiarly free from vanity and egotism, deferred 
 to his judgment and trusted him more and more. 
 
 Fortunately, he was thus enabled to complete his work. 
 I cannot undertake now to pass it in review. But I will 
 say that the Treaty of Washington of May 8, 1871, for 
 the settlement of all controversies then pending with Great 
 Britain, stands out as the most comprehensive international 
 
 [8] 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 adjustment in our diplomatic annals. The Geneva Tribunal, 
 for which it provided, still presents the high-water mark of 
 international arbitration. As our retrospect lengthens, the 
 more clearly do we see that the treaty of 1871 was the turn- 
 ing point in the relations between the two countries. Re- 
 garding it as a great historic monument, if I were asked to 
 select, from among its conscious builders, the name most 
 worthy to be inscribed upon it, as that of its chief designer 
 and creator, I should not hesitate to designate the name of 
 Hamilton Fish. 
 
 John Bassett Moore. 
 September 9, 1918. 
 
 [9] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 1808—1893 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 EARLY LIFE AND BEGINNINGS IN POLITICS 
 
 HAMILTON FISH, Governor of New York, United 
 States Senator, and Secretary of State in the 
 cabinet of President Grant, was born in 1808, in 
 the first half of the first quarter of the nineteenth century, 
 when the United States was still under the influence politi- 
 cally of old-world conservatism, and died in 1893, four 
 years before the Spanish-American War, the result of 
 which extended the nation's boundary beyond the seas and 
 evoked a corresponding national obHgation by thus placing 
 our country among the foremost nations of the world. 
 Between these two periods, that which preceded the open- 
 ing of a distinct but crude nationality, and the closing 
 years of an epoch which was to be followed by an era of 
 world-encompassing influence, the career of Hamilton Fish 
 is included. The span of his political life embraced two 
 separate periods, though the paramount issues which arose 
 in the second, and with which he had mainly to deal, may 
 be said to have grown out of the first. He first entered 
 public office in 1843, having been elected a member of the 
 House of Representatives, in which he served during the 
 twenty-eighth Congress. From this time until 1857 he was 
 almost continuously in the public service. Then followed 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 an intervening period of twelve years, in which he seems 
 to have been preparing, though unconsciously, for the his- 
 toric role he was destined to play in foreign affairs as 
 Premier in the cabinet of President Grant; for it is the 
 period of his Secretaryship of State, which began in 1869 
 and lasted until 1877, an interim of only eight years, that 
 the most eminent political history of his life belongs. A 
 man who never zealously sought public office, Mr. Fish 
 therefore did not expect after his retirement from the 
 Senate in 1857 to again be called into the public service; 
 indeed, only the repeated importunities of General Grant, 
 as we shall see, induced him to re-enter official life, and 
 then only with the understanding that he would be released 
 after a brief term of service. Only an innate sense of 
 devotion to duty and loyalty to his chief deterred him more 
 than once from resigning. But as his achievements in the 
 Department of State are passed in review we shall see how 
 complete and important they were, and how fortunate that 
 the Government chanced to have as Secretary of State a 
 man who was able, in an hour which nearly threatened the 
 peace of America, to achieve the satisfactory settlement of 
 an issue of far-reaching international significance ; for to 
 Hamilton Fish more than to any one single individual 
 belongs the credit of having brought to an effective termina- 
 tion the Treaty of Washington. 
 
 Hamilton Fish was born on August 3, 1808, at No. 21 
 Stuyvesant street, in the city of New York. He was the 
 third child and eldest son of Colonel Nicholas Fish, a Revo- 
 lutionary officer of high repute, who had married in 1803 
 Miss Elizabeth Stuyvesant, daughter of Petrus Stuyvesant, 
 a lineal descendant and heir of the landed property of the 
 last Dutch Governor of New Amsterdam, whose regime 
 
 [12] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 covered a term of more than seventeen years. The name 
 of Fish is of Enghsh origin. The first ghmpse we get of 
 the family is in the reign of Henry the Eighth, when one, 
 Simon Fish, or rather Fysche, as the name was then spelled, 
 a lawyer in Graies' Inn, London, incurred the displeasure 
 of Cardinal Wolsey by impersonating in a tragedy that 
 eminent prelate. The alienation was so intense, according 
 to the legend, that Fish was compelled to Hve for two 
 years out of the country. While abroad he wrote a succinct 
 but comprehensive treatise on "The Supplication of Beg- 
 gars," which so pleased "Master Fox" that he publicly 
 commended it. It later fell under the royal eye through 
 the efforts of Anne Boleyn ; and having met with the favor 
 of the king, the author was immediately ordered back to 
 England, where he is said to have received kingly favors.^ 
 
 Considerably more than a hundred years passes, how- 
 ever, before the name of Fish appears in America. In 1637, 
 Jonathan Fish, one of three of that name — supposedly 
 brothers — who had recently come to these shores, having 
 lived at Lynn, Massachusetts, moved to Sandwich, on Cape 
 Cod. In 1659 he, with other thrifty colonists, helped to 
 found the settlement of Newtown, Long Island. For sev- 
 eral years he served in the magistracy, and also held other 
 official positions. His grandson, another Jonathan, who is 
 said to have owned extensive lands in the village of New- 
 town, built the famous "corner house." This Jonathan 
 Fish also held public office, being town clerk for fifteen 
 years. He died in 1723 at the age of forty-three. After 
 the lapse of two generations we come down to Nicholas 
 Fish, great-grandson of Jonathan, and father of the states- 
 man. 
 
 1 Worthies of England, Vol. I, p. 492. London: 1811. 
 
 [13] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 Colonel Nicholas Fish seems to have been a man of con- 
 siderable prominence, both socially and politically. Born 
 in 1758, in the city of New York, he was a student of law 
 in the office of General John Morin Scott, when he received 
 in April, 1776, a commission of Brigade Major in General 
 Scott's command. Having been transferred early in the 
 war to the Continental line, he was in active service until 
 the close of hostilities, participating in both battles of Sara- 
 toga, and commanding a corps of light infantry at the bat- 
 tle of Monmouth. In 1778 he was made a Division In- 
 spector under General Steuben ; and his active participation 
 in the Yorktown campaign, which resulted in the surrender 
 of Lord Cornwallis, was publicly referred to by General 
 LaFayette forty-three years later when the distinguished 
 Frenchman visited that celebrated battle-field. The occa- 
 sion was of great historic interest, and the ceremonies 
 which welcomed the old hero were very impressive. As a 
 "civic wreath" was about to be placed upon the head of 
 LaFayette he caught it, and holding it in his right hand 
 touchingly responded in a few well-chosen words, in which 
 he alluded to the gallant Hamilton, who was in command 
 of the attack, and *'to the three field officers who seconded 
 him, Gimat, Laurens, and Fish, the only surviving one, my 
 friend now near me." ''Here," he said, turning to Colonel 
 Fish, who stood by his side, ''half of this wreath belongs to 
 you." "No, sir," replied the Colonel, "it is all your own." 
 "Then," said LaFayette, placing it into the Colonel's hand, 
 "take it, and preserve it as our common property."^ 
 
 In 1786 Colonel Fish was appointed Adjutant-General of 
 the State of New York, an office he retained for many 
 
 2 The Life of LaFayette, by an Officer in the Army of the Revo- 
 lution, p. 482. Hartford: S. Andrus & Son, 1850. 
 
 [14] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 years; in 1794 Washington, who esteemed him as friend 
 and comrade in arms, made him a Supervisor of the Rev- 
 enue, and he was serving as Alderman of the city of New 
 York when in April, 1809, he was nominated by the Fed- 
 eralists of the State as their candidate for Lieutenant- 
 Governor, but in the election was defeated. He also was 
 an active member of various benevolent, religious, and liter- 
 ary organizations, and in 1797 was elected President of the 
 New York Society of the Cincinnati, of which he was one 
 of the original members. "He was," wrote Mrs. Lamb, in 
 her "History of New York," "a representative citizen, of 
 elegant scholarship, refinement, and good breeding."^ 
 
 Such, briefly, was the career of Colonel Nicholas Fish, 
 the descendants of whom have made a succession of honored 
 names to various departments of public life. He married, 
 as we have seen, Elizabeth Stuyvesant, whose natural 
 graces distinguished her quite as much as her birth. Her 
 mother was Margaret Livingston, granddaughter of Rob- 
 ert Livingston, first Lord of Livingston Manor. The 
 family of Livingstons were of Scotch extraction, and while 
 not of the old world gentry, like the Stuyvesants, had, since 
 the colonial days, been acquiring both property and posi- 
 tion until at this time we find them at the height of their 
 influence, both politically and socially. Thus the immediate 
 forbears of Hamilton Fish came from English, Dutch, 
 and Scotch blood, the coalition of which was an example of 
 that union between different nationalities which in America 
 has produced so happy a combination of characteristics. 
 That firmness of will and moral stability which so greatly 
 characterized the early Knickerbockers, of whom Irving 
 
 3 History of the City of New York, by Mrs. Martha J. Lamb, 
 Vol. II, p. 576. 
 
 [15] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 has so interestingly written, were qualities whkh -^^ 
 through his mother from the Stuyvesants. Perhaps r^o 
 Slmet the colonial Dutch -stoc-cy^-°re am.^^^^ y 
 known to the present generation than that of Peter btuy 
 vesanf certainly none has left on the pages of the early 
 W story o Manhattan Island a deeper '^P-ss-n^ & 
 ? led'iate descendants, while by no -ans so «^^^^^ 
 ;n the citv's life, or indeed personally so mdividuaUstic, wer 
 the leader of New York society for over two hundred 
 Their landed property, said to have been the greatest 
 TManltnlntlfni L Lded down fro« gen.aUon 
 ,'r.r. . tVint nart known as the ''Bowery compnsea 
 
 few hundred feet from the house m wh,ch he wa bo n 
 
 The record is still preserved m the arcmvcb 
 
 best this go Youthful emotions, however, were not 
 
 we know but little. Y out ;)^^^„ ^^,e n,ore 
 
 in those days so fruitful of ^^P~ well-regulated 
 
 restrained ^^^Jj, ^^.^^^^'d discipline, it certainly 
 TuSs'l^^Tt ectd Thfcity in which he passed his 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 since the days immediately succeeding the close of the 
 Revolutionary War, and contained in 1808 over ninety 
 thousand inhabitants. The houses of the opulent, usually 
 of brick, were surrounded by beautiful grounds ; and the 
 house in which Hamilton Fish was born (21 Stuyvesant 
 street) was particularly noted for its extensive gardens. 
 It is still standing, and the front remains the same as orig- 
 inally built. In 1824 LaFayette was entertained there with 
 lavish hospitality, and to its portals the hand of fellowship 
 welcomed many of the honored names of that day, includ- 
 ing Alexander Hamilton, an intimate friend of the family, 
 and in honor of whom the son was named. 
 
 The boyhood of young Fish was spent mainly in the 
 city of his birth, save for those summer peregrinations 
 which the families of the well to do were in the habit of 
 taking. His education was under the supervision of his 
 father, with whom he seems to have been in close sympathy. 
 He was prepared for college at the then famous school of 
 Monsieur Bancel, *'an exiled French Legitimist" ; and 
 there received a thorough knowledge of the French lan- 
 guage which was of so great an aid in his administrative 
 work in the Department of State over fifty years later. 
 From Bancel's he proceeded to Columbia College in 1824, 
 and was graduated at the head of the class of 1827. In a 
 letter to his father LaFayette alludes to his collegiate rec- 
 ord, and warmly congratulates Colonel Fish on his son's 
 success. 
 
 Upon his graduation Fish turned at once to the study of 
 the law, taking up his reading in the office of Peter A. Jay, 
 the eldest son of the first Chief Justice of the United States 
 Supreme Court. Three years later he was admitted to the 
 bar; and in 1833 was made Commissioner of Deeds for the 
 
 [17] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 city of New York. At this time his law office was located 
 at 15 Pine street, corner of Nassau. He later formed a 
 partnership with William Beach Lawrence, a gentleman of 
 wide acumen, who had been Secretary of the Legation at 
 London under the ministry of Albert Gallatin. Mr. Law- 
 rence also was the editor of Wheaton's ''International 
 Law," and this association probably led Mr. Fish to the 
 study of Public Law which was of supreme service to him 
 when as Secretary of State he was required to deal with 
 questions of international scope. As a practitioner, how- 
 ever, he confined himself mostly to chancery and real-estate 
 law, displaying that fidelity and promptitude which char- 
 acterized all his efforts. After the death of his father in 
 1833, he succeeded to the management of his mother's prop- 
 erty, and because of the duties which this involved, to- 
 gether with a natural interest in politics, he was compelled 
 to give up much of the practice which even in so compara- 
 tively short a time had grown to be lucrative. 
 
 About this time (1833), the Whig party may be said to 
 have come into existence; and Fish, like many others of old 
 Federal antecedence, united with it. The Federal party, 
 moreover, had practically ceased to exist by 1820, and for 
 a time party coherence was centered almost entirely in the 
 so-called Republican, later known by its present name. 
 Democratic party. But the growing opposition to the 
 Jackson administration had given rise to the creation of 
 various political elements which ultimately united under the 
 name of Whigs. The partial success in the State of New 
 York of recent city charter elections, where in specific cases 
 a majority of Whig Aldermen were chosen, had served to 
 give the leaders of the party in the State a certain unanimity 
 of political confidence. They determined, therefore, to 
 
 [18] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 make the gubernatorial campaign of 1834 a spirited contest. 
 Seward and William L. Marcy were the opposing candi- 
 dates, and the ability with which their respective canvasses 
 were conducted left nothing to be desired so far as they 
 were concerned. 
 
 It was then the custom to select candidates for the Assem- 
 bly in open mass meeting. Eleven members composed the 
 city's representation in the popular branch of the Legisla- 
 ture, and these were voted upon by the entire electorate of 
 the city instead of by districts as now. On the evening of 
 October 28th, the Whigs gathered at Masonic Hall and 
 nominated their Assembly ticket, which included the name 
 of Hamilton Fish. The morning Courier and New York 
 Enquirer estimated that twelve thousand enthusiastic par- 
 tisans had attended the meeting. But popular enthusiasm 
 is sometimes a poor barometer of political strength. The 
 campaign was hotly contested, and up to the election both 
 parties, as usual, were confident of success. The polls 
 opened on Monday, November 3rd, and closed on the 6th, 
 three days then being given over to a general election. But 
 the Whigs, as we have hinted, went down to defeat. Fish 
 receiving over two thousand less votes than his opponent. 
 Prosper M. Wetmore. 
 
 For the next few years Mr. Fish identified himself with 
 various objects of a public nature, promoting the establish- 
 ment in his native city of charitable institutions, public 
 libraries, and numerous kindred organizations, to which 
 he liberally extended financial aid. The material welfare 
 of Columbia College, of which he presently became a 
 trustee, and of the Protestant Episcopal Church, of which 
 he was a member, also received his loyal support. He was 
 much in the company of his mother's brother, Peter, who 
 
 [19] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 was the head of the family of Stuyvcsants of that day, and 
 a large share of whose wealth he inherited. From both 
 his father and mother came separate fortunes ; so that at 
 an early age Hamilton Fish became the head of the family 
 and a prominent figure in the New York society of the 
 period. His punctilious habits, natural dignity, and gener- 
 ous disposition made him highly esteemed, while his direct- 
 ness of speech, good judgment, and honest motives gave him 
 an enviable standing even among those who in every city 
 are prone to look with disfavor upon the man who is 
 politically ambitious. 
 
 On December 15, 1836, Hamilton Fish was married in 
 New York city by the Rev. Francis H. Hawks, D.D., to 
 Julia Kean, daughter of Mr. Peter Kean, of ''Ursino," near 
 Elizabeth, New Jersey. She was lineally descended from 
 William Livingston, the first Governor of New Jersey, 
 whose home, ''Liberty Hall," later re-named ''Ursino," and 
 still standing, was one of the most prominent residences 
 during Revolutionary days. It was erected in 1773 by 
 William Livingston and was his home at the time he signed 
 the Declaration of Independence. In 1774 Alexander 
 Hamilton brought to Livingston important letters from 
 officials of the West Indies, and upon his host's invitation 
 made ''Liberty Hall" his temporary headquarters. In April 
 of the same year John Jay, later Chief Justice of the United 
 States Supreme Court, was married at "Liberty Hall" to 
 Sarah Livingston, a daughter of the owner ; and from there 
 Livingston was sent as a delegate to the first Continental 
 Congress where, having served with distinction, he returned 
 to become Commander-in-chief of the New Jersey Militia, 
 and the same year Governor of the State. His power of 
 argument and vituperation against the Tories led them to 
 
 [20] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 threaten his Hfe, as well as the demolition of the Hall. On 
 one occasion, when invaders attacked the place, he sought 
 refuge in flight, and only through the ardent intercession 
 of his daughter Kitty, in whose keeping he had placed im- 
 portant letters from Washington, was the Hall and its occu- 
 pants saved from destruction. In 1792 the property was 
 sold to Lord Bolingbroke, but was afterwards re-purchased 
 by Mrs. John Kean, of South Carolina, formerly Miss 
 Susan Livingston, granddaughter of the original owner, 
 and grandmother of Mrs. Hamilton Fish. In honor of 
 Mrs. John Kean's second husband, Count Julian Ursin 
 Niemcewiz, the old Hall was changed to ''Ursino," and was 
 known as such during the girlhood of Julia Kean. 
 
 The married life of Hamilton Fish, which was terminated 
 by the death of Mrs. Fish in 1887, was one of uninterrupted 
 happiness. From all accounts Mrs. Fish must have been 
 a woman of rare charm. Adam Badeau, no indiscriminate 
 observer, speaks of her "sagacity and judgment" and says 
 that she had ''rare executive ability."'^ Another contempo- 
 rary writes of her in this fashion : "She had an intellectual 
 countenance, noble enough to belong to a nun," and "the 
 mind, heart, and manners to grace the White House, and no 
 greater compliment can be paid to an American woman."* 
 In deference to her judgment Mr. Fish once remarked that 
 he never took an important step without first consulting his 
 wife. Not only was she able to enter to the fullest extent 
 into the subjects that interested him, but presided over his 
 home with a grace and decorum which was often the theme 
 of comment among those with whom they were associated. 
 Mrs. Fish also was extremely tactful in political society. 
 
 *Adam Badeau, The Forum, Vol. XVI, p. 291. 
 ^ The Olivia Letters-, by Emily Edson Briggs, p. 192. 
 
 [21] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 She is said to have advised Mrs. Grant to receive the wife 
 of a foreign diplomat who had Hved with her husband be- 
 fore marriage, averring that international complications 
 should not emanate from a difference of social code. Dur- 
 ing the eight years that her husband was Secretary of State 
 Mrs. Fish never permitted a social call to go unreturned. 
 Everyone was made to feel perfectly at ease at her drawing- 
 room receptions, and few cabinet ladies have ever enter- 
 tained more frequently or so lavishly. 
 
 Eight children were the fruit of this union. Of these 
 five were daughters. Nicholas, the eldest son, early entered 
 public life, as did his brother, Hamilton. The former be- 
 came, in 1882, Minister to Belgium, after having held vari- 
 ous diplomatic posts. In 1869 Hamilton became private 
 secretary to his father, who had just been appointed Secre- 
 tary of State. He later was elected to the New York 
 Assembly, serving in all eleven terms, two of which he was 
 Speaker. He was twice appointed by President Roosevelt 
 Assistant Treasurer of the United States at New York, 
 and in 1908 was elected to the Sixty-first Congress. Stuy- 
 vesant, the youngest son, rose to be President of the Illinois 
 Central Railway, and is at present a banker in New York. 
 
 [22] 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 IN CONGRESS — STATE ELECTION OF 1 846 — LIEUTENANT- 
 GOVERNOR 
 
 FOR twelve years after his unsuccessful candidacy for 
 member of Assembly, Fish, while taking a keen in- 
 terest in all political movements, was not an aspirant 
 for public office. It is indeed doubtful whether he would 
 have consented to stand for Congress in the fall of 1842 
 had it not been for the urgent solicitation of friends. But 
 the Whigs of the sixth Congressional district of New York, 
 then composed of the eleventh, twelfth, fifteenth, sixteenth, 
 and seventeenth wards of the city, were in search of a man 
 of ability in whom the electorate would have entire con- 
 fidence. The district, strongly Democratic, was then repre- 
 sented by one John McKeon, a politician of great party 
 popularity. The Whig leaders, and especially the friends 
 of reform, selected Hamilton Fish as their candidate. He 
 agreed to make the canvass, and was elected to Congress 
 in November, 1842, by a small majority. His election, 
 however, was considered by his friends as a personal vic- 
 tory, for Governor Bouck's majority over Seward, the 
 Whig candidate, in the same district, was about twelve hun- 
 dred. 
 
 The Twenty-eighth Congress convened on December 4, 
 1843, ^^^ o^ that day Fish took his seat as a member of the 
 House of Representatives, and served throughout that Con- 
 gress, the Democrats securing control of his district when 
 he presented himself for re-election in the fall of 1844. A 
 
 [23] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 Whig majority of 19 in the preceding Congress had been 
 converted into a Democratic majority of 61 in the twenty- 
 eighth. Then but twenty-eight States elected Congressmen, 
 Florida, Wisconsin, and Iowa having Territorial Delegates. 
 The House was therefore organized by the Democrats with 
 Mr. John W. Jones, of Virginia, as Speaker. In this Con- 
 gress there were a large number of men who were well 
 known, or who afterwards attained eminence. In the dele- 
 gation from Massachusetts were John Quincy Adams, a 
 former President of the United States, and Robert C. Win- 
 throp, who was later to be Speaker of the House, and 
 United States Senator. Hannibal Hamlin, later Vice-Presi- 
 dent in the first Lincoln administration, came from Maine. 
 Among the Ohio delegation were Robert C. Schenck, after- 
 wards Minister to the Court of St. James, and Joshua R. 
 Giddings, who became one of the most noted anti-slavery 
 apostles of the West. Virginia sent Henry A. Wise ; Illi- 
 nois, Stephen A. Douglas ; Georgia, Alexander H. Stephens, 
 who later was Vice-President of the Confederacy ; while 
 among the colleagues of Fish from New York was Preston 
 King, who w^as to succeed Mr. Fish in the United States 
 Senate. 
 
 Fish entered public life in the latter half of the Tyler 
 administration, and just before the opening of that inter- 
 national disturbance which resulted in war with Mexico. 
 It was, moreover, a period of political calm which so often 
 precedes a storm. Only two years before the Whigs, vic- 
 torious in the election of Harrison, had come into power. 
 The President's sudden death, and the rise of John Tyler, 
 with whom they now were in open hostility — because of his 
 failure to approve their bank policy in which they were led 
 to believe he favored — had created a political situation of 
 
 [24] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 which history had no precedent.^ The Whigs also had 
 suffered a diminution of membership in the lower body of 
 the Congress at the election of 1842, and were in the minor- 
 ity. It was therefore not a very fortunate time to enter the 
 House. Fish was placed at the foot of the committee on 
 military affairs, an appointment which then afforded no 
 opportunity for distinction. This single Congressional 
 term, however, gave him experience, which served as sort 
 of an apprenticeship in national politics. 
 
 In the succeeding year, after Fish retired from Congress, 
 local issues in the State of New York were in a fluid state ; 
 they were not fixed. Party fealty was easily disrupted ; 
 sometimes from political principle, but more often through 
 the personal ambitions of politicians, adherents of a party 
 would divide into groups. This was the situation in the 
 Democratic party in 1846, which may be said to have 
 worked to the advantage of the Whigs. 
 
 This division came during the administration of Governor 
 Silas Wright, and the two groups were known as ''Barn- 
 burners," who opposed the further spread of slavery, and 
 "Old Hunkers," who endeavored to prevent any agitation 
 of the subject. The Governor, it appears, had allied him- 
 self with the former group, and the breach had grown to 
 such proportions that those belonging to the latter class 
 strongly opposed his re-election. John Young, who aspired 
 to succeed Wright, gained the support of this element, and 
 
 ^ John Tyler was the first Vice-President to succeed a President 
 removed by death. He had formerly been a Democrat, and while 
 he had opposed some of Jackson's measures, his advocacy of Whig 
 principles can hardly be said to have been based on a solid founda- 
 tion of conviction. Knowing his views, it has never ceased to be 
 a mystery why the Whigs came to nominate him as their candi- 
 date for Vice-President. 
 
 [25] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 although a partisan opponent, so manipulated his candidacy 
 that he received the nomination at the Whig convention in 
 spite of the opposition of so strong a party leader as Thur- 
 low Weed, who rather than vote for him left the hall of 
 the convention after having put a substitute in his place.^ 
 
 To appease the faction in the Whig party who looked 
 with disfavor upon the nomination of Young, and also to 
 balance the ticket geographically. Fish, one of the younger 
 representatives of the eastern section of the State, against 
 his personal wishes, became the nominee for Lieutenant- 
 Governor. But having previously denounced the principles 
 of the anti-renters, he failed to gain their support at the 
 election, and therefore was defeated. 
 
 The anti-renters had been acquiring considerable political 
 influence since 1839, and although by 1846 their power was 
 on the wane, it was sufficiently potent in some of the central 
 counties of the State to affect the result of an election. 
 Anti-rentism was fundamentally a social protest, having 
 grown out of an unequal, and therefore undemocratic, 
 social system, the inception of which, however, originated 
 long before a republican form of government was estab- 
 lished in America. Under the Dutch rule in New Nether- 
 land, certain families of sundry nationality were granted 
 huge tracts of land. The heads of these families were 
 known as "patroons" ; and their descendants were still in 
 possession of these lands after the Revolutionary War, 
 when the laws of primogeniture were annulled. Located 
 mostly in the settled part of the State, they were leased for 
 specified periods to cultivators, who in place of rent agreed 
 to pay dues and personal services, which in time came to be 
 burdensome. 
 
 2 The Life of Thurlow Weed, Vol. II, p. 131. 
 
 [26] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 In point of fact such a system was not in keeping with 
 the aims of democracy, and therefore called for concerted 
 action f but the fault lay in the method of procedure. 
 While the State was remiss in not adopting at the outset 
 measures which would have wholly removed the cause of 
 conflict, the course of the anti-renters was not justified by 
 defying the reign of law and order. But this they did, as 
 we shall see. In 1839, a body of farmers, who were tenants 
 on the estate of the late Patroon Van Rensselaer, formed an 
 organization for the purpose of resisting the payment of 
 rents. The movement grew apace, until it resulted in the 
 attempt to thwart the collection of all manorial rents when 
 these were sought by legal process. Cases of assault were 
 not uncommon ; in some instances lives were taken. 
 Masked armed bands, obviously intended to terrify the inno- 
 cent inhabitants, also were prevalent, until the lives of the 
 sheriffs and their deputies were often in peril. So intense 
 had become the situation in Delaware County in 1845 that 
 Governor Wright declared the county in a state of insurrec- 
 tion, and appealed to the Legislature for its suppression. 
 
 But the criminal feature was not the sole aspect of the 
 movement. Soon after its inception it took on a political 
 cast, as already noted ; and in order to gain an idea of the 
 political significance of the issue it need only be observed 
 that more than eighteen hundred thousand acres of land 
 
 ^ This Seward recognized so early as 1840, when he spoke in his 
 annual message of such land tenures "as inconsistent with existing 
 institutions," and "odious to those who hold under them." They 
 were, he went on to say, "unfavorable to agricultural improvement, 
 inconsistent with the prosperity of the districts where they exist, 
 and opposed to sound policy and the genius of our institutions." 
 Messages from the Governors, Edited by Charles Z. Lincoln, Vol. 
 Ill, p. Tjd. 
 
 [^7] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 were held under leases, and that over two hundred and 
 sixty thousand people lived upon the lands thus held. 
 Eventually a newspaper sympathetic to the cause was estab- 
 lished at Albany. By 1842, and for a few years thereafter, 
 it is said that one-eighth of the Legislature favored anti- 
 rentism, and that the movement subsided only after a clause 
 abolishing all feudal tenures and making unlawful the leas- 
 ing of lands for agricultural purposes, was incorporated into 
 the revised State constitution of 1846. 
 
 Other circumstances, apart from his opposition to anti- 
 rentism, may have been instrumental in the defeat of Fish 
 for Lieutenant-Governor. But it is hard to believe that 
 this was so ; for he had incurred the enmity of the anti- 
 renters because he insisted in attacking their illegal prac- 
 tices. The charge was current, however, that certain 
 Whig leaders were apathetic toward his candidacy, and 
 when after the election these rumors failed to subside. 
 Fish made a public statement which brings out very clearly 
 his attitude in regard to the subject, at the same time leaving 
 a favorable impression of his own disinterested public 
 spirit. "I observe with deep regret," he said, ''that, since 
 the election, my name continues to be brought before the 
 public, and is becoming the theme of a dissension which to 
 me is extremely painful. During the canvass I desired to 
 shrink from no responsibility which my position imposed 
 upon me, and from no scrutiny which it required ; but now 
 that the canvass is over, and the result is known, I trust it 
 may be allowed me to be left in peace. 
 
 "So far as I am personally concerned in the result of the 
 late election, I am satisfied that my Whig friends generally, 
 and throughout the entire State, have done their duty to 
 the Whig party in sustaining its nominee, and that they 
 
 [28] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 have given to me an honest and cordial support, far more 
 zealous than any merit or claim could ever have demanded. 
 Doubtless there have been individual cases of persons who 
 were influenced by private preferences, or other considera- 
 tions, which have been paramount to the obligation of party 
 nominations, but such cases always occur to a greater or 
 less extent, and do not conflict with the opinion above ex- 
 pressed. I was the candidate of the Whig party, and can- 
 not complain that members of a different party, possessing 
 a distinct and independent organization, have cast their 
 votes in favor of the candidate of their own selection. 
 
 "The loss of my election brings to me personally no re- 
 grets, but it would become the source of most poignant 
 grief if made the subject of disagreement between any 
 Whigs. Let me therefore entreat, for the harmony of our 
 noble Whig party, in whose union is success, and whose 
 success is the welfare of the State, that the loss of my elec- 
 tion be not charged to any supposed faithlessness of friends. 
 A glorious victory has been achieved, upon which, from the 
 bottom of my heart, I congratulate you and every Whig in 
 the State — but, 'We have scotch'd the snake^ — not kill'd it,' 
 and may lose the fruits of our victory by dissensions among 
 ourselves ; but if, however, dissensions must be, I have to 
 beg of my Whig friends, one and all, that I be not made the 
 subject of disagreement." 
 
 But Fish was not to remain long out of office. Six 
 months after the election, his late successful opponent, 
 Addison Gardiner, was made a judge of the newly created 
 Court of Appeals ; and under an act passed in September, 
 1847, to fill the vacancy. Fish was elected Lieutenant- 
 Governor on November 2nd. This office he held until 
 elected Governor the following year. 
 
 [29] 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK 
 
 WHEN the New York Whig State convention con- 
 vened on September 14, 1848, at Utica, Hamilton 
 Fish was the candidate whom the majority of the 
 delegates favored for the gubernatorial nomination. He 
 had been Lieutenant-Governor less than a year, but his con- 
 ciliatory disposition, together with a certain firmness and 
 moderation of speech, with which he presided over the State 
 Senate, aided in bringing to his support men of all factions ; 
 and on the first ballot he received 76 votes. Governor 
 Young and Joshua A. Spencer were his chief opponents in 
 the convention, Washington Hunt, who was to be his im- 
 mediate successor, having written a letter in which he de- 
 clined to be a candidate. Fish's nomination was afterwards 
 made unanimous. 
 
 The Democrats were still disunited. John A. Dix was 
 nominated for Governor by the more progressive element 
 of the party, who were dubbed ''Barnburners." Their con- 
 vention was held on the same day, and in the same city as 
 that of the Whigs. The "Hunkers," or conservative wing of 
 the party, placed in nomination for Governor Chancellor 
 Reuben H. Walworth. Both opponents were men of 
 proved ability and integrity. On the morning after the 
 nominations, the New York Tribune spoke of Fish as being 
 "Wealthy without pride, generous without ostentation, 
 simple in manners, blameless in life, and accepting office 
 with no other aspiration than that of making power sub- 
 serve the common good of his fellow-citizens." The elec- 
 
 [30] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 tion, held on November 7th, was the first in which a 
 Governor was elected under the third Constitution. Fish's 
 plurality was over 218,000, Mr. Dix receiving some 3,500 
 anti-rent votes which were withheld from Fish because, as 
 we have seen, he had strongly opposed anti-rentism. Fish 
 was now forty years old, and the youngest man, except 
 Thompkins and Seward, to become Governor of New York. 
 
 Two years later Fish was not a candidate for re-election ; 
 and the two years in which he was Governor cannot be said 
 to have been a period of importance, so far as the history 
 of the State was concerned. But he had hardly taken office 
 before it was apparent that underneath his natural reserve 
 and temperate speech there was in the new Governor deep- 
 seated convictions upon questions then uppermost in the 
 public thought, and a clear conception as to their final dis- 
 position. This was clearly shown in his attitude towards 
 the question destined to become the paramount issue of the 
 day, that of the institution of slavery. In both of his 
 annual messages he referred to the subject, and in a manner 
 which left no uncertainty as to his views. The most dis- 
 turbing element of the slavery agitation at this time lay in 
 the attempt on the part of the slave-holding States and 
 their people to extend involuntary servitude into territory 
 in which it had not hitherto existed. This naturally kindled 
 the resentment of the people of the free States. If slavery 
 were to be extended into territory from which it was then 
 legally prohibited, who could foresee the result towards which 
 such a policy would lead? While deeply cognizant of the 
 dangers involved from a moral, social, and political point 
 of view, the constitutional side of the controversy elicited 
 his best thought. 
 
 He contended that "by the treaty with Mexico, the Terri- 
 
 [31] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 tories of New Mexico and California came to us free; and 
 the laws of Mexico abolishing slavery, which were in force 
 at the time of the cession, continue to be operative and are 
 not affected by any transfer of sovereignty over the Terri- 
 tory." *'The voice of the people of California," he said in 
 extending his argument, ''has thus been expressed in favor 
 of freedom; and there is little room for doubt that New 
 Mexico sympathizes in sentiment with California. Con- 
 gress cannot, without a transgression of its constitutional 
 powers, establish slavery within this territory ; nor can it, 
 without the violation of the principles of justice, and an 
 utter disregard of the wishes of the people, and of the pro- 
 tection which it is bound to extend over the territory to 
 which it has acquired the title, refuse admission to the new 
 State, or countenance or sanction, in any way, the introduc- 
 tion of slavery within the territory. And without the sanc- 
 tion and the assent of Congress, these newly acquired terri- 
 tories are secured to freedom, and must remain as they 
 now are, exempt from the institution of slavery."^ 
 
 When Hamilton Fish was inaugurated as Governor the 
 State had a population of less than 3,000,000 people; hence 
 there was not that complexity of governmental machinery 
 as exists now. In his first annual message to the Legisla- 
 ture he reviewed the State's financial condition, alluded with 
 satisfaction to the increased number of children taught in 
 the common schools over the number reported the preced- 
 ing year, and praised the establishment of libraries which 
 were maintained for the use of the public. In this connec- 
 tion he referred to the liberality of the late John Jacob 
 Astor, who had recently left in his will a donation of "four 
 
 1 Messages from the Governors, Edited by Charles Z. Lincoln, 
 Vol. IV, p. 501. 
 
 [32] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 hundred thousand dollars, to the foundation and perpetual 
 support of a library for the free use of the public;" and 
 recommended to the Legislature to grant an act of incor- 
 poration, "to render the management of the library and its 
 funds safe and convenient."^ In the same message, among 
 other things, the Governor advocated a gubernatorial suc- 
 cession bill, which suggestion, after having passed the Legis- 
 lature of 1849, failed in the Assembly at the next Legisla- 
 ture, when a bill for its submission to the people was 
 presented. The original suggestion of Governor Fish, 
 however, as to adding the Speaker of the Assembly to the 
 gubernatorial succession, was in effect embodied in the 
 Constitution of 1894. 
 
 During his term of office, and on his recommendation, 
 an act to establish free schools throughout the State, was 
 adopted. An asylum and school for idiots also was estab- 
 lished. The New York Medical College, moreover, was in- 
 corporated ; as well as appropriations granted for the 
 completion of the normal school building at Albany, and 
 for the continuation of the Genesee Valley, and Black River 
 canals. Governor Fish brought to the attention of the 
 Legislature of 1850 the fact that there was no complete col- 
 lection of the Colonial Laws of New York, and recom- 
 mended a competent commission, to serve without remun- 
 eration, to superintend such a publication. The "permanent 
 possession and control" of Washington's Headquarters, at 
 Newburgh, N. Y., also was effected while Mr. Fish was 
 Governor. 
 
 It is significant that no bill which he disapproved was 
 ever passed over his veto; and in one of his last veto mes- 
 
 2 Messages from the Governors', Edited by Charles Z. Lincoln, 
 Vol. IV, pp. 428-29. 
 
 [33] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 sages, he took occasion to remonstrate against the large 
 number of bills passed during the closing days of the session. 
 Vigilant in his own exercise of public duty, he wished time 
 to fairly consider each measure in all its ramifications ; 
 and when during the last five days of a session there were 
 presented to him '*no less than two hundred and one bills, 
 extending over three hundred and fifty-three pages of the 
 session laws,"^ he admonished the members of the Legisla- 
 ture to use the utmost care in the preparation of all bills ; 
 and reminded them that the legislative and executive 
 branches of the Government were jointly responsible. It 
 was later contended that the Governor had power to sign 
 bills at his leisure ; the restriction of time of executive 
 approval, however, was, in 1874, limited to thirty days after 
 the adjournment of the Legislature. 
 
 While at the head of the State, Governor Fish came very 
 near entering the Federal service. Three members of 
 President Taylor's cabinet having become compromised, be- 
 cause of the so-called "Galphin Claim," the President de- 
 termined in the winter of 1849-50 to make changes in the 
 personnel of his official family. On the suggestion of 
 Thurlow Weed, with whom the President counseled. 
 Governor Fish was selected as Secretary of the Treasury,* 
 and would have entered the new cabinet but for the un- 
 timely death of President Taylor in July, 1850. 
 
 3 Messages from the Governors, Edited by Charles Z. Lincoln, 
 Vol. IV, p. 523. 
 *The Life of Thurlow Weed, Vol. I, p. 591. 
 
 [34] 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 UNITED STATES SENATOR EUROPEAN TRAVEL — PUBLIC 
 
 SERVICE DURING THE WAR 
 
 HAMILTON FISH, as already observed, was not a 
 candidate to succeed himself as Governor. This 
 was generally understood when the leaders of his 
 party, with whom it may be said he was on most cordial 
 terms, began to cast about for a gubernatorial candidate. 
 Just before leaving Albany he sent a volume of "Literary 
 Curiosities" to Thurlow Weed, then a great power in Whig 
 policies, "as a very slight testimonial" of his appreciation of 
 that gentleman's "uniform and uninterrupted kindness" 
 which he had received "from the first moment" of his "en- 
 trance upon public duties." "I came here without claims 
 upon your kindness," he writes in a note which accompanied 
 the gift, "I shall leave here full of the most grateful recol- 
 lections of your favors and good will."^ 
 
 When the Legislature convened in January, its first im- 
 portant function was to elect a United States Senator to 
 succeed Daniel S. Dickinson. Washington Hunt, the Whig 
 candidate, had been chosen Governor by a small majority 
 over Horatio Seymour in the preceding November. Presi- 
 dent Fillmore, having become alienated from Seward and 
 Weed, rallied to his support those Whigs who were in sym- 
 pathy with the Federal administration, and through them 
 endeavored to gain control of the New York Whig con- 
 vention which after a most exciting session finally nomi- 
 
 1 The Life of Thurlow Weed, Vol. II, p. 190. 
 
 [35] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 nated Mr. Hunt. Failing in their object, the FiUmore Whigs 
 carried their battle to the polls; but the returns of the 
 legislative districts, though close, indicated a Seward- Weed 
 victory. 
 
 The contest between these two factions, however, was re- 
 newed when the Legislature met in January. It now cen- 
 tered around Hamilton Fish, who had become the candidate 
 of the Seward-Weed Whigs. He had a clear majority in 
 the Assembly, but lacked one vote in the Senate, which from 
 a party point of view belonged of right to him. The Sena- 
 tor who felt constrained to vote against Mr. Fish, however, 
 was greatly concerned, it appears, over Fish's prospective 
 attitude in regard to the stand he would take on the com- 
 promise measures as a final settlement of the slavery agita- 
 tion. Henry Clay, who had been the foremost advocate 
 of the compromise measures, and a man whom Fish had 
 always admired, wrote a letter to the Collector of the Port 
 of New York, in which he strongly intimated that the 
 State Senator in question ought to withhold his vote until 
 Mr. Fish had stated publicly his position. Hearing that 
 such a letter had been written, and that it was being used 
 derogatorily, the candidate wrote a spirited letter to the 
 great Commoner, who had so imprudently been drawn into 
 the contest, in which he said in part: 
 
 *T have desired no concealment of my opinions upon the 
 various important measures of the last session of Congress, 
 
 nor (although Mr , his employees, and certain other 
 
 disappointed aspirants for the Senatorship may afifect ignor- 
 ance, or may assert that my views have been withheld) has 
 there been any concealment. It is true that since the adop- 
 tion of those measures I have had no occasion for a public 
 
 [36] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 or official expression of opinion. It is neither in accordance 
 with my habits nor my taste to protrude myself or my opin- 
 ions upon the public, but I have both in conversation and 
 in correspondence expressed my opinions very freely both 
 upon the propriety, policy and details of several measures 
 of the last Congress, and upon the imperative and absolute 
 importance of the enforcement of all laws, however dis- 
 tasteful they may be to sectional feelings, and of the strict- 
 est regard for the supremacy of the law. . . . While the 
 election was immediately pending I certainly did decline to 
 be interrogated. . . . While a candidate I declined an- 
 swering any. I had not offered or been instrumental in 
 making myself a candidate for the United States Senate. 
 I had asked no gentleman to vote for me. I held a position 
 entirely too elevated and dignified to be the object of even 
 securing personal interference or solicitation on the part 
 of the candidate. Because I had no public opportunity of 
 expressing any opinions on those questions, I would not 
 do so on the eve of the election, lest the expression might 
 be supposed to be directed so as to influence those who were 
 to vote upon the question. I therefore prefer to refer all 
 inquirers to what I had previously said and written, and let 
 them judge me by my past action in life and by the opinions 
 I had officially expressed upon all questions upon which it 
 had become necessary to express opinions while I have been 
 in any public position. . . . The State may be left with 
 but one Senator, or, possibly, a Free-Soil Democratic Legis- 
 lature may next year send one of their faith ; but high as 
 I esteem a seat in the United States Senate, I hold my own 
 honor and character too high to attain that seat by what 
 I should deem a sacrifice of consistency or of self-respect." 
 The attitude of the single Senator opposed to Mr. Fish 
 
 [37] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 continued unchanged. The deadlock lasted until March 
 19th, at which time two Democratic Senators, being in New 
 York city, the Whigs passed a resolution to go into an elec- 
 tion. After a prolonged session of fourteen hours, Hamilton 
 Fish was declared elected. In the following December he 
 took his seat in the Senate of the United States. The per- 
 sonnel of that body at this period was undergoing a change. 
 Old figures, so long brilliant lights in the political firma- 
 ment, were passing; and new ones, whose leadership had 
 not yet been tested, had come upon the stage of political 
 action. Of the great American triumvirate, Calhoun was 
 dead ; Clay was soon to follow ; and Webster, though now 
 in Fillmore's cabinet, outlived the great Commoner but four 
 months. Salmon P. Chase, William H. Seward, John P. 
 Hale, of New Hampshire; Hannibal Hamlin, of Maine; 
 Sam Houston, of Texas; and Stephen Douglas, of Illinois, 
 were already members of the Senate when Fish became a 
 member of that body; while among the newcomers, who 
 entered the Senate on the same day with Fish, were Charles 
 Sumner and Benjamin F. Wade, of Ohio. 
 
 It was now to these "stronger bodies and fresher minds," 
 as Webster wrote to Harvey, in September, 1850, that the 
 mantle of authority had fallen. Yet singularly enough in 
 the coming storm, the clouds of which were already begin- 
 ning to gather, the ship of state was to be piloted by still 
 other hands, by whose guidance peace was once again to be 
 restored. Yet our immediate concern lies with those years 
 which preceded the final struggle, years in which the seeds 
 of disaster were sown, and out of which was born the 
 travail of four years of terrible strife. During this period, 
 the period that witnessed the fateful repeal of the Missouri 
 Compromise ; that saw the Kansas struggle ; that beheld the 
 
 [38] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 passing of the Whig party, and the rise of the Republican 
 party, Hamilton Fish was a representative in the upper 
 House of the Congress from the State of New York. 
 
 A representative well defines his position as a Senator. 
 He was not an orator, and therefore was not a conspicuous 
 figure in debate during his service of six years in the Sen- 
 ate. It was his habit to work quietly and conscien- 
 tiously in whatever sphere of activity duty called him; and 
 in his own unobtrusive manner he labored perhaps more 
 zealously and more effectively than many of those who 
 spoke more and worked less. Peter Cooper well summed 
 up his Senatorial status when he wrote in a letter urging 
 the New York Senator's support in behalf of a certain bill, 
 "we will find your vote, as we have always found it, on the 
 side of justice, economy, and public virtue." That Fish 
 differed from some of his colleagues did not make him the 
 less cordial in his personal relations with them. This is 
 seen, for example, in his friendship during this period with 
 Charles Sumner, with whom he was not always in agree- 
 ment on the slavery question. He took issue with Seward 
 on the same question, and took no part in 1855 when an 
 attempt was made to form a Republican party in New 
 York. He regretted the continued agitation of the slavery 
 question in the Free States, and attributed the defeat of 
 the Republican movement of that year to the "deep-seated 
 predominance of a strong, conservative, union-loving, anti- 
 agitation feeling." But it may be said he was no less 
 opposed to the further spread of slavery, and had in the 
 previous year written to his friend, Samuel B. Ruggles, of 
 New York, that "although the repeal of the Missouri Com- 
 promise will beyond question pass the Senate, I should 
 never be justified were I absent from a vote. It is the most 
 
 [39] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 flagrant outrage which a dominant faction has ever yet 
 ventured upon in this country." 
 
 It was during Mr. Fish's service in the Senate that the 
 old Whig party ceased to exist. For over twenty years it 
 had been the chief opponent of the Democratic party, dur- 
 ing which time it had twice won the presidency, only to 
 find its lease of power slip away upon the death of its 
 chosen leaders. Now as the presidential campaign of 1856 
 approached, its disintegration, signs of which had begun 
 before the campaign of 1852, was about complete. Yet 
 there were those who still hoped that the party would not 
 become wholly extinct ; that the tranquillity of the nation 
 would ultimately be restored; and that the party would 
 revive, and again become a potent political organization. 
 
 Hamilton Fish was one of those who subscribed to these 
 views, and consequently was loath to accept the changed 
 situation. So late as September 12, 1856, in writing to his 
 friend, James A. Hamilton, he said : "I am a Whig. I 
 desire no additional epithet, neither National, or Union, or 
 Conservative, or Free Soil. The term Whig implies Nation- 
 ality and devotion to the Union and to the great principles of 
 human liberty and of conservative stability. Whig prin- 
 ciples are enduring, and not dependent upon temporary 
 issues, or questions of political policy; they are the prin- 
 ciples of law and order, of the rights of property and per- 
 son, of personal liberty, and of social restraint, without 
 which our republican institutions must cease to exist. I 
 am reluctant to abandon a name which embodies such 
 principles and which is endeared by the recollections of so 
 many trying conflicts through which it has been borne by 
 illustrious statesmen whose names are embalmed in the his- 
 tory of the country." 
 
 [40] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 Nor did he abandon the name Whig until he had ex- 
 hausted every means of preserving intact the national 
 Whig organization. But however earnest in his desire to 
 maintain the continued existence and usefulness as he 
 termed it of the Whig party, he came to see early in June, 
 1856, no prospect of the Whigs holding a national conven- 
 tion, because the idea having been presented to the public 
 met with no response, "except from a few devoted friends, 
 who remain faithful to their principles and their name." 
 But even the beliefs of these friends were widely different. 
 Some approved the so-called filibustering foreign policy 
 of the Government, as well as the extreme pro-slavery doc- 
 trine of the party in power; others were diametrically 
 opposed to the foreign policy, but were sympathetic towards 
 the internal policy ; a third class were conservative in both, 
 but with slavery proclivities ; and a fourth were strongly 
 against both the foreign and domestic policies of the Pierce 
 administration, and in favor of the cause of freedom, or 
 perhaps more accurately speaking, of the non-extension 
 of slavery. 
 
 ''The occurrences of the day," Mr. Fish writes on June 
 13, 1856, to his friend, James A. Hamilton, "the prevalence 
 of disorder, frequency of disturbance of the peace, outrage 
 and brute force here, violence, usurpation and invasion 
 in Kansas, the complications (wanton and unnecessary) of 
 our foreign relations — all tend to fearful results, and 
 devolve important responsibilities. 
 
 "You and I cannot agree to identify ourselves with a 
 sectional party, and yet what prospect is there of a sound 
 national organization with which those entertaining your 
 opinions and mine can freely act. The Democratic party 
 is national, in so far as that it extends across the line 
 
 [41] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 dividing free and slave States ; but its platform so far as it 
 relates to internal policy, is purely and narrowly sectional, 
 and to my view, utterly at variance with and subversive of 
 the true principles of the Constitution and of our form of 
 government ; while its foreign policy is that of the pirate 
 and bandit, and invites that which if acted up to will soon 
 produce a general war with all the world and the rest of 
 mankind. 
 
 "The American party has an element of nationality in its 
 character and also in its organization; but the nationality 
 which characterizes its principles is not peculiar to it and 
 cannot be appropriated by any party or any organization ; 
 while its creed is disfigured by intolerance, proscription and 
 unconstitutional tests. . . . We cannot be rightly placed 
 on that platform. Still less could we stand on the plat- 
 form which the Republican party attempted to adopt last 
 Autumn in New York and perhaps other northern States. 
 It had not an element of nationality, but was covered all 
 over with the wildest sectional agitation. 
 
 "These are the parties in the field. Our old Whig party 
 is dissolved and the repeated efforts that have been made 
 to call together its scattered numbers has thus proved so 
 many failures and during the existing excitement will, I 
 fear, continue to prove failures as often as repeated ; for 
 while this excitement continues there is an ever present 
 question on which to speak is to divide, unless like the 
 democracy we surrender the honest convictions of our 
 heart, our education, our training, for the base consideration 
 of the hope of place and power. The interests and sym- 
 pathies of our southern Whig friends have, I fear, led 
 them far towards the adoption of the doctrine embodied 
 in the Democratic platform on the slavery extension ques- 
 
 [42] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 tion. We cannot adopt this doctrine, and they would not 
 consent to say that upon the slavery question Whigs may 
 differ. 
 
 "Unable then to reorganize our own party, we have to 
 choose between non-action in the coming contest, and 
 temporary co-operation with one or other of the three 
 organized parties. . . . My general sympathies of apprecia- 
 tion and of locality would incline me to the Republican 
 party, as against the Democratic, leaving the American 
 party out of view for the present. The call for the con- 
 vention in Philadelphia next week is broad and catholic ; it 
 is not addressed to the Republicans, but to all opposed to the 
 administration, opposed to the principles of the Kansas 
 bill and opposed to the extension of slavery into free terri- 
 tory. You and I are embraced in each of those divisions. 
 If then the convention avoid sectionalism and agitation, as 
 indicated either in the persons of their candidates or in 
 their declarations, why may we not temporarily act with 
 them?" 
 
 At first Mr. Fish declined to go to the convention ; but 
 Mr. Fillmore's letter of acceptance of the Know Nothing 
 nomination caused him to reconsider the matter, and he 
 finally decided to go to Philadelphia and urged the nomina- 
 tion of a conservative candidate. His first choice was 
 John McLean, of Ohio, one of the safest and most intelli- 
 gent of the more conservative leaders of the Republican 
 party; but illness finally prevented him from attending the 
 convention. 
 
 Writing to the same friend nearly three months later of 
 the result of the convention, and of his own decision as to 
 his course of action, he says : "I do not adopt their whole 
 doctrine with all their denials and conclusions. But I am 
 
 [43] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 not disposed to criticise too severely an honest sentiment in 
 the direction of liberty, especially when uttered in the 
 ardor of a political strife of unusual excitement, because 
 of some extravagant or of some illogical deductions. The 
 general tendency of the resolutions on this point is honest 
 and right and is consistent with a power which has been 
 exercised by Congress and long acquiesced in and is in con- 
 formity with the opinions and the principles of Washington 
 and Franklin, of Hamilton and Jefferson, of Henry and 
 Jay; principles which were embodied in the ordinance of 
 1787 and which underlie the whole early policy of the Gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 "If these principles be sectional, what is national? The 
 right to permit or to prohibit slavery in the Territories is 
 a question of constitutional power, on which different opm- 
 ions may be and are honestly entertained; but the assertion 
 of the power is no more sectional than its denial and is 
 far less so through the doctrine of recent date which a few 
 southern politicians have engrafted upon the Democratic 
 creed and have embodied in the Cincinnati platform. 
 
 "There are two prominent issues involved in the pending 
 contest : First, the slavery question, not as an abstract 
 question, but a question of right and of political power. 
 Shall slavery be carried into territory formerly covered by 
 the Missouri Compromise? And second, the foreign policy 
 of the Government. Shall peace and justice, or violence 
 and outrage be its policy? This latter issue must not be 
 forgotten or overlooked. As there are practically two great 
 questions involved in the contest, so is the issue of the con- 
 test practically between two candidates — Buchanan and 
 Fremont. 
 
 "What then is our duty as Whigs? Can we support the 
 
 [44] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 Democratic candidate and perpetuate the policy which has 
 induced the very state of poHtical sectionahsm we deplore 
 and into which we have been plunged by the acts of the 
 present administration? Can we adopt the Democratic 
 platform and surrender the principles which have com- 
 mended the Whig party to our reason, judgment, and affec- 
 tions? Can we accept the views which are likely to pre- 
 dominate in the management of our foreign relations ; 
 should the doctrines promulgated at Ostend be clothed with 
 executive power and authority? For myself I must an- 
 swer these questions in the negative. 
 
 "Let us turn to the other side. We find no assault upon 
 a single Whig principle. No danger of an unsafe and 
 belligerent foreign policy ; no extreme or violent proposi- 
 tion in regard to slavery where it now exists ; but only that 
 resistance to its advance and spread over soil long since 
 made free, which we have ever advocated. Again I an- 
 swer for myself. In such a crisis and under such circum- 
 stances my voice must be there. I can without difficulty 
 perceive my way clear to that point, and though a Whig, 
 shall cast my vote for Fremont and Dayton, esteeming 
 such a course the best and surest remedy for present evils 
 and trusting that the time is not far distant when political 
 organizations will again assume broader and more cath- 
 olic grounds." 
 
 After his retirement from the Senate Mr. Fish left with 
 his family for Europe. For two years he remained abroad. 
 His daughters were placed at school in Paris, and during 
 his stay on the continent he and Mrs. Fish extended their 
 acquaintances among the families of many diplomats, some 
 of whom they had known in Washington. In England they 
 met the historian Motley, and other distinguished Americans. 
 
 [45] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 Senator Sumner, who was at this time under medical treat- 
 ment in Paris, saw much of his former colleague, little 
 anticipating that before the lapse of many years both he and 
 Mr. Motley would no longer be on terms of intimate per- 
 sonal relations with Mr. Fish, with whom they were now 
 the recipients of cordial hospitality. But social intercourse 
 was very largely mingled with a study, through personal 
 observation, of foreign affairs, a subject which had never 
 failed to deeply interest him. This opportunity was of 
 great benefit to him when later as Secretary of State he 
 had occasion to put it to practical use. 
 
 Mr. Fish was back in the United States in time to render 
 effective support in the Presidential campaign of i860; 
 and before Lincoln took office was in intimate touch with 
 the Federal authorities in the endeavor to aid the Govern- 
 ment in whatever way he could. His secretary was offi- 
 cially connected with the preparations which resulted in 
 sending the merchant steamer, the Star of the West, to 
 Charleston Harbor with supplies for the relief of Major 
 Anderson at Fort Sumter. The manner in which the firing 
 upon the Star of the West was received by General Scott 
 is recorded in a letter written by Mr. Fish some twenty- 
 four years later to Mr. Allibone, of New York, and now in 
 the possession of the Hon. Victor H. Paltsits, formerly 
 State Historian of New York, through whose courtesy the 
 contents of that portion of the letter is here used: "I was 
 in Washington," says Mr. Fish, **in humble efforts to aid 
 in the emergency, then imminent. I lunched or dined 
 almost daily with General Scott." One day while dining 
 with General Scott and his aid, General Keyes, a telegram 
 was handed to General Scott, who after reading it, said 
 nothing. "I observed a deep anxiety in his contenance/' 
 
 [46] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 continues Mr. Fish, ''he read it a second time and handed 
 it across the table to General Keyes, who read it, said 
 nothing and was handing it back to the General, who said, 
 show it to Governor Fish. Reading it I observed the same 
 silence which my host had observed, and was handing it 
 back to General Scott. It announced the firing upon the 
 Star of the West in Charleston Harbor. General Scott 
 addressing me asked, 'What have you to say to that?' I 
 replied, my further mission in Washington is useless. I 
 return home at once; this (handing back the telegram) is 
 WAR. With a most earnest tone the General exclaimed, 
 'Don't utter that word, my friend. You don't know what a 
 horrid thing WAR is'; but I think that all three of us 
 realized that it was then the one thing inevitable. There 
 was no more joyous or light conversation during the re- 
 mainder of our sitting that day." 
 
 Of Mr. Fish's public service during the Civil War some- 
 thing remains to be said. He had, as already noted, enthusi- 
 astically supported Mr. Lincoln for the presidency; but it 
 may be said had in no way placed himself in line for politi- 
 cal office, desiring rather to be free to aid the Government 
 independently. During the early days of the conflict, how- 
 ever, we find him among those who were instrumental in 
 the organization of the Union Defense Committee of the 
 State of New York. William M. Evarts, Alexander T. 
 Stewart, John Jacob Astor, William E. Dodge, and Isaac 
 Bell were among others to whom this movement owed its 
 rise. Mr. Fish's great influence, his wealth and ability of 
 organization were especially of value to his associates of 
 the committee, of which he was made chairman after the 
 resignation of General Dix, who had taken a command in 
 the army. Of great importance was the aid rendered to the 
 
 [47] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 Government by this committee. Thrust into hostilities 
 without preparation, with even Northern allegiance divided, 
 the administration had little recourse at first but to lean on 
 loyal organizations such as this, whose effective help in 
 the collection of funds for the raising and dispatching of 
 troops, as well as other immediate needs, was of such a 
 patriotic nature that it stood out as one of the great move- 
 ments in the successful prosecution of the Rebellion. 
 
 In 1862, by direction of President Lincoln, Secretary of 
 War Stanton appointed Mr. Fish and Bishop Ames as com- 
 missioners to visit the Union soldiers imprisoned at Rich- 
 mond and other places for the purpose of ministering to 
 their comforts and otherwise assist them in their needs. 
 The Confederate Government, however, refused to receive 
 the commissioners within their lines, but proffered the sug- 
 gestion that it would be agreeable for it to enter into nego- 
 tiations leading towards a general exchange of prisoners, 
 to which the commissioners, upon a favorable reply from 
 the authorities at Washington, agreed. Eventually an equal 
 exchange of prisoners was effected, the terms of which con- 
 tinued practically unchanged for the duration of the war. 
 With this service Mr. Fish again retires from public view, 
 to return in four years as Secretary of State under Grant, 
 a period of service which was not merely an epoch in his 
 life, but in American politics. 
 
 [48] 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 SECRETARY OF STATE 
 
 FROM the evidence which has from time to time come 
 to Hght it is obvious that Mr. Fish had no thought, 
 during the campaign which resulted in the election 
 of General Grant to the Presidency, of being offered a 
 cabinet portfolio. Nor indeed did his taste run in this direc- 
 tion. Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis has left on record the state- 
 ment that it was Grant's intention at first to appoint Mr. 
 Fish ambassador to the court of St. James, but that ''cir- 
 cumstances induced a change of mind." Judging from the 
 superior service Mr. Fish later rendered in the Department 
 of State, the President could not well have chosen a 
 worthier representative for the English mission ; but Mr. 
 Fish was not a self-seeking statesman, and under the rule 
 of political exigency, a man of his caliber is too often set 
 aside to give place to one with less equipment. While Mr. 
 Fish had entertained Grant during the campaign at his 
 home in New York, and at the close of the war had given 
 a liberal donation towards a fund to purchase a house for 
 the General, he was not on intimate terms with the new 
 President; nor did Grant, when he invited him into his 
 cabinet, as he afterwards said, fully appreciate the great 
 ability of Mr. Fish. 
 
 But there had lately been no opportunity for Mr. Fish 
 publicly to demonstrate his executive qualifications. His 
 tireless work during the war was of a semi-public nature, 
 and while resulting in great good, was not generally ex- 
 ploited. As Governor of New York he had displayed 
 
 [49] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 executive talent of no mean order; but some twenty years 
 had passed since he had held that office, and his decision 
 and foresight, then so generally recognized by his State, 
 was now little known throughout the nation. Yet in 1869, 
 Mr. Fish was looked upon by those with whom he came in 
 contact as a gentleman of wide experience, in whom the 
 capacities of the organizer were happily united with a well- 
 balanced judgment and broad culture. As chairman of the 
 board of trustees of Columbia College and as one of the 
 trustees of the Astor Library he was intimately in touch 
 with educational matters; as President-general of the Order 
 of the Cincinnati, and as President of the New York Histor- 
 ical Society, he was closely associated with men who did not 
 live wholly in the present, but took pleasure in reviewing 
 the salient events of the past. Such was the man who after 
 a retirement of twelve years was again to enter the public 
 service, and to reap a fame commensurate with the greatest 
 of our Secretaries of State. 
 
 But a word is now necessary as to how the appointment 
 came about. Grant had been unfortunate in the selection 
 of some of his official advisers. The well-known case of 
 A. T. Stewart as Secretary of the Treasury need not here be 
 reviewed. It is said that the President had chosen James 
 F. Wilson, of Iowa, for the position of Secretary of State, 
 but that he requested that gentleman to submit to an interim 
 appointment for a few days only, so that the temporary 
 appointee might go to Paris as our representative with 
 added prestige. When Mr. Wilson was informed that 
 Elihu B. Washburne, whom Grant had so honored, had 
 undertaken to make appointments, when his tenure was 
 only to be nominal, he declined to accept the appointment. 
 It was then that the astonished President proffered the 
 
 [SO] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 position to Mr. Fish, who at first declined it. Dispatching 
 General Babcock to New York with instructions to prevail 
 upon Mr. Fish to reconsider the matter, the President before 
 Babcock's return sent in Mr. Fish's name to the Senate, 
 which was immediately confirmed. Finding what Presi- 
 dent Grant had done, and not wishing to embarrass him 
 further, Mr. Fish consented to serve with the reservation 
 that he could ''withdraw after the adjournment of Con- 
 gress," a suggestion which was contained in the Presi- 
 dent's letter in which he urged Mr. Fish to reconsider the 
 appointment. 
 
 "Very much against my own wishes, and after a very 
 positive refusal," writes Mr. Fish to Charles Sumner under 
 date of March 13, 1869, "I am going to Washington to 
 undertake duties for which I have little taste and less 
 fitness. ... I make this sacrifice on the most earnest 
 appeal 'not to allow another break,' etc. I hesitated long to 
 reverse my decision; and if I was wrong in yielding, God 
 knows that I did it reluctantly, and because the reasons 
 presented seemed to me to affect high interests."^ 
 
 The public regarded the appointment of Hamilton Fish 
 very much as it later viewed that of his immediate suc- 
 cessor, William M. Evarts. Both men were loyal Republi- 
 cans, but in no sense wire pullers or manipulators of party 
 policies, unfortunately too often prerequisites to political 
 promotion. Yet there are few, if any, persons who stand 
 for efficiency and disinterested service as the prime qualifica- 
 tions for public officials who would contend that either 
 Fish or Evarts were less valuable Secretaries because they 
 had never practised the so-called arts of the politician. In 
 
 ^ Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, by Edward L. Pierce, 
 Vol. IV, p. 379. 
 
 [51] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 each case Presidents Grant and Hayes selected their Secre- 
 taries of State because they had discovered in them quahties 
 which eminently fitted them for the office ; and both choices 
 were most fortunate selections. 
 
 But there were naturally some who underrated the capa- 
 bility of Secretary Fish, and this is pointed out to show 
 that it either emanated from personal malice, or else from 
 a thorough misconception of the intellectual resources 
 which Mr. Fish really possessed. Seward, who entertained 
 John Bigelow at his home at Auburn, soon after the ap- 
 pointment of Mr. Fish, is quoted as declaring that President 
 Grant **had no idea of a foreign policy except brute force." 
 In the same conversation Seward voiced the opinion that 
 there were but three men of whom he knew who were 
 qualified to hold the position of Secretary of State; namely, 
 Charles Sumner, Charles Francis Adams, and himself ; 
 that he was the only person who was able to make an analy- 
 sis of the Alabama correspondence under a year, and that 
 he could do it in four months. *Tish," continued Seward, 
 "will refer everything to the Attorney-General. He will do 
 nothing himself; he cannot."^ ''The cabinet is not strong, 
 but it is respectable," writes Bigelow to Huntington, March 
 i6, 1869. "Whether it lasts or goes to pieces depends upon 
 Grant's purpose in selecting it. If he has a policy and 
 wanted men merely for instruments to put it into operation, 
 it is admirably chosen. If he wants responsible ministers he 
 has not got them. Hamilton Fish is my neighbor in the 
 country — an amiable but heavy man, who at the bar ranked 
 as a moderate attorney, but whose name I suspect does not 
 appear in the books of reports once . . ."^ 
 
 2 Ulysses S. Grant, by Coolidge, pp. 281-282. 
 
 3 Retrospections of an Active Life, Bigelow, Vol. IV, p. 263. 
 
 [53] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 Secretary Fish entered promptly upon the work of his 
 Department, and with characteristic zeal confined himself 
 mostly to the duties which this involved. Diligent in his 
 own work he required his subordinates to be likewise. Yet 
 he was not a hard taskmaster. Listening patiently to all 
 grievances, whether supposed or real, he aimed to be per- 
 fectly impartial in his decisions. This fairness won him the 
 confidence and loyalty of those through whom he directed 
 the affairs of the Department, and thus his influence was 
 felt perhaps more largely than is usually the case ; for the 
 heads of departments are generally inclined to limit their 
 personal supervision to the more important duties of their 
 office, leaving the details to be worked out by subordinates. 
 Secretary Fish is said to have known every clerk personally, 
 and to have been acquainted with their habits and abilities. 
 
 This careful scrutiny proved fortunate for those who 
 merited promotion, when, under the efficient management of 
 the Secretary, the Department of State was reorganized. 
 Soon after Secretary Fish entered the cabinet he wanted to 
 effect certain changes in his Department, but was handi- 
 capped at first, because he found the Congress apathetic 
 to grant the desired appropriations. When this was done, 
 however, he caused all detached and unindexed correspond- 
 ence of a miscellaneous nature to be collected, classified, 
 indexed, and bound. When completed there were over 
 seven hundred volumes. At the same time that this work 
 was being perfected, Mr. Fish introduced for the first time 
 into the Department a general system of indexing, so that 
 for years clerks have been able to locate important docu- 
 ments with convenience and dispatch. 
 
 We are also to credit Secretary Fish in his management 
 of the Department of State for taking the initial steps in 
 
 [53] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 the reform of the Civil Service. Before his day consulates 
 were accustomed to receive their appointments on the 
 recommendation of Senators or Congressmen, without, it 
 may be said, of especially inquiring into their knowledge of 
 the subjects with which they would have to deal. Mr. Fish 
 had long felt very keenly on this subject, as evidenced in 
 one of his early letters to Charles Sumner, in which he 
 poured forth his indignation of the type of men then being 
 sent to represent our country at foreign courts. He never 
 hesitated to condemn the course of a public official when 
 he disapproved of it, merely because that course emanated 
 from a representative of the party to which he was affili- 
 ated ; and he always had adequate reason aside from party 
 allegiance to defend his views. Thus feeling as he did in 
 regard to the fitness of applicants for diplomatic posts, it 
 is not surprising that Secretary Fish established a rule 
 whereby all applicants for consulates were required to 
 undergo an official examination. Such an innovation not 
 only raised the tone and efficiency of the consular service, 
 but it served to eliminate hard feelings among Congressmen 
 and Senators when their favorites were denied appointment ; 
 for when shown the written answers they could not hon- 
 estly object if their choices had failed to obtain the re- 
 quired standard. Of course in some cases unworthy for- 
 eign appointments were made ; but it must be remembered 
 that the appointing power rests solely with the President, 
 with the consent of the Senate; and although Mr. Fish 
 endeavored to correct many abuses which through custom 
 had grown up in the Department, President Grant was not 
 always amenable to the Secretary's suggestions. 
 
 It will be convenient in the next four chapters to digress 
 from a strict chronological order and to follow out succes- 
 
 [54] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 sively some of the great foreign problems which arose in 
 the Department of State during the incumbency of Secre- 
 tary Fish, for they require coherency of treatment to be 
 made comprehensible. It only remains then in this chapter 
 to deal briefly with certain other matters which in any study 
 of Hamilton Fish, however succinct, must not be omitted. 
 
 Of these, his position on the subject of expatriation is 
 one of the most noteworthy, for it resulted in establishing 
 a new canon, to use the words of another, of international 
 law. It has, moreover, been conceded to be the correct prin- 
 ciple in such cases, and has continued to be applied ever 
 since Mr. Fish put it into practice. He maintained that 
 the naturalized citizen, having renounced his native citizen- 
 ship, was under the same obligation to perform the duties 
 of citizenship in the land of his adoption as natives ; and 
 that all the powers of the Government which are extended 
 to natives in the defense of their rights should also as fully 
 and as vigorously be exerted in the case of those upon 
 whom the privilege of citizenship had been conferred. But 
 when foreign-born citizens sought naturalization solely for 
 the purpose of exchanging nationality and eventually re- 
 turning to their land, there to reside without performing 
 the duties of citizenship in the land of their adoption, they 
 were not worthy, nor should they receive the protection due 
 alike to naturalized or native citizens. The Franco-German 
 War gave Secretary Fish the opportunity of freely apply- 
 ing this principle of international law ; and it is said that, 
 holding such views, he never permitted a naturalized citizen 
 to be appointed as consul in the land of his birth. 
 
 The subject of extradition also engaged the attention of 
 Secretary Fish. In the celebrated case of Winslow, under 
 the Webster-Ashburton treaty, he took the ground that, in 
 
 [55] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 the absence of a clear conventional prohibition, a person 
 surrendered could be tried for an offense technically differ- 
 ent from that for which he had been surrendered. Great 
 Britain took exception to this position, notwithstanding 
 that the Ashburton treaty contained no specific stipula- 
 tion forbidding the trial of surrendered criminals on charges 
 other than the offense on which extradition was obtained. 
 The difference caused a temporary suspension of the execu- 
 tion of the treaty. After the lapse of some months, how- 
 ever, extradition between the two countries was resumed. 
 
 As Secretary of State, Mr. Fish endeavored to induce 
 Great Britain to acquiesce in the repeal of the Clayton- 
 Bulwer treaty, by the terms of which the two countries 
 agreed not individually to "obtain or maintain for itself any 
 exclusive control over the said (Panama) ship canal; nor 
 ever erect or maintain any fortifications commanding the 
 same, or exercise any dominion over any part of Central 
 America." This agreement became effective in 1850, but 
 now, for obvious reasons, the administration desired to 
 bring about the abrogation of the treaty. It was not suc- 
 cessful, however, nor were later administrations until Sec- 
 retary Hay brought the issue to a successful termination. 
 
 During the eight years in which Mr. Fish held the State 
 portfolio, he demonstrated in sundry ways the splendid 
 equipment with which he was endowed to perform the 
 duties which the great office entailed. His greatness seemed 
 to lie in the resourcefulness of his reserve strength. In- 
 deed, he appears never to have drained his storehouse of 
 ways and means in the development and settlement of a 
 foreign issue ; and this reserved powerhouse, from which he 
 was able to draw almost inexhaustibly, made him emerge 
 victoriously, however long drawn out the controversy may 
 
 [56] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 have been. This reveals yet another side of his character 
 as a cabinet officer; namely, patience. He never allowed 
 himself to become perturbed, no matter how severely his 
 feelings were strained. Even when unjustly assailed, by 
 persons whose schemes he had thwarted, he held himself 
 well in hand, knowing that such attacks would fall of their 
 own weight, and that history would vindicate his course. 
 
 Secretary Fish also was blessed with the faculty of 
 concentration, the importance and value of which are 
 so fully appreciated by all discerning men. This power 
 of concentration was conspicuously shown in Secretary 
 Fish's dispatches, than which there are no more able 
 State papers in the archives of the Government. He 
 first gathered all fragments of information in relation to a 
 given subject, grouped them in convenient shape, and then 
 made use of the parts most essential to a logical and lucid 
 unfolding of the position of his government. Thus aiming 
 directly at the point to be reached he stated his views with 
 force and directness. The fundamental principle upon 
 which he worked was integrity, believing, as he did, that 
 diplomatic intercourse ought to be characterized by honesty 
 of purpose, clearness of perception, and fairness of method. 
 His generalizations were comprehensive and accurate ; his 
 logic, convincing. When occasion required a vigorous 
 statement, as in the case of the Virginius, vigorously it 
 was made. If unforeseen events tended to excite the De- 
 partment, there was found in the Secretary of State a tower 
 of strength, a judgment that was quick to perceive the right 
 course to be pursued. 
 
 That Hamilton Fish was the bulwark of the Grant ad- 
 ministration is not to be denied. Such men as Hoar and 
 Cox realized this from the beginning, and freely expressed 
 
 [57] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 their confidence in Mr. Fish's statesmanship. When the 
 Secretary pressed Grant to accept his resignation, both 
 Hoar and Cox urged him to remain, advice which he fortu- 
 nately accepted. At the conclusion of his term of office he 
 was almost unanimously recognized as one of the ablest 
 statesmen of his day. Countless testimonals could be cited 
 which would show the regard in which he was held by 
 his contemporaries. "I esteem it one of the chief privileges 
 of my public life," wrote Senator Anthony, "that I have 
 known you so well, and have been admitted to a share of the 
 confidence of one who has rendered such illustrious services 
 to the country, to international peace, and to civilization." 
 Others were as profuse in their praises of his record. 
 But no one knew better than the President how untiring 
 had been his devotion to the public service, nor the extent 
 of his influence, which Grant generously acknowledged after 
 his retirement from the Presidency. "I have been prob- 
 ably credited," said General Grant, "with having had a 
 variety of friends who are supposed to have influenced me 
 more or less during my political career. The three, or I 
 may say four, friends on whose judgment I relied with 
 the utmost confidence were, first, and above all, Hamilton 
 Fish, Senator Edmunds, of Vermont, Mr. Boutwell, of 
 Massachusetts, and Admiral Ammen, of the navy. I had 
 multitudes of other friends, of course, of whose friendship 
 I was proud and rejoice, but when people speak of those 
 whose counsels I sought and accepted, they were those 
 four men whom I have mentioned, and, above all, Hamilton 
 Fish." 
 
 [58] 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON 
 
 AT THE very inception of the Grant administration 
 /-% Secretary Fish was confronted with a foreign prob- 
 "^ -^ lem, the origin of which dated back to the early 
 days of the Civil War, when Great Britain recognized, by 
 the Queen's proclamation of May 13, 1861, the belligerency 
 of the Confederate States. While international law justi- 
 fied such a course, there were circumstances that gave to 
 the move the appearance of haste. The ultimate source of 
 disagreement between the two nations, however, lay not so 
 much in the fact that such a proclamation was issued, as in 
 the failure of Great Britain to observe consistently the 
 rules of neutrality which, by virtue of the proclamation, 
 she was under obligation to respect. From this cause 
 there arose the serious differences growing out of the 
 depredations on American commerce by the Alabama and 
 other Confederate cruisers fitted out in British jurisdiction. 
 
