T

CHAPTER V.

FIRST YEAR AS GOVERNOR.

HE office of Governor of the State of New

York has long been considered the fit

reward for men of large experience in public life, great natural parts, and high personal character. It has seldom been filled by a small man or by a mere seeker after place and power. From the earliest days of the history of the State it has been looked upon, not only in the State of New York itself, but throughout the Union, as an office scarcely lower in dignity and importance than the Presidency of the United States.

During the early political history of New York as a State in the Union the Presidency was practically monopolized by Virginia and Massachusetts. During this time, however, the Vice-Presidency, then deemed of much greater relative importance than now, and generally representing the second choice of the electors for President, was filled for five terms out of a possible six by natives and residents of New York between the time of the accession of Thomas Jefferson and the retirement of James Monroe. Two of the men so honored, George Clinton and Daniel D. Tompkins, had

been Governors of their State. With the election of Martin Van Buren to the Presidency, in 1836, the Presidency ceased to be the heritage of any one or two States of the Union, and since that time the country has always looked with hope and expectancy to the Gubernatorial choice of the State of New York for men to honor with the Presidency of the United States. The names of Silas Wright, William L. Marcy, William H. Seward, Horatio Seymour, and Samuel J. Tilden are familiar household words in our political history as aspirants for nomination or election to the high office of President. Of these, only the two latter ever received the recognition of nomination, and the latter was the only Governor of his State elected to the Presidency after the success of Mr. Van Buren in 1836.

With all these examples at hand, it should have been no occasion for surprise that Grover Cleveland was looked upon with unusual interest after his election to the Governorship by a majority unprecedented in the history of the politics of American States. That he was comparatively little known added to this interest. The element of surprise that a man of such slight experience in the larger politics of the State should have been nominated and elected was reinforced by a feeling of anticipation, an an eager demand to know what he would do in the office, now that he had reached it under such exceptional

circumstances. He had not come to the office as the result of political management, of long ser vice in one or the other branch of the Legislature, nor of great and widely recognized distinction in his profession. He was simply known as an honest man, of good ability, who, in whatever station he had been called to fill, had done his duty without fear or favor. While this lack of familiarity with politics and political movements undoubtedly had its drawbacks and disadvantages, which raised in the mind of the new Governor many doubts and apprehensions, it had many compensations. It left him free-handed and independent. He was not tied up with obligations to persons, localities, or interests. Trained to consider questions on their merits by the exacting duties of long practice of the law, he could look fairly and fully at every public question as it came up, and decide as his judgment and honesty of purpose would direct.

The people of New York were not long in finding out that this was the very thing which Governor Cleveland was determined to do. His first message was something of a disappointment, only because events had moved so rapidly in bringing him into unnatural prominence as to raise extravagant expectations. But it was mainly disappointing because it lacked the self-assertive dogmatism which the people of New York had long been trained to expect from a Governor, especially from a new one.

But familiarity with the duties and obligations, as well as with the power and the rights conferred upon the Governorship, came rapidly. Then the hesitation disappeared, and the people of the country, as well as those of New York, found that Grover Cleveland not only knew how to govern, but that he was determined to be Governor.

He early learned to use without mercy the weapon of the veto power, almost autocratically lodged with the Governor of New York by the new Constitution. Between the 26th of January and the 1st of March he sent to the Legislature eight veto messages. These documents clearly disclose his purposes. In one, he refused to permit the county of Montgomery to borrow money. In another he refused his consent to an amendment of the charter of Elmira which was intended to change the liability of the city for injuries received in consequence of the streets being in an unsafe and dangerous condition. He refused his signature to a bill which would have relieved the library association of Fredonia from the payment of local taxes, and to one that authorized the county of Chautauqua to appropriate money for a soldiers' monument. He vetoed an act author izing the village of Fayetteville, where he had lived during his boyhood, to borrow money for the purpose of purchasing a steam fire-engine, and also one authorizing the village of Mechanicsville to borrow money for the same purpose.

By these vetoes he showed that he was determined to adhere to the rule which had gov erned him while Mayor of Buffalo, and to deal with the public moneys on the principle that officials are the trustees of the people.

He did not, however, confine his use of the veto power to bills intended to prevent the expenditure of small sums of money by village or town or county authorities. He even dared to run the risk of unpopularity by the veto of a bill fixing a uniform rate of five cents as fare on the elevated railroads of the city of New York. That city had suffered severely by the unjust exactions of the roads in question, and a strong popular sentiment had been developed which demanded that new restrictions should be imposed. But the form in which the Legislature sought to embody this sentiment was so unsatisfactory and its effects would have been so far-reaching that the Governor saw danger and injustice ahead. It was insisted by opponents of the measure, who had no interest in the roads involved, that for a commercial community like New York to disregard the implied obligation which had arisen between the State and its citizens, and between the State and citizens of other States and countries, would be, in the judgment of many thoughtful men, a dangerous and pernicious act. This latter view was taken by the Governor in the following extract from his veto message: