THOMAS W. PALMER:
A POLITICAL BIOGRAPHY

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
LAWRENCE EDWARD ZIEWACZ

1971

 
     

I. .I‘Qfiltfhigan Stag?“
. Univcmty '

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

THOMAS W. PALMER:
A POLITICAL BIOGRAPHY

presented by

Lawrence Edward Ziewacz

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

_Eh..D_._ degree in M11—

. //
\ ,’/ f , Iq

01mm? x“ , ,J .4ij
Majorpéofessor '

Date Novemberl l 9 7 1

0-7639

          
     
 

g wn‘amo a? ‘3';
IIIMG & gflNS'
880K BINDERY INC-

LIBRARY BINDE RS
SPIIIGMIIY, llCIlGlj
..~; A___-g _,_V .r

r) I

   

   

 
    

 

 

r’ Bluplflfisais. t

 

 

““AE §.m|l III}. , I
III Mm! Wfl'nzfls II-

 

TECH-t3 I"-

'V‘

b I

 

1‘ ' ' ‘ '
9:.1t1cai 3151

,.::;.;A- “‘ ~n‘h‘ ‘
.«...v..a$.! 8‘“ “:S-‘

hv‘nr-¢~Inl N ‘
n F -
'v-:v.:~¢Vus at” CVI:
.
“"‘V'A‘. '- ‘ ‘
§..».c.5..$ Of tree ca
“1.;- ‘
-_. ‘I 1 ‘
H‘Qeoe b “'5 ‘ + ‘ A-
«e rVd¢b¢\ydg
2: ..!AI.§ ' ‘
I «mass “0 Pas“?
I'v-
cg.
p
~" in! "

Iie fl
ver 35 or A
I
UV ;1(
3":I
m“ SC‘AI'R
\
surUOCKS ' a-
N.‘ .§\
.fas;
.K
' ~50'1 C
. F
.. ‘ betti'
.“.‘:a‘l

ABSTRACT

THOMAS W. PALMER: A POLITICAL BIOGRAPHY

BY

Lawrence Edward Ziewacz

Political historians of the "Gilded Age" have
traditionally emphasized the excessive influence that
corporations and corporate wealth exerted upon the
politicians of the day. The purpose of this study is to
examine the political career of a wealthy Michigan lumber-
man, Thomas W. Palmer, state senator, United States sena-
tor, and minister to Spain to determine the impact that
his personal wealth and business interests had upon his
political career and to gain an insight into the politi-
cal process in that era.

The extensive Palmer family papers in the Burton
Historical Collection of the Detroit Public Library have
provided the bulk of the research material. These in-
clude over 35,000 pieces of correSpondence, thirteen per-
sonal scrapbooks, and a large number of letterbooks. An
examination of pertinent state newspapers, papers of

political contemporaries, both in Michigan and in the

tree 5: tes Senate
:secczdary verks ;
Theses withers
'.,ir.St. Clair, a
w 31.5": tock. 3-.
' '5585‘. rprises -.

b

 

 

.. .. wren ..e as:
“£2.13 .Lcl.igan 12;. '11::
zezazager of Merri’.
"517-655 Upcn his f at:

“Lime its a Sc.

”41:55 Siad .‘IOV‘gh a
Palmer beg an h

I H.
‘n Suat year EzeI

‘ EleC‘. .
5'4 =._ “on o

 

 

Lawrence Edward Ziewacz

United States Senate, the Congressional Record, and rele-
vant secondary works provided additional source materials.
Thomas Witherell Palmer was born on January 25,
1830, in St. Clair, a suburb of Detroit, to parents of
New England stock. His father dabbled in a number of
business enterprises without achieving financial success.
Palmer joined his father as a partner in an insurance
business in 1853 but his economic fortunes did not improve
until 1855 when he married Lizzie Merrill, daughter of
wealthy Michigan lumberman, Charles Merrill. Palmer be—
came manager of Merrill's lumber company and inherited the
business upon his father-in-law's death. He parlayed his
inheritance into a fortune through eXpansion of the lumber
business and through a shrewd policy of investments.
Palmer began his career in Michigan politics in
1873. In that year he was elected as an independent to
the Detroit Board of Estimates. In 1876 he was unsuccess-
ful in his attempt to win the Republican nomination for
Congress but in 1878 he was elected to the Michigan Senate.
As a state senator he was responsible for a bill estab-
lishing a girls' reform school and the passage of bills
that aided the lumber industry. He was also the chairman
of the Republican caucus responsible for securing Zachariah
Chandler's election to the United States Senate in 1879.

His support of Chandler aroused the ire of anti-Chandler

a ‘ a. ‘ I
:.v"‘.;:a.'. e.e':.e... .

. . '. ]_
152335.5th hltu
121880 Passe

5:: gaverncr but was

I
us

I. 4' ' .“'\
u: I h::atec ngur

:".::.;:.g upset of the

‘ n
:‘v-a- n

as a ...ited S:

aux-s A9 *3!

Vi Sue State

 

 

34:51:, but r-

n.-
eV 5
2:. 1.“. tie Senate we:

2:25 L:

so _
~-.iS aimed at

35:“ "Rb I -
”New to acmeve

tr» ‘..»
9° 5-3“ Party 5

“‘«« a!
'o
4, ‘-
qu 5:0It ex‘ehh" .
c 1
l
s.
h... g,
I. """“
s G e Se‘finrs (

Lawrence Edward Ziewacz

Republicarx elements in Detroit, who never forgave him for
his friendship with "old Zach.”

131 1880 Palmer sought the Republican nomination
for governor but was defeated by the efforts of the "anti-
Chandler Republicans” in Detroit. In 1883, with the aid
of a dedicated group of supporters, he engineered a
stunning upset of the incumbent, Thomas W. Ferry, and
emerged as a United States senator after eighty-one
ballots of the state legislature.

Most, but not all, of Palmer's actions during his
term in the Senate were predictable. He steadfastly sup-
ported bills aimed at aiding his state and stanchly fought
any attempt to achieve trade reciprocity with Canada. He
supported such party stands ad the protective tariff and
the annual rivers and harbors' appropriations and advo-
cated an end to the nation's lenient immigration policies.
He helped elevate the Department of Agriculture to cabinet
status. He gave major addresses in support of the Inter—
state Commerce Bill and the Oleomargarine Bill, legis-
lation that extended the federal government's influence
over private sectors of the economy. On the other hand,
he also supported the causes of women's suffrage and pro-
hibition, which were not popular with the party.

.Although his record in the national legislature
appeared to be satisfactory to most Michigan Republicans,

he refused to follow the advice of his political supporters

 

:: 58128 control of 1

Q

statec tel: t ace to
23:20: allowed his
:::::31. At the end
3:15:13 ' {solar 'ith

Q-OI:

.....s: in the eyes c

 

2:9 tzezr cypcs 1t1cr.

:=::, not to the 6.15
rstggcrters, who

00V

.'A~A. :
B “
‘V‘::So

.1 in a dete

t a,“
.a n. m 1888 .c:
“I..."‘I \
"“1“: a “e secret-.t
I
u“ .‘
u. .

o‘% ‘as Oi S‘,AV
k. .
II..“‘e ‘ ‘
‘ta. ‘re th ‘
figs
2:. 92‘. e
H. A _ .
Heata c:
Q
5
I .N‘
"‘1“ +‘p. .
sue.-
L he erfi
H
Pa‘w
“he: I
:‘t 9‘4“
“A a
\‘.‘
gs fi.e Ch\‘
e V
‘3 I u I
l.

 

 

 

Lawrence Edward Ziewacz

to seize control of the party machinery in Michigan. His
stated reluctance to become a party boss in the Chandler
tradition allowed his enemies within the party to gain
control. At the end of his Senate termw-although per-
sonally popular with the peOple of Michigan-~he was an
outcast in the eyes of the party hierarchy. Reluctant to
face their Opposition, Palmer declined to run for a second
term, much to the disappointment of his political friends
and supporters, who were convinced that he could be
successful in a determined re—election bid.

In national politics he opposed James Blaine in
1884 and in 1888 nominally supported Alger of Michigan
although he secretly favored Harrison. With Harrison's
election Palmer hoped for an appointment as Secretary of
Agriculture but did not receive it because of the pressure
exerted upon the President-elect by an anti—Palmer Michigan
faction headed by Russell Alger. He subsequently accepted
an appointment as minister to Spain, expecting to return
to Michigan in 1890 to run for governor. His stay in
Spain was of such short duration and his duties of such a
rOutine nature that he did not become an outstanding diplo-
“fii. The death of his niece in 1890 caused him such
grief that he ended his political career at that time.

Palmer's political career demonstrated that above
an things he could not be stereotyped. The highlight of

hUs political life was the surprise senatorial victory

 

.2: had been carefu.

I

H... C.
=.-.rte:s. Therea..

III
to

2:2; tne favor c:

3.332 in the backgr

:: :25: have for re-..

:Izty boss in th iv;

fil-

l...‘FH ‘ H
“ " '7‘“ '3 adeaa‘v' EC
‘

 

 

 

 

In-I' :

.....;e those element
are: re3ectec‘ by Pa

:eztc a close he he

...;;:1g for his "Log
3...- :1; and carats
finances.

Paul'e I .

. r 5 F“:

33:...” .
Q“!

1w.._
“tortdECE '

LS 3C.” in ‘

~ “twat work I:
111:. ; ,
“all tnat C‘”

are.

‘~ 5;:4- .
mess liters:

l..
I K n
\.:N. . .
su‘“lr
0

. 9 “8 p01;
{:2.
“‘5‘"; EA'
“lercisn
‘1
\gEP-t,
‘rs‘EteA

'-,I
x‘ar‘tl R. '
a .
I2” “a‘ ‘
\ph

 

 

Lawrence Edward Ziewacz

that had been carefully planned by him and a few loyal
supporters. Thereafter he grew increasingly reluctant to
engage in the backgroom dealings and maneuvering necessary
to curry the favor of the state legislators whose support
Imamust have for re—election. His refusal to become the
party boss in the image of Zach Chandler out of fear of
alienating already hostile Republicans served only to en-
courage those elements to seize control of the party in a
manner rejected by Palmer. As Palmer's term in the Senate
drew to a close he became more philOSOphical and apolitical,
longing for his “Log Cabin" home in Detroit and the com-
panionship and camaraderie of his Michigan friends and
acquaintances.

Palmer's public career demonstrated the over-
whelming importance of local and state politics and issues.
His political work revealed the same meticulous attention
to detail that characterized his business transactions.
His business interests undoubtedly had some influence in
determining his political positions (e.g., in respect to
Canadian reciprocity), but his political career cannot be
interpreted as merely a means of self-protection.

The remaining twenty-two years of his life were
8Pent in raising pure-bred farm animals and in making
PhilanthrOpic donations, activities which he seems to
have enjoyed more in the end than his career as a United

States senator.

 

 

 

 

v
ya“

 

 

THOMAS W. PALMER: A POLITICAL BIOGRAPHY

BY

Lawrence Edward Ziewacz

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of History

1971

 

7 o 1"": Ir“ ;
A &.a annuEU~e“

 

. v ‘ ‘
-...;:. ‘p \' e. u hr 3
’Iu:-'. I has 0‘ 5“."‘u ‘
. .

' :oo‘an 6"" v- n;-
vu--~s.vu' Lose 0“»-

c...:'-;.‘. "a ‘ I
u l ‘ F ‘
whee-b: ab.$bvrlcc

.:04'e~-‘ ' ‘
“ a A..‘ A u
'"sov-n& Lyngu‘bS-’:ro '

. :uayu g

V “ '
‘ F
'Hogfiuo U§;ect;:ro—

‘

‘: ‘Vncn_
“ab buy:

"
m
H
0
t
D

I would 11?.

(D

:5. Ra.‘ n
‘ “awnbuticr s
:‘a... '
.‘I‘:. P .
daring 15 E)’
§
"$.15“

“5‘5 "hs
:w "" ‘1
b‘C‘e. I
‘\
. s
n. 3 ‘?
r.3f

.
.
I
t!

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am indebted to the staffs of the Library of
Congress, the National Archives, the Burton Historical
Collection, the Michigan State Library, the Michigan State
University Historical Collection, the State of Michigan
Historical Commission, and the University of Michigan
Ifistorical Collections for their aid in the preparation
cf the thesis. I owe a special debt to Mrs. Alice
Dalligan of the Burton Historical Collection and Mr.
Richard Hathaway of the Michigan Collections of the
Ifichigan State Library for their unstinting labors in
my behalf.

I would like to thank the members of my committee:
Professors Harry Brown, Madison Kuhn, and A. C. Gluek for
their contributions to my educational deve10pment. A
sPeeial thanks is extended to Professor Harry Brown for
his patient counsel and understanding which made this
theSis possible. I would also like to express my appreci-

atumrto Professor Marjorie Gesner who served on my com-

mittee.

ii

 

.l‘l.
l

'
nun-Ive.
I
O D".- v.2. O Q":::
.0 .3; H~Mw5 ‘0‘ “
on“ \ \
'7 T23 *"V:-~V..
«6| to\ .a annoys—enme-
. ‘ pg 0 v -
U’. .L: E M k '
“‘3 ‘05-: o a dag...
P VFA3
J ti 6 o 0
~‘ KIA. ‘ . “\.“
H D
‘I' [Quid-Qt ..\n
I‘ F"! the 0". .R‘.,‘
8 "" ’ v” u
' ‘W - N ~o\.&-‘\,
1” “on-M . “a
.0 king“. UL»
h.‘ v. '.~-'~ PA A
I... " \ D g -. \
... ‘ ‘N ov a
a."
T...“ V\ m 'h‘ R
as 3- -
‘ hire.
‘ ."F\
O.."Ni‘\>~9r“.
C

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter
I. THE EARLY YEARS . . . . . . . . .
II. FROM LUMBERMAN TO POLITICIAN. . . . .
III. THE 818T BALLOT: THE SENATORIAL STRUGGLE
OF 1883. . . . . . . . . . . .
IV. FRESHMAN SENATOR IN THE 48TH CONGRESS. .
V. THE EXPERIENCED LEGISLATOR . . . . .
VI. POLITICAL DECLINE . . . . . . . .
VII. MINISTER TO SPAIN . . . . . . . .
VIII. THE LAST YEARS . . . . . . . . .
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY . . . . . . . . .

iii

Page

34

83
111
161
206
254
276
285

I ‘0. ‘.
.he tunersca'

‘0

:33: has 5' "“e““"

c “U ““'
‘ a

22:35:95 by co'r'

vFO
o if”

.515: tools of 'big I

..:;_ g - -
.2: ts 1r cw:

l:..‘, 1 K
":.~ «6;: to deal
H‘
.:.e purpose
aw"-

.... sited States 3

;..

Gen

\ .
‘.""e: LA

new one

A
v

9"

Q3312 ‘0 L. '
~ ..e l S S“
‘

1t rs necessa.
.-..

“‘lcal r
I
§
‘9 ..
I .‘
u‘hfi: ra‘,e
. 8 ch ‘ .
t‘ ‘4‘
\
a q, n
.‘§ 125‘. ‘
' a
D.
‘ :u..3"'er~"
“‘9 Such <
\S‘:
o‘..““
9 Of t.
.s. .3 ‘
\.;

 

 

PREFACE

The American political scene in the post-Civil War
period has frequently been described by historians as being
dominated by corrupt individuals who were easily manipu-
lated tools of "big business." They were so busy pro—
viding for their own welfare that they had little time or
desire left to deal with the crucial issues of the era.

The purpose of this study is to analyze and evalu-
ate the political career of Thomas W. Palmer, state sena-
tor, United States senator, and envoy to Spain in order to
discover how one political figure responded or did not
respond to the issues of his day. To accomplish this
goal it is necessary to ask the following questions.

What effect did Palmer's personal wealth have on his
Political life? What tactics and methods did he utilize
to gain political power? What effect did local and state
POlitics have on his national political career? What
“Bier influences helped shape his political decisions?

BY answering such questions, it is hoped that a thorough
uIICIerstanding of his public life will be achieved, thus
erlabling us to determine if he fits the stereotype of the

Post-Civil War politician.

iv

A virtually

   
  

33:25 for this the

in." "a“ R‘; n .v-
:huiu UV‘. VBQOO‘ lat

"DAV 6‘!- I 1!; 6n
.. a... 5.. u tuiruz-

. ‘ .

o-v R“ I‘ - v- ‘-
Ih: :toSV'ua.’ bus ‘01::
I ' Q
01-b' '5

i" O

.. .... Thomas 'n‘:

:2..e::ioo are t'-~' 3»

.O‘. b

 

 

A virtually unmined collection provided the basic
sources for this thesis. The Palmer Family Papers in the
Burton Collection in the Detroit Public Library consist
cfi'more than thirty—five thousand pieces. They include
the personal, business, and political papers of Thomas
Palmer and Thomas Witherell Palmer. Also included in the
collection are thirteen personal scrapbooks and a number
of letterbooks. An examination of the major Michigan
newspapers, federal and state documents, the corres-
pondence of political contemporaries, and relevant second—

ary works completed the research for this study.

'4... 'r '5 -
I‘buo;a:n Aerrlbory k

 

(H

      

'9: I rate d""

COM

of western

n, -" 9‘ ‘
“we so econ ~' c
s 4.
,~V.
..
.. :‘
‘ \:“‘.
a,“ \ ‘
99
shy CE. e‘CC‘
.:‘.‘
w.“ 1:. ,

“‘ ‘E'zht
«kg-rut.“ On klc
mi“:
5. .1 C
‘V ‘
u 0 the st
‘1‘: ti.