 In these days of close comradeship and manifest destiny 
 between the United States and Great Britain, it is indeed 
 hard to realize that during, and for some time following, 
 our Civil War, the relations between these two great Eng- 
 lish-speaking nations were severely strained. But such is 
 the fact. A recital here, however, is necessary only as it 
 affects the circumstances leading up to, and culminating in, 
 the series of negotiations with the Government of Great 
 Britain, the fruit of which was the Treaty of Washington, 
 and the Geneva Arbitration. 
 
 [59] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 The facts were indeed undeniable. From almost the 
 beginning of the war, the Confederate Government utilized 
 the waters of the Mersey, to borrow the words of the Amer- 
 ican case at Geneva, as her "dockyard and arsenal." In 
 English shipyards vessels were built, which later escaped 
 from her ports, and preyed on the commerce of the northern 
 States. At first through either the inadequacy of her laws, 
 or the neglect of her officials, the British Government re- 
 frained from interfering, in spite of repeated protests by 
 the United States, officially made through the American 
 minister, Charles Francis Adams. By the construction 
 then given to the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819, it was 
 lawful to build a ship of war in British waters, provided it 
 were not wholly equipped there for hostile purposes. In 
 other words, both must be combined in order to constitute 
 an offense. It was further stated that inasmuch as the 
 mere building of ships was commerce carried on between 
 British merchants and manufacturers, and representatives 
 of the Confederate Government, it was an issue for the 
 local authorities, not one for the Government, to explain. 
 But whether the responsibility was shifted to other shoul- 
 ders, or not, the English Government had taken her stand; 
 for in the language of her Foreign Secretary, Lord Russell 
 — ''Her Majesty's Government entirely disclaimed all re- 
 sponsibility for any acts of the Alabama/'^ 
 
 In this connection, there seems to have been no disposi- 
 tion among British statesmen in power to recognize in the 
 situation an obligation, because of the Queen's proclama- 
 tion of neutrality, which transcended any existing Act of 
 Parliament, and which required the Government to amend 
 
 1 Russell to Adams, March 9, 1863. Geneva Arbitration : Corre- 
 spondence, etc., Vol. Ill, p. 122, 
 
 [60] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 any statute failing to remove any cause, however remote, 
 that tended to place the Government of Great Britain in 
 either an unfavorable or inconsistent light. While the 
 escape of the Alabama was at the time defended. Lord Rus- 
 sell in his ''Recollections and Suggestions"^ graciously 
 enough admits the error, and lays it at his own door. 
 
 As was natural, there was great consternation among the 
 people of the North over the loss of their commerce. But 
 in point of fact there was little concern in England whether 
 or not northern opinion was appeased. Indeed, the vortex 
 of English sentiment at the outset of the war, especially in 
 high governmental circles, with but few exceptions, was 
 inimical to the North. Gladstone's well-remembered words 
 that "Jefferson Davis had made an army, was making a 
 navy, and had made a nation" ; and "we may anticipate 
 with certainty the success of the southern States so far 
 as regard their separation from the North",^ sunk deeply 
 into the minds of the northern people, and became, with 
 the language of other equally biased Englishmen, a source 
 of bitterness, the extent of which was not easy to assuage. 
 
 But this spirit of antagonism was not the determining 
 factor which led the United States to seek redress : it lay 
 in the great loss of the North's ocean trade. So as the 
 national and individual claims increased in number, they 
 ultimately developed into an uncompromising legacy of 
 the war, the settlement of which required time, the rise of 
 extraneous events, and a leadership of no mean insight and 
 firmness. 
 
 Before the advent of Hamilton Fish, the Department of 
 State had endeavored to bring the controversy with Great 
 
 2 Recollections and Suggestions, p. 407. 
 
 3 Speech at Newcastle, October 7, 1862. 
 
 [61] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 Britain to an end. The overtures, however, failed of frui- 
 tion. Because in the view of British authority England 
 had given no cause for the United States to seek repara- 
 tion, inasmuch as "no armed vessel departed during the 
 war from a British port to cruise against the commerce 
 of the United States" ;* and therefore all obligations of 
 international law, as legally binding upon a neutral power, 
 had been observed. 
 
 Secretary Seward, who was naturally zealous for an 
 adjustment between the two governments to be con- 
 summated during his term of office, sought near the 
 close of the Johnson administration to effect a settle- 
 ment of the British question. In July, 1868, Charles 
 Francis Adams was succeeded at the British court by 
 Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, who, backed by Seward, 
 at once entered upon negotiations concerning the 
 so-called Alabama claims. A significant feature of these 
 negotiations was the silence in regard to Seward's former 
 attitude, which had laid stress on the impropriety and un- 
 friendliness of the Queen's proclamation of 1861. With 
 this ground yielded, or more accurately speaking, ignored, 
 the chief cause of irritation, to the minds of the officials, 
 was removed ; and thus the outlook for an agreement greatly 
 enhanced. 
 
 Great Britain, moreover, was now anxious to come to an 
 understanding with the United States ; and for very obvious 
 reasons. Conditions on the continent of Europe were in 
 a liquid state; they were not fixed. Count Bismarck's 
 policy was one which England could not ignore; nor was 
 she now disposed to allow, if she could help it, the prec- 
 
 * Geneva Arbitration : Correspondence, etc., Vol. Ill, p. 625. 
 
 [62] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 edent created by the Alabama circumstance to be repeated 
 by America in case of Great Britain being involved in war. 
 Then further a new ministry had recently assumed the reins 
 of government. Gladstone had succeeded Lord Russell as 
 Premier; and Lord Clarendon had become Foreign Secre- 
 tary. So now having by complete silence recognized Lord 
 Stanley's argument in reference to the recognition of Con- 
 federate belligerency, in which Seward concurred, a con- 
 vention was concluded on January 14, 1869, when it re- 
 ceived the signatures of its chief sponsors, Reverdy John- 
 son, and Lord Clarendon, and became known as the John- 
 son-Clarendon Convention. 
 
 It was not received in the United States as its 
 framers and sponsors had anticipated. A year seems to 
 have worked a radical change in American sentiment. This 
 was very markedly shown when the convention was first 
 considered by the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
 Senate, when its entire membership went on record as 
 opposed to its ratification ; the reason being primarily be- 
 cause it failed to contain adequate provision for the repara- 
 tion of the wrongs which the North had sustained. Then, 
 too, sympathy for Irish home rule was at the time growing 
 in the United States, which did not tend to abate anti- 
 English feeling. Resentment also was felt for the manner 
 in which Johnson had brought about the convention. Then, 
 also, in the meantime, a presidential election had occurred ; 
 and, as Seward wrote to Johnson, ''The confused light of 
 an incoming administration was spreading itself over the 
 country, rendering the consideration of political subjects 
 irksome, if not inconvenient."^ 
 
 ^ The Treaty of Washington, by C. F. Adams, p. 94. 
 
 [63] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 At the request of the President-elect, the consideration 
 of the convention was not taken up formally by the Senate 
 until the new administration had taken office. It was, there- 
 fore, not acted upon until early in April, 1869, when the 
 Senate, sitting in executive session, rejected it almost 
 unanimously. That part of the debate which was destined 
 to evoke the most far-reaching consequence was the elabo- 
 rate, and indeed extravagant speech of Senator Sumner, 
 the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, which 
 had the convention in charge. It is very doubtful if the 
 speech of Sumner changed many votes in the Senate, as 
 the defeat of the convention was a foregone conclusion. It 
 did, however, greatly tend to deter the prospects of a rapid 
 settlement of the differences at issue. By formal vote of 
 the Senate, the speech was allowed to be published, and so 
 became a baleful influence in renewing negotiations. By 
 way of impressing his hearers of the injury that England 
 had inflicted upon the United States, Sumner attempted to 
 state our individual and national losses. He figured that 
 the former ''due to the foraging of the Alabama" were 
 $15,000,000; while the latter, caused by the subversion of 
 American commerce, and other expenditures pertaining 
 thereto amounted to around $110,000,000. But this, he 
 added, 'Ts only an item in our bill." 
 
 Senator Sumner then proceeded to lay the prolongation 
 of the war to England's door, and said that, *Tf the case 
 against England is strong, and if our claims are unprec- 
 edented in magnitude, it is only because the conduct of 
 this power at a trying period was most unfriendly, and the 
 injurious consequences of this conduct were on a scale 
 corresponding to the theatre of action." Submitting that 
 the cost of the Civil War was over $4,000,000,000, and that 
 
 [64] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 because of British intervention it was doubled in length, he 
 figured that England was liable in money for one-half of 
 the total war cost, or $2,000,000,000, thus estimating our 
 entire bill against Great Britain of about $2,125,000,000. He 
 followed this up by averring that "whatever may be the 
 final settlement of these great accounts, such must be the 
 judgment in any chancery which consults the simple equity 
 of the case."^ 
 
 It has, been contended that Sumner was merely stating 
 the extent to which England had wronged the United States 
 by her sympathy for the Southern cause; that it was not 
 his intention of either collecting such an enormous sum, or 
 of bringing the country to the verge of war to enforce its 
 payment. However this may be, he went on record at 
 about the same time by saying that **how the case may be 
 settled, whether by money more or less, by territorial com- 
 pensation, by apology, or by an amendment of the law of 
 nations, is still an open question ; all may be combined."^ 
 
 To the world at large, the vote of the Senate, and Sum- 
 ner's speech could not, therefore, be very well disassociated. 
 Yet as Secretary Fish wrote in a private letter to Mr. S. B. 
 Ruggles, of New York,^ "The fact is, many senators dis- 
 sented from the (Sumner's) argument, while agreeing in 
 the conclusion." This also was the view of Senator 
 Edmunds, of Vermont, and others who expressed an opin- 
 ion on the subject. From the first Secretary Fish was dis- 
 posed to think Senator Sumner had stated his case too 
 strongly, that the hypothesis upon which he based his con- 
 
 6 Charles Sumner's Works, Vol. XIII, pp. Tj, 83, 86, 90. 
 "^ Sumner to Lieber, May 30, 1869. Pierce : Sumner Vol. IV, 
 p. 388. 
 
 ® Treaty of Washington, by C. F. Adams, Appendix C, pp. 207-208. 
 
 [65] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 elusions was incapable of being defended. He had always 
 regretted the British proclamation of May, 1861, but had 
 contended it was ''subject of complaint, only as leading to, 
 as characterized by, and authorizing in its execution and 
 enforcement the fitting out of the Alabama, etc., . . . and 
 as leading to the moral support given in England to the 
 Rebel cause." Other events rapidly ensued, which we will 
 consider later, that led Secretary Fish to declare within 
 a week of the rejection of the convention by the Senate 
 that "Whenever negotiations are resumed, the atmosphere 
 and the surroundings of this side of the water are more 
 favorable to a proper solution of the question than the 
 dinner-tables and the public banquetings of England."^ So 
 intense was the feeling on both sides that the respective 
 governments deemed it prudent to defer, for a time at least, 
 negotiations upon the subject. 
 
 But however tense the feeling and unopportune the pres- 
 ent may have been for a renewal of negotiations, much 
 intervened, in the interim, to pave the way for a complete 
 understanding between the two governments within a com- 
 paratively short time. At the solicitation of Sumner, 
 J. Lothrop Motley had been appointed to the English mis- 
 sion, and after his confirmation had with the sanction of 
 Secretary Fish prepared a memorandum which contained 
 an outline upon which was to be based his instructions. It 
 mirrored Sumner's views so clearly as to suggest that he 
 had inspired it. The Secretary it seems laid it away in 
 a drawer, and paid only a passing comment on it to Sum- 
 ner, in which the latter "partially, if not wholly, joined";^* 
 a suggestion of the divergence of opinion between the Sec- 
 
 ^ Treaty of Washington, by C. F. Adams, p. 112. 
 ^^ Pierce : Sumner, Vol. IV, p. 404- 
 
 [66] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 retary and the Senator concerning the concession of bel- 
 Hgerent rights. Secretary Fish took his time in the prepara- 
 tion of Mr. Motley's instructions ; and for very obvious 
 reasons. Another question of foreign import was just then 
 in abeyance; and until the administration's policy towards 
 the Cuban Rebellion was definitely determined, Secretary 
 Fish was inclined to move with care in regard to the Eng- 
 lish question, lest he find himself in an unexplainable posi- 
 tion. Thus it was plain that the rule about to be applied 
 to Great Britain in the matter of the Queen's proclamation 
 of 1861 must not contradict a like position which the United 
 States might think wise to take in regard to Spain. It was 
 a wise move in statesmanship, and Secretary Fish seems to 
 have been the guiding spirit of this policy. 
 
 So when the final instructions to Motley were ready they 
 contained no such phrases as a wrong ''immense and in- 
 finite," or "ill-omened" and ''fatal" proclamation, the very 
 issuance of which "had opened the flood-gates to infinite 
 woes." Instead, we find Secretary Fish, with the Cuban 
 problem probably in mind, declaring that the President 
 recognized "the right of every power, when a civil conflict 
 has arisen within another State, and has attained a suffi- 
 cient complexity, magnitude and completeness, to define its 
 own relations and those of its citizens and subjects towards 
 the parties to the conflict, so far as their rights and inter- 
 ests are necessarily affected by the conflict." After some 
 well guarded expressions, the much discussed proclama- 
 tion was referred to only as indicating "the beginning and 
 the animus of that course of conduct which resulted so 
 disastrously to the United States." The Secretary also 
 declared that in spite of the failure of the Johnson-Claren- 
 don Convention the Government of the United States did 
 
 [67] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 not reliquish confidence of "an early, satisfactory, and 
 friendly settlement of the questions depending between 
 the two governments," and expressed the hope of the Presi- 
 dent that the suspension of negotiations would be viewed by 
 Her Majesty's Government in the same light as it was by 
 him, "as wholly in the interest of, and solely with the view 
 to, an early and friendly settlement."^^ 
 
 Sumner appears to have been contented, at least out- 
 wardly, with the instructions, though the original draft, 
 which he succeeded in having modified, was more explicit 
 on what one writer has called "the Proclamation Legend." 
 The entire tenor of the document, however, was in keeping 
 with the well-defined views of Secretary Fish, expressed in 
 a letter to a friend, in September, 1869. "The two English- 
 speaking progressive liberal governments of the world," he 
 said, "should not, must not, be divided — better let this ques- 
 tion rest for some years even (if that be necessary) than 
 risk failure in another attempt at settlement. I do not say 
 this because I wish to postpone a settlement — on the con- 
 trary, I should esteem it the greatest glory, and happiness 
 of my life, if it could be settled while I remain in official 
 position ; and I should esteem it the greatest benefit to my 
 country to bring it to an early settlement. ... I want to 
 have the question settled. I would not, if I could, impose 
 any humiliating condition on Great Britain. I would not 
 be a party to anything that proposes to threaten her. I 
 believe that she is great enough to be just; and I trust that 
 she is wise enough to maintain her own greatness. No 
 greatness is inconsistent with some errors. Mr. Bright 
 thinks she was drawn into errors — so do we. If she can be 
 brought to think so, it will not be necessary for her to say 
 
 11 Davis: Mr. Fish and the Alabama Claims, pp. 35, 36. 
 
 [68] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 so — at least not to say it very loudly. It may be said by 
 a definition of what shall be Maritime International Law in 
 the future, and a few kind words. She will want in the 
 future what we have claimed. Thus she will be benefited 
 — we satisfied. "^^ 
 
 In due course Mr. Motley proceeded to London, where 
 with his prestige as an historian and writer he became the 
 social lion of the day. He seems, however, to have still 
 been under the influence of Sumner; for instead of adher- 
 ing strictly to his instructions, he dwelt in his first inter- 
 view with Lord Clarendon upon the Queen's proclamation 
 as "the fountain head of the disasters which had been 
 caused to the American people, both individually and col- 
 lectively." When the report of this interview reached 
 Washington the President is said to have been very angry 
 over the failure of Motley to respect his instructions ; and 
 even told Secretary Fish to dismiss the new Minister at 
 once, a move which the Secretary then discouraged. The 
 alternative, however, was followed; that of relieving Mr. 
 Motley from dealing further with the British question. 
 The Secretary now had the matter in his own hands. This 
 he had desired soon after the defeat of the Johnson- 
 Clarendon Convention. The subsequent dismissal of Mot- 
 ley, however dramatic of itself, did not affect the substance 
 of the negotiations with England, the renewal of which 
 were progressing rapidly before it took place. In so suc- 
 cinct a monograph space will not permit of dilating in 
 detail all the circumstances of this or other events con- 
 nected with this important international controversy. Suf- 
 fice it to say, however, of Motley's removal, that it was 
 wholly Grant's. Secretary Fish regretted it, and for a time 
 
 12 Treaty of Washington, by C. F. Adams, pp. 125-126. 
 
 [69] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 succeeded in delaying it; and when the final storm broke, 
 the Secretary put himself on record in a letter to Motley, 
 in which he indicated as plainly as such a correspondence 
 permitted, how painful was the task of requesting his 
 resignation. 
 
 But we have a bit anticipated the event : in the meantime, 
 through the initiative of Caleb Gushing, an interview be- 
 tween Secretary Fish and Sir John Rose, a Scotchman by 
 birth, then prominent in public life in Canada, was arranged. 
 It is uncertain whether or not Rose was the authorized 
 agent of Great Britain ; but, zealous of having the two 
 nations come to an amiable understanding in regard to the 
 so-called British question, he suggested to Mr. Gushing, 
 with whom he was at the time associated — the one serving 
 as British Commissioner, the other as counsel before the 
 joint tribunal which arbitrated the claims of the Hudson's 
 Bay and Puget Sound companies under the treaty of 
 
 1863 , that he might be of some aid in bringing the 
 
 matter to a state whereby negotiations of a new nature 
 might be resumed. On July 9, 1869, or soon after Motley's 
 first interview with Lord Clarendon, in which he had dis- 
 paraged the prospects of a prompt settlement of the ques- 
 tions at issue. Secretary Fish and Sir John Rose, in the 
 former's home in Washington considered at dinner some of 
 the details along the lines of which an effective settlement 
 could be consummated. Secretary Fish impressed upon 
 his caller the necessity of "some kind expression of regret" 
 being duly given on the part of Great Britain, owing to 
 the course she had taken during the Civil War; and with 
 the exchange of other views clearly in mind, Mr. Rose left 
 almost immediately after the interview for England. 
 
 During the summer and autumn little progress towards 
 
 [70] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 a basis of agreement between the two countries was made; 
 yet Fish and Rose kept each other advised as to current 
 opinion in their respective countries. In one such com- 
 munication Rose had written : "I have had conversations 
 in more than one quarter — which you will readily under- 
 stand without my naming them, and have conveyed MY 
 OWN BELIEF, that a kindly word, or an expression of 
 regret, such as would not involve an acknowledgment of 
 wrong, was likely to be more potential than the most irref- 
 ragable reasoning on principles of international law. . . . 
 Is your representative here [Motley] a gentleman of the 
 most conciliatory spirit? . . . Does he not — perhaps natu- 
 rally — let the fear of imitating his predecessor influence 
 his course so as to make his initiative hardly as much char- 
 acterized by consideration for the sensibilities of the peo- 
 ple of this country, as of his own? ... I think I under- 
 stood you to say, that you thought negotiations would be 
 more likely to be attended with satisfactory results, if they 
 were transferred to, and were concluded at, Washington; 
 because you could from time to time communicate con- 
 fidentially with leading Senators, and know how far you 
 could carry that body with you. . . . But again is your 
 representative of that mind? — and how is it to be brought 
 about? By a new, or a special envoy — as you spoke of — or 
 quietly through Mr. Thornton ?"^^ 
 
 Secretary Fish in reply wrote : "Your questions respect- 
 ing our Minister, I fear may have been justified by some 
 indiscretion of expression, or of manner, but I hope only 
 indiscretions of that nature. Intimations of such had 
 reached me. I have reason to hope that if there have been 
 such manifestations, they may not recur. Whatever there 
 
 ^3 Treaty of Washington, by C. F. Adams, p. 127. 
 
 [71] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 may have appeared, I cannot doubt his desire to aid in 
 bringing the two governments into perfect accord. . . . 
 I have the highest regard for Mr. Thornton, and find him 
 in all my intercourse, courteous, frank, and true. A gentle- 
 man with whom I deal and treat with the most unreserved 
 confidence. He had, however, given offense to Mr. Sum- 
 ner (chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Rela- 
 tions), whose position with reference to any future nego- 
 tiation you understand. I chanced to know that Mr. 
 Sumner feels deeply aggrieved by some things which Mr. 
 Thornton has written home, and although he would not con- 
 sciously allow a personal grief of that nature to prejudice 
 his action in an official intercourse with the representative 
 of a State, he might unconsciously be led to criticism un- 
 favorable to positions which would be viewed differently, 
 if occupied by some other person. ... I am very decidedly 
 of opinion that whenever negotiations are to be renewed, 
 they would be more likely to result favorably here than 
 in London. I have so instructed Mr. Motley to say, if he 
 be questioned on the subject. "^^ 
 
 At the time of these letters Sumner and Fish were still 
 on friendly terms. The latter, therefore, was particular to 
 inform Sumner of the references to Motley's position, 
 thinking that of course Sumner would pass the hint along 
 to his friend at the English court; instead, he ignored it 
 entirely. Motley's biographer, the lovable Oliver Wendell 
 Holmes, writing after the historian's death, alludes to the 
 then unnamed writer as **a faithless friend, a disguised 
 enemy, a secret emissary, or an injudicious alarmist. "^^ 
 
 For a year matters drifted; but as we shall see affairs in 
 
 1* Treaty of Washington, by C. F. Adams, p. 129. 
 
 ^^ O. W. Holmes: Memoir of John Lothrop Motley, pp. 178-179. 
 
 [72] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 America were such as to make Secretary Fish's role one of 
 difficulty. The President was engrossed in his desire to 
 annex San Domingo ; and the Secretary, though not at 
 heart in favor of the project, loyally endeavored to support 
 the President's policy after he had once entered upon it. 
 He also sought out Sumner and tried to persuade him to 
 support the treaty in the Senate ; the misunderstanding be- 
 tween Grant and Sumner in regard to this support will 
 be discussed in a succeeding chapter. It not only re- 
 sulted in a quarrel between Grant and Sumner; but later 
 involved Fish, who had so earnestly tried to effect a work- 
 ing agreement between them. But other events, extraneous 
 in their origin, now entered into the situation. Prussian 
 troops lay encamped around Paris ; France was surrounded 
 by the enemy. There was indeed no certainty that Great 
 Britain would not in some way become involved in the 
 general continental storm. It behooved her then to settle 
 all outstanding disputes, so that her slate might be clean 
 for whatever fate might have in store. 
 
 At this turn of events, Grant, at the suggestion of his 
 Secretary of State, inserted into his annual message of De- 
 cember 5, 1870, this paragraph, which was written by Secre- 
 tary Fish : *T regret to say that no conclusion has been 
 reached for the adjustment of the claims against Great 
 Britain growing out of the course adopted by that Govern- 
 ment during the rebellion. The cabinet of London, so far 
 as its views have been expressed, does not appear to be 
 willing to concede that Her Majesty's Governmnt was guilty 
 of any negligence, or did or permitted any act during the 
 war by which the United States has just cause of complaint. 
 Our firm and unalterable convictions are directly the re- 
 verse. I therefore recommend to Congress to authorize the 
 
 173-] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 appointment of a commission to take proof of the amount 
 and the ownership of these several claims, on notice to the 
 representative of Her Majesty at Washington, and that 
 authority be given for the settlement of these claims by the 
 United States, so that the Government shall have the owner- 
 ship of the private claims, as well as the responsible control 
 of all the demands against Great Britain. It cannot be 
 necessary to add that whenever Her Majesty's Government 
 shall entertain a desire for a full and friendly adjustment 
 of these claims the United States will enter upon their con- 
 sideration with an earnest desire for a conclusion consistent 
 with the honor and dignity of both nations. "^^ 
 
 How completely this "earnest desire" was fulfilled, and 
 with what credit it redounds to the memory of Secretary 
 Fish, we shall now see; for in truth it has become his 
 monument ; and because of it he shall live in history. 
 
 16 Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. VII, 
 
 p. 102. 
 
 [74] 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON — CONTINUED 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN was quick to respond to the over- 
 ture of President Grant to renew negotiations. In 
 less than five weeks from the publication of the 
 message she had dispatched Sir John Rose to America with 
 authority to extend to our Government friendly suggestions 
 in regard to an early settlement of the "Alabama Claims." 
 The British unofficial envoy arrived in the United States 
 early in January, 1871, and immediately hurried on to 
 Washington, where he dined with Secretary Fish on the 
 evening of his arrival. The conference, prolonged into the 
 late hours of the night, resulted in a comprehensive memo- 
 randum which, cast into proper form the following day 
 by Mr. Rose, was received by the Secretary on January nth. 
 Outwardly the coast seemed to be clear ; yet in point of 
 fact menacing features were still to be surmounted before 
 real progress could be gained. Though Secretary Fish had 
 expressed himself as "inspired with hope" on the receipt 
 of the Rose memorandum, he was aware of the ability of 
 Charles Sumner to wield formidable opposition to any 
 plan which aimed to bring about an immediate settlement 
 with Great Britain, provided it did not meet with his un- 
 qualified approval. Events also had occurred in the mean- 
 time which made the Secretary's position yet more difficult 
 in so far as any personal relation with the Senator was 
 concerned. Grant, as we already have seen, was incensed 
 
 [75] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 over Sumner's hostility to the San Domingo treaty, and 
 partly because of it had caused Motley's removal. The 
 Minister, deeply chagrined over the premature termination 
 of his mission, took occasion to elaboratel}? record the 
 circumstances which had resulted in the dismissal, in which 
 he "had referred to the rumor of his removal on account 
 of Sumner's opposition to the San Domingo treaty." 
 Already sorely tried over Motley's previous conduct which, 
 with Sumner's treatment, had failed to appreciate the deli- 
 cate situation in wdiich the administration was placed, Fish's 
 long restrained feelings gave vent in a letter to Mr. Moran, 
 then acting as charge d'affaires at London, in which he 
 said that the rumor had originated in Washington, "in a 
 source bitterly, personally, and vindictively hostile to the 
 President."^ Critics charge that this was an unfortunate 
 display of ill-feeling, and coming at this particular time that 
 it tended to add fuel to the already lighted flame. The 
 Secretary's friends say that he was most forbearing in his 
 treatment, considering Sumner's attitude. Sumner, how- 
 ever, resented it as a direct attack on him, and presently 
 broke ofif all social intercourse with the Secretary. 
 
 Such was the state of affairs very briefly outlined when 
 Rose's memorandum reached Secretary Fish. Cognizant 
 of the personal attitude of Sumner towards him, the Sec- 
 retary paved the way for an interview through a mutual 
 friend, which arranged, took place on January 15th, or some 
 six days after Sir John Rose had reached Washington. The 
 Rose memorandum was read to Sumner by Fish, who after 
 its conclusion endeavored "to obtain from Sumner an ex- 
 pression of opinion as to the answer to be given to Rose"; 
 this not forthcoming the Secretary then stated to Sumner 
 
 1 The Treaty of Washington, by C. F. Adams, p. 171. 
 
 [76] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 that he had "come officially to him as chairman of the Sen- 
 ate Committee on Foreign Relations to ask his opinion and 
 advice; that he was entitled to it, as he must give an an- 
 swer." In reply Sumner said that the matter required 
 "much reflection." Fish then requested him to consider 
 the subject, and give an opinion within a day or so.^ 
 
 Two days later, on January 17th, Sumner returned the 
 memorandum with a note to Fish in his own handwriting, 
 which is still extant, in which he admitted the contention 
 of Sir John Rose that "all questions and causes of irrita- 
 tion between England and the United States should be re- 
 moved absolutely and forever," and that "all points of 
 difference should be considered together." But to this he 
 added this proposition, which, so far as he was concerned, 
 would seem to have served as an ultimatum : "The greatest 
 trouble, if not peril, being a constant source of anxiety and 
 disturbance, is from Fenianism, which is excited by the 
 British flag in Canada. Therefore the withdrawal of the 
 British flag cannot be abandoned as a condition or prelimi- 
 nary of such a settlement as is now proposed. To make the 
 settlement complete, the withdrawal should be from this 
 hemisphere including provinces and islands."^ 
 
 The withdrawal of the British flag, either wholly, or in 
 part, from the continent of North America, was not a new 
 proposition ; for the withdrawal of Great Britain from 
 Canada had frequently been discussed during the initial 
 stage of the negotiations. But in the light of English senti- 
 ment, repeatedly expressed, it must be viewed now, coming 
 as it did from the chairman of the committee which would 
 
 2 From the diary of Mr. Fish, extracts of which are found in 
 The Treaty of Washington, by C F. Adams, Infra, pp. 145-146. 
 
 3 Moore : International Arbitrations, Vol. I, p. 525. 
 
 177} 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 have to report the treaty to the Senate, as a studied move 
 to thwart the proposed negotiation. Secretary Fish was 
 naturally disheartened that Sumner should have re-opened 
 the Canadian issue after it had been dropped from consid- 
 eration, partly because of Canada's unwillingness to be a 
 party to the separation, and partly because a "large propor- 
 tion of the British nation" considered with Lords Palmers- 
 ton and Russell that "the retention of Canada" was "essen- 
 tial to the maintenance of British honor."* 
 
 But however Sumner's position may have disappointed 
 the Secretary of State it was not allowed to stand in the 
 way of further effort to deal rationally with the subject in 
 hand. So accordingly on January 24th Secretary Fish laid 
 before Sir John Rose the now historic "hemispheric flag- 
 withdrawal memorandum," which the latter read without 
 comment. The Secretary then told Sir John Rose that 
 after very careful consideration the administration had 
 concluded to proceed with the proposed negotiation ; that 
 if Great Britain should determine to send especial envoys 
 to treat on the terms agreed upon, the administration would 
 zealously work "to secure a favorable result, even if it 
 involved a conflict with the chairman of the Committee on 
 Foreign Relations in the Senate."^ 
 
 This was communicated by Sir John Rose immediately to 
 London; within a few days the Gladstone Government 
 reached a favorable agreement, and empowered the British 
 Minister to the United States, Sir Edward Thornton, to 
 formally submit to the Hon. Hamilton Fish, the Secretary 
 of State, a proposal for the appointment of a Joint High 
 
 * Earl Russell : Recollections and Suggestions, p. 395. 
 5 Moore : International Arbitrations, Vol. I, pp. 528-530. 
 
 [78] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 Commission, to consist of five persons respectively from 
 the two governments, to sit at Washington, for the purpose 
 of treating all questions that had arisen between the two 
 countries respecting Great Britain's possessions on the con- 
 tinent of North America. In reply Secretary Fish expressed 
 the willingness of the administration to enter upon the 
 negotiation, provided that within the purview of the settle- 
 ment the dissensions growing out of the so-called Alabama 
 claims should be included ; a stipulation to which the Gov- 
 ernment of Great Britain readily acceded. 
 
 As the Commissioners from the United States Grant 
 appointed : Hamilton Fish, Secretary of State ; Robert 
 Gumming Schenck, newly appointed Envoy Extraordinary 
 and Minister Plenipotentiary to Great Britain ; Samuel 
 Nelson, an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme 
 Court ; Ebenezer Rockwood Hoar, late Attorney-General 
 in the Grant cabinet ; and George Henry Williams, Attor- 
 ney-General. The British members were : The Right Hon- 
 orable George Frederick Samuel, Earl de Grey and Mar- 
 quis of Ripon; the Right Honorable Sir Stafford Henry 
 Northcote, a leader of the Conservatives in Parliament; 
 Sir Edward Thornton, Her Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary 
 and Minister Plenipotentiary to the United States ; Sir 
 John Alexander Macdonald, Minister of Justice and Attor- 
 ney-General of Her Majesty's Dominion of Canada; and 
 Professor Montague Bernard, Chichele Professor of Inter- 
 national Law in the University of Oxford. 
 
 These gentlemen convened as the Joint High Commis- 
 sion in Washington on February 27th. Mr. Fish, although 
 he declined the post of chairman of the Commission, be- 
 lieving that such a form of organization would retard nego- 
 
 [79] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 tiations, guided its deliberations throughout with both 
 energy and skill. On the 8th of May, 1871, the treaty was 
 concluded ; and on the loth laid before the Senate. 
 
 An event had occurred in the meantime which must be 
 recorded here if only to make the coherence of the story 
 complete. When Secretary Fish informed Sir John Rose 
 of the administration's determination to proceed with the 
 proposed negotiation, he first had ascertained if he could 
 count on a two-third vote of the Senate for confirmation. 
 On the evening of his last interview with Senator Sumner, 
 the Secretary called at the home of Senator Morton, and 
 asked whether he thought that a treaty on the basis then 
 under consideration could be ratified by the Senate against 
 Sumner's opposition ? Morton thought it could ; and upon 
 being told that Patterson had already approved, he said, 
 "that gives a majority of the committee, and there can be 
 no doubt of the Senate." Secretary Fish also had assur- 
 ances of support from the leaders of the opposition ; namely. 
 Senators Bayard and Thurman. Thus "no precaution was 
 neglected." 
 
 But this did not seem to be enough : Sumner was still 
 a power. Yet there seems to have been a difiference of opin- 
 ion in the quintessence of the Senator's strength; some 
 thought that his influence was the more potent over Sena- 
 tors ; others, that it lay mainly in his ability to "stir up," 
 in the language of Sir Stafford Northcote, "a great deal of 
 bad feeling in the country, if he were so minded."^ The 
 latter could not be prevented ; the former, however, could 
 at least be curtailed by removing Sumner from his Senatorial 
 chairmanship, a course which was agitated four months 
 before it actually took place. Those who defended the 
 
 « Lang : Northcote, Vol. II, p. 23. 
 
 [80] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 action contended that both in theory and detail Sumner 
 stood diametrically opposed to a foreign policy, pregnant 
 with uncertainty, to which the administration was com- 
 mitted; that a large majority of the Senate favored this 
 policy ; that when he notified Secretary Fish in unequivocal 
 terms the course he advocated, Sumner had put himself 
 entirely out of harmony with his party on the one issue 
 then uppermost in the public mind ; and that so doing he 
 had forfeited his right to be retained as chairman of the 
 Committee on Foreign Relations when the new Congress, 
 overwhelmingly Republican, was about to assign new com- 
 mittee appointments. 
 
 The other position may be summed up by a series of 
 questions, as indeed it was by Carl Schurz/ Should a 
 chairman of so important a committee as that on Foreign 
 Relations of the Senate of the United States, who, not in 
 sympathy with an administration of which he is a member, 
 be deposed from the said chairmanship, because of his 
 opposition to a particular treaty? Again, is it incumbent 
 upon a chairman to support a treaty merely because the ad- 
 ministration of which he is a member desires favorable 
 action? If so, what becomes of the Senate as an independ- 
 ent factor in the treaty-making functions? Would not 
 such a rule be wholly a misinterpretation of our constitu- 
 tional plan of government? As a matter of fact no one 
 questions the right of a single Senator to think for him- 
 self, nor to vote as his conscience may dictate. The fact 
 that Sumner was removed before the treaty was laid before 
 the Senate savors of Executive intermeddling, which is not 
 
 "^ Carl Schurz : Speeches, Correspondence, Political Papers, Vol. 
 VI, p. 283. 
 
 [81] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 observing strictly to the distinctive functions of the co- 
 ordinate branches of government. 
 
 Mr. Sumner, however, acquiesced in the provisions of 
 the treaty, and it was duly ratified on May 24, 1871 ; and 
 on July 4th proclaimed to the world. The scene now shifted 
 to Geneva, where the Arbitrators having been named by 
 both governments, organized the Tribunal on December 
 15th. The United States appointed as its Arbitrator, 
 Charles Francis Adams ; Great Britain chose Lord Chief 
 Justice Alexander Cockburn; the King of Italy named 
 Count Frederic Sclopis ; the President of the Swiss Con- 
 federation designated Mr. Jacob Staempfli, and the Em- 
 peror of Brazil named the Baron dTtajuba. The Assistant 
 Secretary of State, J. C. Bancroft Davis, was the agent 
 for the United States, while the American counsel com- 
 prised three very distinguished lawyers; namely, William 
 M. Evarts, Caleb Gushing, and Morrison R. Waite, later 
 Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Lord 
 Tenterden was Great Britain's agent, and Sir Roundell 
 Palmer, the chief counsel. Upon convening the Tribunal, 
 Count Sclopis was elected as presiding officer. 
 
 Each side immediately filed its case, after which a recess 
 was taken to the following June, in order to give time for 
 the contracting parties to file counter cases. The British 
 public was soon discussing with a degree of feeling what 
 they considered the extravagant claims of the United States. 
 The cause of rupture came over the claims for national and 
 indirect damages ; these they averred should be withdrawn. 
 Secretary Fish said in reply that ''there must be no with- 
 drawal of any part of the claim presented." A diplomatic 
 discussion then followed between Lord Granville, the Brit- 
 ish Foreign Secretary, and Secretary Fish, in which the 
 
 [82] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 latter "held his ground with great courage and ability, in- 
 sisting that the claims of every character should be dis- 
 posed of by the Tribunal in order to remove them from 
 the domain of further controversy, and in order to estab- 
 lish perfect harmony in the relations of the two countries."® 
 
 Without dilating in detail the imperilled sessions of the 
 conference, which more than once almost resulted in final 
 suspension of all activity towards a settlement of the ques- 
 tions at issue, suffice it to say that in the end through the 
 firm and consistent course of Secretary Fish, aided by the 
 tact and ability of Charles Francis Adams, the Government 
 of the United States succeeded in having the subject of 
 national and indirect claims passed upon to the satisfac- 
 tion of both countries, after which a rapid progress towards 
 a final conclusion was made. On September 9th the de- 
 cision was reached ; on the 14th it was proclaimed, the 
 award being $15,500,000 as the amount due to the United 
 States from Great Britain for the loses sustained by the 
 depredations of the Confederate cruisers Florida, Alabama, 
 and Shenandoah. Sir Alexander Cockburn alone declined 
 to sign the award. 
 
