¦i:-li»i!i£idij8i4<A

\CA\i,.^z%

If"

'Y^LE«¥MlI¥EI^S2irY

BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME

Ann S. Farnam Fund

vCTrwtPTiw.wp.

\%\\

HAMILTON FISH

HAMILTON FISH

BY
A. ELWOOD CORNING
AUTHOR OF WILLIAM MC KINLEY, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY
WILL CARLETON, A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY; ETC.

With Frontispiece

^

NEW YORK
THE LANMERE PUBLISHING CO.
1918

Copyright, 1918, by
A. ELWOOD CORNING

Published October, 1918

Cdl3.4?.1i

BURR PRINTING HOUSE, NEW YORK

TO MY FRIEND
Captain Hamilton Jf ijSf), STr.
THIS BRIEF MONOGRAPH
THE WRITING OF WHICH HE MADE POSSIBLE
IS GRATEFULLY DEDICATED
BY THE AUTHOR

CONTENTS
CHAPTERIntroduction 
I. Early Life and Beginnings in Politics .
II. In Congress — State Election of 1846 —
Lieutenant-Governor 
III. Governor of New York 
IV. United States Senator — European Travel
— Public Service During the War .
V. Secretary of State 
VI. The Treaty of Washington 
VII. The Treaty of Washington, continued
VIII. The Cuban Rebellion — The Virginius
Affair 
IX. Relations with San Domingo — The Cur
rency Veto 
X. In Retirement — Man and Statesman .

[5]

INTRODUCTION
By Honorable John Bassett Moore, LL.D.
Professor of International Lain 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 ofHce. 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, igi8.

[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 obligation 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 English origin. The first glimpse 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 live 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 pubhcly
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: 181 1.
[13J

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
' 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
8 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 which came
through his mother from the Stuyvesants. Perhaps no
name of the colonial Dutch aristocracy is more familiarly
known to the present generation than that of Peter Stuy
vesant; certainly none has left on the pages of the early
history of Manhattan Island a deeper impression. His
immediate descendants, while by no means so conspicuous
in the city's life, or indeed personally so individualistic, were
the leaders of New York society for over two hundred
years. Their landed property, said to have been the greatest
on Manhattan Island, was handed down from generation
to generation ; that part known as the "Bowery" comprised
their estate, and St. Mark's church, in Stuyvesant Square,
was their place of worship. It was to this church, only a
few hundred feet from the house in which he was born,
that young Hamilton Fish was brought on his father's birth
day, August 28th, of the year of his birth, to be christened.
The record is still preserved in the archives of the old
church, and 'the names of the sponsors, though slightly
dimmed by age, are clearly readable.
Thus the good fortune with which Fish was blessed
through life may be said to have begun with the hour of his
birth. But of all gifts most to be desired, that of being
born of wholesome, loving, and honorable parents is the
best: this good fortune also fell to him. Of his boyhood
we know but little. Youthful emotions, however, were not
in those days so fruitful of expression. Children were more
restrained than now; and if character and well-regulated
manners grew out of so rugged a discipline, it certainly
furnishes less to record. The city in which he passed his
youth was rapidly becoming a democratic metropolis. The
old provincial town had greatly increased in population
[16]

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, comer 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 Stuyvesants 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
JuHa 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 HaU" 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 life, 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 BoHngbroke, 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 lived 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, and on 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 was 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
ijohn 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. ' 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;^ 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. T76,
[271

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 Govemor 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-
[30J

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 Govemor 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. SOI.
[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.
2 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 Fillmore 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 :
"I 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 affect 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 Natiour
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 opin
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 political sectionalism 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
bf 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 light 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 pubhc
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
1 Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, by Edward L. Piercej
Vol. IV, p. 379.
[SI]

HAMILTON FISH
each case Presidents Grant and Hayes selected their Secre
taries of State because they had discovered in them qualities
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. "Fish," 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.
^ Retrospections of an Active Life, Bigelow, Vol. IV, p. 263.
[52]

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 Secret
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
[SS]

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
/A 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.
[60J

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
' 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 craise 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-
friendhness 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.""
0 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, "Is only an item in our bill."
Senator Sumner then proceeded to lay the prolongation
of the war to England's door, and said that, "If 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 coi»-
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-
« Charles Sumner's Works, Vol. XIII, pp. ^^, 83, 86, 90.
T Sumner to Lieber, May 30, 1869. Pierce: Sumner Vol. IV,
p. 388.
8 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 conceming the concession of bel
ligerent 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 1 86 1 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-
idon 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 Govemment 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 Cushing, an interview be
tween Secretary Fish and Sir John Rose, a Scotchman by
birth, then prominent in public hfe 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. Cushing,
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 ?"i^
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
13 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: "I 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
[73]

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.
1^ 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 elaborately 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 which 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 off 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.
" 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.
¦> 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 difference 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 d'ltajuba. 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 Cushing, 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
8 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]

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
[85]

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-
'^ Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. VII.
p. 32.
^ From the diary of Mr. Fish, as recorded in Adams' The Treaty
of Washington, p. 216.
[87]

HAMILTON FISH
mand on the part of the public 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 difficulty 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 Stein way — 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 I2th, 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
8 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 Virginius, 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
ginius 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
ciphne 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 sucd^eded, was
on the Haytian frontier, waiting an opportunity to regain
his lost domain. That his country was in a feritaent of
revolution only intensified his ardor. If he could nbt 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'i
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 I
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
[951

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.
« 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.
197]

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 mgged 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
8 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
T 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 fhe 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
behef. 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
AA 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 hfe
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 "a 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 Hfe.
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 affairs 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]

YALE UNIVERSITY

A.39_P^2_ 00 /+2_8 9 8 7 3b

n'l.ii'i

|i

^,1,1

,J' 1„ '1'.. i' ^^^3^-
:.i5,i"r',i"''v;., ',ii

'iW

iiffi'jii
i'l;
If'
if If" I ' i
3 .«¦ *" ¦*»
J J