 

CHAPTER I

THE EARLY YEARS

In the early years of the nineteenth century,
Michigan Territory was a relatively unexplored and un-
exploited frontier land. Protected on its flanks by the
stormy and uncertain waters of the Great Lakes, Michigan
remained a remote and inaccessible land, far out of the
mainstream of western expansion. It was the "Golden Age"
of the Michigan fur trade, when voyageurs and woodsrunners
were more numerous than pioneer farm families. Michigan's
reputation as a land of swamps and sickness whose very
name meant "ague, fever, and chills" served as a further
deterrent to economic expansion and pOpulation growth in
Michigan.

Two developments in the transportation industry
revolutionized the American mode of travel and had a pro-
fOund impact on Michigan. The first of these was the
iIlvention of the steamboat by Robert Fulton in 1811. By
1318 the Walk-In-The-Water was plying the waters between
BIlffalo and Detroit. This first Great Lakes steamboat

Was wrecked in a storm near Buffalo three years after its

. I
“anti! '5“ tr.
.:.uluo«g | “Van I

.35 the parents of ’

 

5:: the East. where

. .
mew-«UR. '

r. of stea:

zines era for V

\I“
seek.

  
    

n.‘ ‘ ‘.
me seconc c:
:“. g ‘ ‘ V fl.
-.:.ar.ai in 184:, ‘
:av:on-;‘ ‘ ‘.‘
.rom Areas“

AI: £18, a (:15:

RC'L
:0:I5\ ‘ Va p. \
.I-wo-uoa. .aayraaga:
'-
it

A: eXA""I A‘

‘ant‘. ‘

 

 

-— 5-». ‘- .

 

1“..._. A ~—

launching. Among the passengers (all of whom were rescued),
were the parents of Thomas W. Palmer, who were returning
from the East, where they had been honeymooning. The
introduction of steamboat travel on the Great Lakes ushered
in a new era for Michigan.1

The second develOpment was the completion of the
Emie Canal in 1825, a project begun in 1817. The Canal
stretched from Albany on the Hudson River to Buffalo on
Lake Erie, a distance of over 350 miles. This meant that
potential Michigan settlers who lived in New England or
New York could make much of their journey by water, and
that Michigan products had access to a wider market.

An examination of Michigan's population statistics
from 1820 to 1840 reveals the impetus that these two
developments provided for the Territory's growth and ex-
Pansion. In 1820 the Territory had a pOpulation of just
over 8,500. By 1830, its numbers had expanded to over
31,000. With the passage of another decade, the new
state (1837) boasted a population of 212,267. In a period
Cm twenty years, Michigan had increased her population by
an average of just over ten thousand pe0p1e per year—-an
increase of about 2,400 per cent for the two decades.2

Thomas W. Palmer was descended from hardy Eastern-
e1’8, some of whom had traveled West to seek their for-
tlunes. 1His father's family traced its lineage from walter
Palmer, one of the original incorporators of Cambridge,

Massachusetts. His mother's family, the Witherells, could

:a:e their descent :
35: fret England 331'

1:35 i. Palmer's 9'1-

I”

13:33. Palmer. 59?-
3

isolationary liar.
His father, 2
253.1215, Vernon . A:

u:-
‘ O

-. .a'enty-one year o
2:58: as a merchant.

3: .anaia until they

 

 

 

 

 

.3 opened a general
2:33'ears. At the c

...-.:.s were inprisc:

a: an oath cf alleg~

‘:’a.a“
‘
5"“ a?"

w-‘Ject
.5 hrs aga
B‘s-‘65 w .

 

 

trace their descent from the Witherell family that came
over from England with Governor John Winthrop. Both of
Thomas W. Palmer's grandfathers, James Witherell and
Benjamin Palmer, served the Continental cause in the
Revolutionary War.3
His father, Thomas Palmer, was born in 1789, in
Ashford, Vermont. At the age of nineteen, accompanied by
his twenty-one year old brother Friend, he embarked on a
career as a merchant. The Palmers traveled through West-
ern Canada until they reached the town of Malden, where
they opened a general store. There they prospered for
four years. At the outbreak of the War of 1812 the
brothers were imprisoned for two weeks for refusing to
take an oath of allegiance to the king. They were then
paroled and left Canada for Detroit, only to be again
nude prisoners when the British captured that town. Re-
leased on parole for a second time, they promptly left
for Connecticut, no doubt determined not to be made
Prisoners again. In Connecticut they resupplied them—
Selves with trade goods and made their way to Canandaigua,
New'York, a commercial center for western New York.4
The Palmer brothers' enterprise boomed as the war
Provided many lucrative opportunities for business suc-
cess. With the end of the war, business declined and

their store shelves were overflowing with unsold goods.