 Thus at the hands of an impartial Tribunal the principle 
 of arbitration in international disputes was given a tre- 
 mendous impetus ; that it has not served as a binding prin- 
 ciple for all international disputes, of whatever character, 
 is matter for regret. Yet in the years to come may we not 
 look forward to its re-establishment among the nations of 
 the world, compelling them by its very nature to observe 
 it, and by a league of nations to be protected by it. 
 
 By the Treaty of Washington and the Arbitration at 
 
 ^ John W. Burgess : Reconstruction and the Constitution, p. 312. 
 
 [83] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 Geneva the United States and Great Britain bequeathed to 
 the world a priceless legacy. For this, we are indebted to 
 Hamilton Fish more than to any other person. To have 
 been the chief designer of so momentous a piece of work 
 in statesmanship is fame enough for any man. 
 
 [84] 
 
 I 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 THE CUBAN REBELLION 
 
 THE influence of Fish was equally dominant in the 
 Cuban agitation, though during its initial stage his 
 restraining guidance was of necessity concealed, and 
 consequently the public knew little of the influence he 
 really exerted on the administration. Previous to the ad- 
 vent of Grant the discontent of the Cuban people against 
 Spanish misrule had ripened into open rebellion; and the 
 sympathy of the American people naturally went out 
 towards the suffering Cubans. Cognizant of this sentiment, 
 certain Cuban promoters of the revolution, having estab- 
 lished headquarters in the city of New York, began to 
 enlist the aid of our Government in behalf of their cause. 
 They soon received the support of various Government 
 officials, chief among whom was Rawlins, Secretary of War, 
 who immediately endeavored to induce the President to 
 issue a proclamation extending belligerent rights to the 
 Cubans, which would have placed our Government in a 
 position similar to that of Great Britain and Spain when 
 they recognized Confederate belligerency in the early days 
 of our Civil War. Grant was inclined to accept Rawlins' 
 point of view; and so early as June, 1869, consulted a 
 number of public men, among whom was Sumner, as to the 
 advisability of following such a course. Sumner opposed 
 it, as did others with whom the President counseled. The 
 cabinet was divided. Fish, who was already feeling his way 
 towards reopening the Government's case in the Alabama 
 claims controversy, at once perceived the inconsistency of 
 
 [8s ] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 even a perfunctory declaration of our grievance of the 
 Queen's proclamation of 1861, if we were to perform a 
 like act in regard to a body of insurgents who, as he later 
 wrote, "'have no army — no courts, do not occupy a single 
 town, or hamlet, to say nothing of a seaport — carrying on 
 a purely guerrilla warfare, burning estates and attacking 
 
 convoys, etc. " To his view, "Great Britain or France 
 
 might just as well have recognized belligerency for the 
 Black Hawk War." 
 
 But Rawlins was persistent ; and later a story was widely 
 circulated that he had a pecuniary interest in the success of 
 the independence of Cuba.^ Grant finally yielded, and 
 ordered a proclamation to be drawn up. This he signed on 
 the night of August 19th in the cabin of a Fall River boat, 
 sending it back to Washington by the Assistant Secretary of 
 State, Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis, with a note to Fish, direc- 
 ting him to sign it, affix the official seal, and promulgate it. 
 Secretary Fish complied with the President's orders, except 
 as to issuing the proclamation, which he withheld, laying 
 it safely away for further directions, which never came. 
 In the meantime. Grant's mind was diverted towards other 
 pursuits. His summer vacation was hardly over before he 
 was saddened by the death of Rawlins, who died on Sep- 
 tember 6th; Wall Street's "Black Friday" followed eight- 
 een days later. In the midst of these events the President 
 seems to have forgotten about his proclamation. Be this as 
 it may, it never was issued, and subsequent circumstances 
 
 1 But this was untrue. In a personal letter to the author, Rawlins' 
 biographer, General James H. Wilson, writes that General John E. 
 Smith, who was Rawlins' executor, and had possession of and 
 opened his effects, sent to Wilson some few years before his death an 
 affidavit in which he declared that no such bonds were found or 
 ever came into his possession. 
 
 [86] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 made its promulgation inadvisable. In his first annual 
 message, in December, 1869, President Grant disavowed 
 any design on the part of the United States *'to interfere 
 with the existing relations of Spain to her colonial posses- 
 sions on this continent." But, thinking perhaps of the 
 growing sentiment in the country in favor of belligerency, 
 he had maintained in a preceding paragraph "that this 
 nation is its own judge when to accord the rights of bel- 
 ligerency, either to a people struggling to free themselves 
 from a government they believe to be oppressive, or to in- 
 dependent nations at war with each other."^ 
 
 Congress had not long been in session after the Christmas 
 recess before the subject of Cuban belligerency again was 
 broached. Early in February, 1870, John Sherman intro- 
 duced in the Senate a resolution in favor of according 
 belligerent rights to Cuba, and made a speech in advocacy 
 of its passage. On the 19th of the same month it appears 
 Fish by appointment called on Sherman, and asked if he 
 had recently examined the provisions of the treaty with 
 Spain of 1795. Sherman replied that he was not aware of 
 the existence of such a treaty. Fish then referred to its 
 main provisions, especially that of the right of search, which 
 he thought our Government would resist, the result of 
 which probably would lead to war. The Secretary finally 
 advised the Senator "to prepare bills for the increase of the 
 public debt, and to meet the increased appropriation which 
 will be necessary for the army, navy, etc."^ 
 
 Time did not tend, however, to abate the increasing de- 
 
 2 Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. VII. 
 p. 32. 
 
 3 From the diary of Mr. Fisli, as recorded in Adams* The Treaty 
 of Washington, p. 216. 
 
 [87] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 mand on the part of the pubhc for recognition of belliger- 
 ency; and had it not been for the controlling influence of 
 Fish in all probability Grant would have succumbed to the 
 pressure. Being informed that the vote in the House would 
 be close Fish resolved again to urge the President to send 
 a special message to Congress, setting forth the reasons 
 why a state of belligerency was not then expedient. On the 
 1 2th of June the Secretary retired to his study and pre- 
 pared such a message, which treated the entire subject ex- 
 haustively. On the 13th it was laid before the President 
 and the Cabinet, and with but slight changes was sent by 
 the President to Congress on the same day. 
 
 The message was received with mingled cries of approval 
 and of disapprobation. A spirited debate ensued, with 
 **much denunciation" ; but as Fish records in his diary, 
 "it evoked also much good sense, in the speeches of those 
 who sustained it ; an expression of good, sound international 
 law, and of honesty of purpose." It focused, moreover, the 
 attention of Congress on a foreign problem of grave im- 
 portance, and solidified the party. Fish had triumphed; 
 and his policy, precarious as it may have been at first of 
 adoption, had prevailed. Hoar and Cox called it "the great- 
 est triumph the administration had yet achieved"; and 
 Robeson, Secretary of the Navy, added, "Yes — the first 
 triumph." "I felt," writes Fish in his diary, "that the 
 Cuban question was the one on which perhaps more than 
 on any other, the sensational emotions of the party and of 
 the country might be arrayed in opposition to what is hon- 
 est and right. Believing, as I do, that the public sentiment, 
 however much influenced by questions of sentiment, and 
 of supposed popular impulse, is sure eventually to be just 
 and correct, I have pressed this question in the way I have 
 
 [88] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 done, and first tried the proposed message submitted a 
 short time since ; finding the President would not adopt it, 
 I tried the latter message, and he was induced with great 
 hesitation, and with much reluctance to sign it, and after 
 it was sent in he told me that he feared he had made a 
 mistake. I never doubted the propriety of it, nor the policy 
 of it, in the mere sense of ordinary politics."* Grant 
 eventually came to deeply appreciate the manner in which 
 his Secretary of State had handled the Cuban affair. ''On 
 two important occasions," he is recorded as having said to 
 Fish, "your steadiness and wisdom have kept me from mis- 
 takes into which I should have fallen." One related to 
 the non-issuance of the proclamation of Cuban belligerency; 
 the other to the Cuban message of June 13th, which was 
 written solely by Fish, and which caused the administra- 
 tion to inaugurate a fixed policy in regard to Spain and 
 Cuba. 
 
 But the Cuban imbroglio was still to continue to perplex 
 the administration; and Secretary Fish confronted each 
 new complication with undaunted courage and a profound 
 confidence in his ability to surmount it. As the desultory 
 conflict in Cuba continued, the difiiculty of handling the 
 situation increased. But our relations with the then Spanish 
 Republic, over which Castelar was President, were finally 
 brought to a head and indeed clarified by an atrocious 
 and unexpected event, which if it had been managed with 
 less delicacy probably would have involved us in war. It 
 gave Secretary Fish, however, an opportunity of showing 
 in the midst of public clamor that he was a man who could 
 not be swerved from his convictions ; and history may 
 
 ^ From the diary of Mr. Fish, as recorded in Adams' The Treaty 
 of Washington, Appendix E, pp. 219 and 220. 
 
 [89] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 rightly praise the fair and prompt course on which he based 
 his official acts. 
 
 On October 31, 1873, while on her way from Kingston, 
 Jamaica, to a port in Cuba a steamer called the Virginius, 
 having an American registry and flying the stars and stripes, 
 but loaded with war material and carrying a large number 
 of men, was sighted, pursued, and seized by a Spanish war- 
 ship, and conducted to Santiago. Less than a week later 
 fifty-three of the passengers and crew, having been con- 
 demned to death by summary court-martial, were executed 
 under conditions, to use the words of Fish, of ''peculiar 
 brutality." 
 
 Of these eight were American citizens. There was no 
 concealment of our feelings when the news reached Amer- 
 ica. Those who had long advocated intervention now 
 thought the time was ripe to strike. Popular excitement 
 everywhere prevailed; and war talk for a time superseded 
 all other questions. Largely attended meetings of protest, 
 non-partisan in character, were held in two of the biggest 
 halls — Tammany and Steinway — in the city of New York 
 on November 17th. William M. Evarts presided at the 
 meeting at Steinway Hall, and made a thrilling address. 
 S. S. Cox followed Evarts in an impassioned appeal. 
 Telegrams were read from Wendell Phillips, Joel Parker, 
 Governor of New Jersey, Henry Ward Beecher, Vice- 
 President Henry Wilson, and others of equal prominence. 
 **If international law does not furnish a precedent," de- 
 clared Governor Ingersoll, of Connecticut, "our Govern- 
 ment should furnish a precedent for international law."^ 
 
 Thus in an hour which required poise and temperate 
 speech there were those who would have rushed us into 
 
 ^ New York Tribune, November 18, 1873. 
 
 [90] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 war without a complete knowledge of the facts. Fish, 
 fortunately, was cool-headed ; but this did not make him 
 less ardent in his determination to act with promptness and 
 decision. "The capture on the high seas of a vessel bear- 
 ing the American flag," he telegraphed on November 7th 
 to General Sickles, our minister to Spain, "presents a very- 
 grave question, which will need investigation . . . and if 
 it prove that an American citizen has been wrongfully 
 executed, this Government will require most ample repara- 
 tion." On the 1 2th, Secretary Fish cabled to Sickles that 
 doubts existed as to the right of the Virginius to carry the 
 American flag, and concluded by saying that "investigation 
 is being made." "Unless abundant reparation shall have 
 been voluntarily tendered," he again cabled Sickles on the 
 14th, "you will demand the restoration of the Virginius 
 and the release and delivery to the United States of the 
 persons captured on her who have not already been 
 massacred, and that the flag of the United States be saluted 
 in the port of Santiago, and the signal punishment of the 
 officials who were concerned in the capture of the vessel 
 and the execution of the passengers and crew. In case 
 of refusal of satisfactory reparation within twelve days you 
 will . . . close your legation and leave Madrid."® 
 
 In the meantime the Spanish President had expressed to 
 Sickles his profound regret of the tragedy, and there is no 
 reason to disbelieve his sincerity. This tended to clear the 
 air, for it showed that the Spanish hostility towards us, 
 which was said to have prevailed to an extraordinary de- 
 gree, had been exaggerated. Sickles, another example of 
 one untrained in diplomacy, being sent to an important mis- 
 sion, at times blundered. This finally led Secretary Fish to 
 
 « Foreign Relations, 1874, pp. 927, 936. 
 
 [91] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 take up the negotiations with Admiral Polo, the Spanish 
 minister at Washington ; and with the approval of President 
 Grant they reached an agreement satisfactory to both 
 nations. Spain was to deliver up the Virginiiis, and her 
 survivors to our Government ; give ample indemnity to the 
 families of those Americans who had been executed, and 
 salute the American flag. On December i6th, the Vir- 
 giniiis was turned over to the American authorities at 
 Bahia Honda, but as she was proceeding to New York, 
 sank in a storm off Cape Fear; the survivors, however, 
 were picked up and reached New York safely. The in- 
 demnity for the benefit of the sufferers, and for the families 
 of those who were so unlawfully executed, was ultimately 
 secured. But the Attorney-General, having come to the con- 
 clusion that the Viginius was not entitled to carry our flag 
 or to have an American registry at the time of her capture, 
 a salute was not required. 
 
 [92] 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 RELATIONS WITH SAN DOMINGO THE CURRENCY VETO 
 
 SECRETARY FISH had been unhampered, as we have 
 seen, in his conduct of the Cuban problem; but Grant 
 was less pliable when his views in regard to San 
 Domingo were opposed. Soldier-like he sought to dis- 
 cipline those who looked with disfavor upon his project of 
 annexation ; and when without deference to legality or prec- 
 edent, he attempted to exert all the power at his command 
 to further his designs, a situation arose which caused not 
 only a serious breach in the ranks of his own party, but a 
 considerable lowering of the prestige of his administration. 
 It is not certain just when Grant began to take an interest 
 in San Domingo ; he may have kept his personal views in 
 regard to the subject at first somewhat concealed. Yet it had 
 been discussed freely around the cabinet table ; but as one 
 member wrote years later, ''there was a general acquies- 
 cence in the opinion of Mr. Fish that a cordially friendly 
 attitude to the actual government in San Domingo, with 
 decided discouragement to all intervention and filibustering, 
 should be our policy."^ Grant, however, was hardly seated 
 in the presidential chair before a representative of the 
 Baez government urged upon him intervention. Nor was 
 this the first time that Baez had attempted to seek the aid 
 of our Government, for he had not permitted Johnson to 
 be unmindful of his wishes. Baez's reasons in making 
 overtures to both Johnson and Grant of course were 
 
 1 Cox: How Judge Hoar Ceased to be Attorney-General. Atlantic 
 Monthly (Aug., 1895), Vol. LXXVI, p. 165. 
 
 [93] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 obvious. The stability of his government was uncertain: 
 his rival, Cabral, whom he had only lately succeeded, was 
 on the Haytian frontier, waiting an opportunity to regain 
 his lost domain. That his country was in a ferment of 
 revolution only intensified his ardor. If he could not rule 
 supreme, his vehement foe must not rule at all. 
 
 If Grant erred in judgment, it must be forgiven in the 
 general disinterestedness of his motives, however his meth- 
 ods of procedure were open to criticism. To him the pos- 
 session of San Domingo would mean a refuge for the 
 negroes of the South; it would also extend our national 
 area, and thus increase our natural resources. At the time 
 he thought that certain European powers had their eyes on 
 San Domingo, and he wished to maintain the doctrine that 
 no territory on this continent should be acquired by a Eu- 
 ropean power. 
 
 But the honest purposes of Grant did not deter a majority 
 of his associates in the Government from looking at the mat- 
 ter differently. It was urged against the annexation scheme 
 that by it our strictly continental entirety would be broken, 
 and that foreign territory would involve us in extraneous 
 complications. Others were of opinion that our own negro 
 race presented a problem of sufficient magnitude without as- 
 suming the government of still another colored population ; 
 that indeed it was unjust to the race of which they were a 
 part to take from the Dominican people their territory 
 over which they were entitled to work out for themselves 
 the problem of self-government. Still other objections, of 
 more or less weight, were advanced ; but without, it may be 
 said, resulting in changing the views of the President. 
 
 Early in May, 1869, President Grant suggested to his 
 cabinet that inasmuch as the Navy authorities were desirous 
 
 [94] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 of having the Bay of Samana as a coaling station, he would 
 dispatch General Orville E. Babcock to San Domingo to 
 investigate as an engineer the natural resources of the coun- 
 try, and report on the subject. The original instructions, 
 as signed by Secretary Fish, limited Babcock's trip to one 
 simply of inquiry. Whether Grant privately supplemented 
 these instructions is not known ; that he approved of 
 Babcock's entire course is evident by a letter to Senator 
 Nye, which appeared in the Washington Republican of De- 
 cember 23, 1870, and which closed with these words : **Gen- 
 eral Babcock's conduct merits my entire approval." When 
 the general tenor of this conduct is considered it becomes 
 the more amazing. On September 4, as an "Aide-de-camp 
 to his Excellency, Ulysses S. Grant, President of the United 
 States," a title which Babcock assumed apparently of his 
 own accord in the negotiations, he induced the Dominican 
 officials to sign a treaty which provided for the annexation 
 of their country to the United States, and for the payment 
 of $1,500,000 by the United States for the extinguishment 
 of the Dominican debt. The protocol also contained a 
 stipulation to the effect that the President would use pri- 
 vately his influence to persuade members of the Senate to 
 ratify the treaty. 
 
 Before Babcock left for San Domingo, however, an inci- 
 dent occurred which clearly demonstrated that the con- 
 fidential aspect of the mission was not being properly 
 guarded, and that the Department of State was being com- 
 promised. The President informed the members of the 
 cabinet one day that the merchants of New York who had 
 extensive trade interests in the island had offered to Babcock 
 a complimentary passage on one of their vessels. With 
 unconcealed surprise Secretary Fish declared "that it 
 
 [95] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 seemed to him very undesirable that General Babcock 
 should be the guest of merchants having great trading in- 
 terests in San Domingo, whilst he was upon a confidential 
 investigation for the President."^ Grant, catching Fish's 
 idea, assented, and said that as the navy was about to send 
 vessels down to join the West India squadron, he would 
 direct that Babcock be furnished with transportation upon 
 one of them. 
 
 Presently Babcock returned, bringing with him a treaty 
 of annexation, as above stated. ''What do you think?" de- 
 clared Secretary Fish to Secretary of the Interior Cox, with 
 great astonishment, "Babcock is back, and has actually 
 brought a treaty for the cession of San Domingo ; yet I 
 pledge you my word he had no more diplomatic authority 
 than any other casual visitor to that island !"^ Mr. Fish's 
 position was one of embarrassment, but he was disposed to 
 let the matter pass as a State secret, little dreaming at this 
 juncture that the President would defend the action of 
 Babcock. At the next cabinet meeting, instead of taking 
 up the work of each department as usual, Grant it seems led 
 off by saying : ''Babcock has returned, as you see, and has 
 brought a treaty of annexation. I suppose it is not formal, 
 as he had no diplomatic powers ; but we can easily cure 
 that. We can send back the treaty, and have Perry, the 
 consular agent, sign it ; and as he is an officer of the State 
 Department it would make it all right. ""^ 
 
 Grant's advisers were nonplussed. After a painful silence 
 of some few minutes. Cox it appears volunteered the in- 
 
 2 Cox : How Judge Hoar Ceased to be Attorney-General, Atlantic 
 Monthly (Aug., 1895), Vol. LXXVI, p. 166. 
 
 8 lb., p. 166. 
 
 *Ib., pp. 166, 167. 
 
 [96] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 quiry, "But Mr. President, has it been settled, then, that 
 we want to annex San Domingo?" Grant, evidently em- 
 barrassed, "smoked hard at his cigar" ; and, turning to 
 Fish, on his right, as if to shift the answer to the head of 
 the Department to which the subject by right belonged, 
 found the eyes of the Secretary intent "on the portfolio 
 before him."^ No one ventured to speak further on the 
 subject, nor was it ever again discussed by the cabinet. 
 
 But Fish, who had all along treated the question of an- 
 nexation only as current gossip, now found himself in a 
 most unfortunate position. Not only had the prerogatives 
 of his office been overlooked, but his personal sincerity 
 would be called in question; for under the circumstances 
 he could not divulge the manner in which the Department 
 of State had been disregarded ; and yet he had assured 
 Sumner and others that the annexation issue was but idle 
 talk, of which there was absolutely no foundation in fact. 
 There was but one thing for him to do, tender his resigna- 
 tion, which he did. To this Grant would not listen; and 
 after much persuasion, coupled with much outside pressure, 
 Fish consented to postpone his resignation, but only because 
 the paramount sense of duty towards the consummation 
 of another problem, of greater importance, overcame his 
 natural predisposition. 
 
 The treaty, having been signed and transmitted to the 
 Senate for ratification early in December, remained in the 
 possession of that body until its final rejection in the fol- 
 lowing June. During this interval, Grant, as Babcock had 
 promised, exerted his personal influence in behalf of its 
 ratification. He elicited the aid of his cabinet, summoned 
 
 5 Cox: How Judge Hoar Ceased to be Attorney-General, Atlantic 
 Monthly (Aug., 1895), Vol. LXXVI, p. 167. 
 
 [97] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 Senators to the White House, and there endeavored to have 
 them commit themselves in favor of ratification. "The 
 headquarters of this activity," says Cox "were in the 
 private secretary's office at the Executive Mansion. Papers 
 and files from the State Department were sent for and 
 retained without even the formality of using the President's 
 name and authority, so that Mr. Fish was obliged to protest 
 against the irregularity, and demand that it be stopped. He 
 was ready, he said, to attend the President with any papers 
 in his department at any time, but he could not permit their 
 custody to be transferred to any other place. "^ 
 
 But the precipitancy of the President, and the methods of 
 his subordinates, created an insuperable barrier by arousing 
 the sensibilities and apprehensions of certain Senators, chief 
 of whom was Charles Sumner, chairman of the Committee 
 on Foreign Relations. This was unfortunate, not that 
 Sumner's opposition alone defeated the ratification of the 
 treaty ; any more than that a less vigorous intervention on 
 the part of the President would have led Sumner to favor 
 the treaty, for we believe that other reasons were more 
 potent in determining his course than the mere fact of his 
 antipathy towards Grant. Yet one more gifted in the art 
 of political strategy than Grant proved to be might have 
 won rather than alienated those whose support he needed. 
 
 But Grant belonged by birth and temperment to a sec- 
 tion of our country noted for a type of rugged and inde- 
 pendent manhood. The texture of his mind disqualified 
 him from perceiving any other point of view than that to 
 which he had directed his thought ; and his want of tact 
 may also be said to have minimized the effectiveness of his 
 
 6 Cox : How Judge Hoar Ceased to be Attorney-General, Atlantic 
 Monthly (Aug., 1895), Vol. LXXVI, p. 168. 
 
 [98] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 political leadership. But from his previous career one 
 could hardly expect him to have been otherwise. Too long 
 had he been surrounded with camp etiquette to be the dis- 
 creet and subtile harmonizer of the intricacies of states- 
 craft. He chafed under opposition, and at times was im- 
 petuous and sardonic; yet to one who took the trouble to 
 understand him Grant was in the words of Fish "a very 
 true man, and warm friend — accustomed to deal with men 
 of more frankness and sincerity, and loyalty to a cause, 
 than many of those whom the business of Washington 
 attracts hither."^ 
 
 The narrative of the San Domingo controversy during 
 the period the treaty was before the Senate, and later when 
 the subject was renewed, is an interesting bit of political 
 history, but would far exceed the scope of this study. But 
 knowing the temperamental differences between Grant and 
 Sumner a clash between two such positive forces was in- 
 evitable. But it may be said, however, that before the 
 Massachusetts Senator had become an element of dis- 
 cord. Grant pursued a most deferential attitude in his zeal 
 to gain the support of Sumner, as evidenced by his call 
 early in January at the Senator's home. That Grant as- 
 sumed more in the way of aid than Sumner's answer im- 
 plied must be attributed to a misunderstanding on the part 
 of the President. Simmered down to a final analysis Grant 
 was not skillful in dealing with men whom he could not 
 dominate. Fish remains one of the few exceptions. He 
 was as little like Grant as Sumner. But Fish succeeded 
 where Sumner failed in that he knew how to handle the 
 President. At the outset he was no more in sympathy with 
 
 ''From Mr. Fish's diary, Adams: The Treaty of Washington, 
 p. 247. 
 
 [99] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 the project of annexing San Domingo than Sumner, yet 
 when it had been made an issue by the administration, the 
 Secretary did what he could to sustain it. As a loyal cabinet 
 officer he could have done no less. Sumner might have 
 opposed the treaty and yet remained a friend of Grant, as 
 did others who were equally as hostile to ratification. But 
 Sumner thought Fish ought to resign. We know now 
 that the Secretary would have welcomed retirement, and 
 that more than once he actually asked to be relieved of his 
 official duties which had become irksome. That patriotic 
 reasons solely deterred him from taking the final step may 
 now with certitude be affirmed; for between him and the 
 President there had come to be an understanding that the 
 Secretary should have full authority in the conduct of all 
 other business of his Department. Thus Fish became the 
 bulwark of the administration, and the oracle through 
 whom great diplomatic victories were won. 
 
 Another issue of paramount importance with which 
 Grant had to deal, and in which the influence of Fish was 
 felt, was on the question of the currency. Of domestic 
 problems at the close of the war, second only to recon- 
 struction, lay the adjustment of the nation's finances. The 
 war had lasted four years ; and a national debt of nearly 
 three billions of dollars had accumulated. To liquidate 
 this debt, so as to make the process of funding easier; to 
 regulate taxation in conformity of the debt policy; and to 
 restore the old standard of value to a specie basis, were the 
 immediate problems which confronted the Government. 
 Without going into the history of the Currency question 
 during the Johnson administration, it may be said that be- 
 fore Grant came into office a long period of financial 
 controversy, in which diversity of opinion was almost as 
 
 [lOO] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 voluminous as the leaves in the Vallombrosan Vale, had 
 engaged the attention of Congress. 
 
 Meanwhile, public opinion had become imbued with the 
 proposition of funding the debt in greenbacks. The argu- 
 ments in favor of such a policy were indeed numerous. 
 It was contended, for example, to be unfair to pay bond- 
 holders in coin, when other creditors received depreciated 
 paper; and that inasmuch as there was not explicit provi- 
 sion of the law under which they were issued, except as to 
 interest, the Government was not compelled to redeem the 
 bonds in coin. These arguments, whatever may now be 
 thought of their worth, appealed with irresistible force 
 to many of our statesmen, for whom the retention of power, 
 or the obtainment of it, seem to have been the only con- 
 sideration. Both parties were affected by this financial 
 heresy. Though it was denounced in the Republican 
 national platform of 1868, certain Republican leaders, 
 among whom were Sherman, Butler, and Morton of In- 
 diana, favored it. Several Republican State conventions of 
 the West, moreover, endorsed the proposition. Even An- 
 drew Johnson, then seeking a presidential nomination, such- 
 cumbed to the fallacious teachings of the Greenback move- 
 ment. The payment of the bonds in greenbacks, instead of 
 by coin, was incorporated into the national platform of the 
 Democratic party in 1868, though its presidential candidate, 
 Horatio Seymour, did not approve of that particular plank. 
 
 But when Grant entered upon his presidency, the Repub- 
 licans in Congress at once endeavored to redeem their cam- 
 paign pledges in regard to the currency. The President 
 called an extra session of the Congress, and on March 18, 
 1869, the celebrated "Act to Strengthen the Public Credit" 
 
 [lOl] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 became law. It solemnly pledged the faith of the nation to 
 the payment in coin, or its equivalent, of all obligations of 
 the United States, except when other provision was plainly 
 stipulated in the law by which the issue was authorized. 
 
 During the next few years the country's economic condi- 
 tion passed through every stage of fluctuation known to the 
 financial world. The climax was reached with the country- 
 wide panic of 1873, which with other causes, moved Con- 
 gress to action. At this juncture a still further issue of 
 paper money was deemed necessary. To meet this demand 
 an inflation bill received the sanction of both Houses of the 
 Congress, in spite of the strenuous protests of the sound 
 money men, and early in April, 1874, reached the President. 
 Grant was in a dilemma ; great pressure was brought to 
 bear on him to sign the bill. Some of his chief supporters, 
 such as Logan and Morton, men in whom the President 
 had great confidence, had been most urgent in their ad- 
 vocacy of the bill ; and now they sought to persuade Grant 
 to approve it. It has also been maintained by one in close 
 touch with the situation that all but two members of the 
 Cabinet were in favor of the bill ; the two who opposed the 
 measure were Secretary of State Fish and Postmaster- 
 General Creswell. 
 
 At first President Grant decided to sign the bill, and went 
 so far as to prepare a message in which he set forth his 
 reasons for approving the measure. After thinking over 
 the question more carefully he became undecided as to the 
 proper cause to pursue. He then called in Secretary Fish, 
 who very candidly and fully gave his reasons why the bill 
 should be vetoed. More than one conference on the sub- 
 ject was held between the President and his Secretary of 
 State. On April 21st, Grant stated to his Cabinet his final 
 
 [102] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 conclusion, and read the veto message, which was sent to 
 Congress on the following day. 
 
 That body hardly anticipated the result; for it had been 
 led to believe that Grant was not opposed to a slight in- 
 flation ; and some of his past acts served to confirm this 
 belief. Under the circumstances, however, the veto was a 
 very creditable act. "For twenty years," wrote Garfield, 
 "no President has had an opportunity to do the country 
 so much service by a veto message as Grant has and he has 
 met the issue manfully." Historians also are agreed that it 
 is one of the worthiest single deeds of Grant's executive 
 achievements. But due credit must be given to the potent 
 arguments of at least two advisers, who saw clearly, and 
 reasoned logically. One of these was Senator John P. 
 Jones, of Nevada, whose financial opinions carried great 
 weight with President Grant ; the other Hamilton Fish, 
 whose "position and reasons," declares George F. Edmunds, 
 former United States Senator from Vermont, "were more 
 influential than those of any other man in inducing the 
 President to take the course he did on that occasion."® 
 
 ^ George F. Edmunds, Memorial Address Before the Legislature 
 of New York, April 5, 1894, pp. 55, 56. 
 
 [103] 
 
CHAPTER X 
 
 IN RETIREMENT MAN AND STATESMAN 
 
 AS THE presidential term of General Grant came to 
 /-\ a close, the President naturally took an interest in 
 "^ "^ the approaching election, and in the choice of his 
 successor. It was no secret among his intimate friends that 
 he would have been pleased, not alone because of his fitness, 
 but as an endorsement of the administration, to have had 
 Secretary of State Fish fall heir to his mantle. The 
 vehement cohorts of Blaine and of Conkling presaged a 
 struggle the intensity and bitterness of which were destined 
 to result in the selection of a candidate not affiliated with 
 either camp of these two political chieftains. This Grant 
 apprehended ; and desiring that the Republican party should 
 select from its best timber, he wrote a letter to be read to 
 the convention when it should appear certain that neither 
 Blaine nor Conkling could win, and when the time was 
 propitious for the mention of another candidate, in which he 
 advised the nomination of Hamilton Fish. 
 
 The letter, however, was never read, and Mr. Fish knew 
 nothing of its existence until long afterwards. It may also 
 be observed in this connection that President Grant was not 
 the only one to suggest the nomination of Secretary Fish. 
 A day or more before the Republican convention of 1876 
 convened, Tom. Nast published a front-page caricature in a 
 New York newspaper in which he was represented as sug- 
 gesting Fish and Hayes as a winning ticket. The next week 
 in another caricature the cartoonist congratulated himself 
 
 [ 104 ] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 upon the partial success of his suggestion. When this sec- 
 ond picture was shown to Mr. Fish he is said to have re- 
 marked : "Well, I'm glad Nast had to scratch me off. I've 
 got enough of politics." 
 
 And this was said with perfect sincerity; for Mr. Fish 
 had long looked forward to the time when he could retire 
 and spend the remainder of his days in the seclusion of his 
 family and friends. He had now reached a time of life 
 when the joy of freedom and the peace of mind, which 
 comes to those who after an eventful life lay off the cares 
 of official duties, was welcome. His health at this time 
 was on the whole good, though frequently, as much as eight 
 years before his death, he writes in a private letter, that he 
 suffered from ''painful neuralgia troubles, to which I am 
 subject," and which "so often interrupt me in the midst 
 of whatever I may have on hand" and which "leave me un- 
 fit for any effort." 
 
 For sixteen years Secretary Fish lived in retirement, en- 
 joying the memories of great things accomplished; and 
 thus surrounded by the esteem of friends, and the affection 
 of his family ; with children of the third and fourth genera- 
 tion gathered around his hearth stone; venerated by his 
 countrymen ; and secure of lasting remembrance, he passed 
 his evening of life. 
 
 There is not much more to relate. The end came quite 
 suddenly. On the evening of September 6, 1893, Mr. 
 Fish felt as well as usual, and had enjoyed before retiring 
 a game of cards with his daughter, Mrs. Benjamin. He 
 seemed cheerful when he bade her good night. But the 
 following morning, soon after arising, and while sitting in 
 his chair, he passed quietly away, Mrs. Benjamin being the 
 only member of the family present when the end came. He 
 
 [105] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 was eighty- four years old, and death was attributed to old 
 age. He rests in the cemetery of St. Philip's church in 
 the Highlands, where other members of his family are 
 interred. 
 
 Here the distinguished statesman lies not far from his 
 beautiful home at Garrison, which skirts the waters of the 
 majestic Hudson, on whose banks, like Irving, he was wont 
 to personally supervise the affairs of his large estate, and 
 while away many a quiet hour. Opposite, to the right, may 
 be seen the Government buildings at West Point, as they 
 stand out abruptly against the rugged cliffs of rock, for 
 which the Highlands of the Hudson are famed ; still farther 
 up the river stands Storm King mountain like some sentinel 
 guarding the peaceful villages over which her shadows fall. 
 
 In such a setting the life of Hamilton Fish passed out; 
 and no more beautiful location could have been selected by 
 the aged statesman in which to pass the remainder of his 
 days. Actuated by the purest motives, and the innate de- 
 sire to serve his fellowmen, Hamilton Fish entered upon 
 one of the most precarious of careers with faith in his own 
 rectitude, and desired no other emolument save the satisfac- 
 tion of adding another name to those who have served man- 
 kind for the love of service. Free from cant or those 
 petty jealousies and prejudices which so often drag the 
 reputations of statesmen down to the leval of politicians, 
 in the worse sense of that term, Mr. Fish used the language 
 and practised the manners of a gentleman. The patience 
 and fidelity he displayed were not less conspicuous than the 
 inflexibility of will with which he served the interests of 
 his country, for above all he was a patriot "in whose honor 
 and integrity," to use the words of another, *'there has never 
 been found a flaw." 
 
 [io6] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 He belonged, moreover, to a type of American gentleman 
 long since passed on. The type of whom Calhoun and 
 Benton, Webster and Clay, were among the most conspic- 
 uous representatives. Stately in appearance ; courteous of 
 bearing ; conservative in thought ; slow to anger ; of pleasing 
 personality, he could when occasion required leave no 
 uncertainty as to where he stood. Mr. Charles Francis 
 Adams, in a letter to Carl Schurz, observes that Mr. Fish 
 possessed in his make up "s. good deal of that Dutch ele- 
 ment ;" that he was "a quiet and easy-going man ; but, when 
 aroused, by being, as he thought, 'put upon,' he became very 
 formidable. Neither was it possible to placate him." 
 
 His letters, however, show him to have been a man just 
 in his estimate of men ; not caring for the plaudits of the 
 crowd, yet appreciating kindly references of his efforts; 
 shrinking from undue publicity, but at the same time ever 
 ready to stand without reservation for any idea the prin- 
 ciple of which he conceived to be right. The precepts to 
 which he clung in private life, he also carried with him into 
 public station. Generosity, fairness in dealing with an 
 opponent, and steadfast fidelity were practised as conscien- 
 tiously in his public career, as they were in private life. 
 
 These qualities were in the man ; and while used to the 
 luxuries of life he was as much averse to the snobbishness 
 and dehumanizing tendency of class hatred as any son who 
 springs from a less lavish environment. Mr. Fish believed 
 in the dignity of labor, whether of the brain or of the 
 muscle, when conducted wholesomely ; and he conceived it 
 to be his duty as a public servant to ignore all superficial dis- 
 tinctions which had no bearing on the ability, the character, 
 or the usefulness of the man whom he was to appoint. And 
 he was the greater for this catholicity of selection. 
 
 [107] 
 
HAMILTON FISH 
 
 The opportunity for the performance of great public 
 service came to Mr. Fish late in life, but this very fact per- 
 haps was of greater benefit to his country than if he had not 
 possessed the experience and poise, the well-trained mind, 
 and painstaking characteristic, which was so esential in 
 dealing with so fateful a chapter of our international his- 
 tory as the events leading up to and culminating in the 
 Treaty of Washington. Nor has history lost sight of these 
 qualifications, with which Mr. Fish was so splendidly en- 
 dowed. Indeed they have drawn from one of his suc- 
 cessors the tribute, we think justly bestowed, that Mr. Fish 
 **was one of the most useful secretaries who ever adminis- 
 tered the afTairs of the Department of State. "^ 
 
 The wide influence of Secretary Fish with members of 
 Congress also made him an invaluable asset to the adminis- 
 tration of President Grant, and although he had his share 
 of criticism, he commanded men's confidence and respect 
 by his firmness, candor, and justice. He was genial, and 
 his wide range of reading, especially along historical and 
 political lines, made him an interesting host. Thus among 
 our Secretaries of State his name will take rank with the 
 greatest who have filled that office ; and history when she 
 comes to record a final judgment will also place the name 
 of Hamilton Fish among those who by their character have 
 elevated the public service. And no greater tribute can be 
 paid to the memory of those who have not labored in vain 
 to make of our country a land of freedom and of oppor- 
 tunity. 
 
 1 A Century of American Diplomacy, by John W. Foster, p. 
 436. 
 
 [108] 
 
4^ 
 
 NOV 
 
 6 1918 
 
! tiHI 
 
 
 i'-il n 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 ilitiin!} 
 
 mlniilii 
 
 i n