Thomas Palmer took a load of the merchandise to western

 

   
  

W'a, where he so.
‘" t‘ere in a;

2:17;“: at

tive of tr.

that was to e

A!“

 

‘ ‘ I
V R". ‘
Elite: of “HM:
I

”
o'- I
-...~-'I :5‘55' “”0 ‘l
!;:::-u‘.\, b 5

\ .0
3...
L.

s
H 3 s ‘h ‘ ‘
n ‘ A,
‘0: H.5..~‘Es& C..“H
‘ ' 1 .

on! I.“ 87
\Q‘»‘ “1“. $ -

. “‘ ‘

o. A ‘

as“: tqi s bear O
in'“ 1.4 4.. —
MILE“ Col‘li‘fiEto
a...
u' - Q r h‘ ‘ v
‘“ ‘.‘ f‘0£o\‘e‘
h. A. V
‘; ‘.:

W. _ .
a Q- F ‘-
stycdl ‘rke'ly k:
\
._ -
I‘ "h ‘
Vs: ‘s; {Q tr.
I..:b.‘ .
Q...‘ ~-l t“
\5‘ deer; re
l.-
-‘ -
oh; Q‘,‘§
“““er an?
§.‘
‘ a
He‘rfllt
3‘.‘
..' A...
.““‘:r

Canada, where he sold it. He then proceeded to Detroit,
arriving there in June, 1815, to become the western
representative of the firm of F. and T. Palmer, a partner-
ship that was to endure until 1824.5

In 1821, Thomas Palmer married Mary Amy Witherell,
daughter of Judge James Witherell, a native of Mansfield,
Massachusetts, who had settled in Fairhaven, Vermont. His
wife was Amy Hawkins, a direct descendent of Roger
Williams. President Thomas Jefferson appointed Judge
Witherell one of the justices of the Supreme Court of the
Territory of Michigan. In 1810 Judge Witherell was joined
by his wife and family. Within a year his wife had taken
the Witherell children back to Vermont where they re—
mained until 1817. This move was prompted by Mrs.
Witherell's fear of Indians and her desire to give the
lfitherell children a better education than could be ob-
tained in frontier Detroit. Judge Witherell, along with
his oldest son James and a son-in-law, Joseph Watson, were
made prisoners when Hull surrendered Detroit to the
British. They were eventually paroled and returned to
Vermont where they remained until the war was over. Judge
witherell then resumed his office in Michigan and served
the territory and the state until his death in 1838.6

Detroit in 1830 was a raw pioneer town with a

Population of slightly over 2,200 whose military garrison

Ind been removed and its fort razed only four years

I‘

 

ether. It had be»-

       
 
  
    

' '- «A'VAF
.313: tom of .tu...

5211'. covered with ".-

_ . .
n nopruf Ron v»
a: «tug.» ...EI ‘I'.
.. .

IA y‘ev

..: ...er Savoya:

Ion-n g "ad-«q \1p‘ 1 ‘
\
emu-t {Au—“Cut Inns-

jean; was done 31th
:.ii;: geagnires, par
regis'elopeci into
'63::

'2'. \

lie

.:_,:_
"j...:e was by *3,“
5

V

e.
a"! ”a
.\
.‘e" A'F“ "
..V‘§§: “ P 3
O
H‘
o
.. _
J: '4‘ ‘ .8. ‘ ‘
‘E - H
“21‘ :16 C.‘
~ u
.
H
“a! \ A

.' :33 V
4 ' V.“}’ ‘n ‘ 1 ‘
:11 -t
i,‘
o“ “A
”v... “
r ‘0‘, . l B-
I ‘ .‘
‘zb.
v- A
"u 3'“;
5‘ a“

earlier. It had been founded on the site of the old
Indian town of Teuchsa Gondie and the river banks were
still covered with Indian mounds. The seine fisheries on
the Detroit River were one of the town's chief industries.
The river Savoyard ran through the city; there was no
stone pavement until 1850. Between 1840 and 1850 street
paving was done with pine blocks. Streets were often
muddy quagmires, particularly in the spring and fall when
they developed into beds of "clay of a plastic character
which would mire a horse or pull a boy's boot off if he
happened to strike it right." The usual method of con-
veyance was by two-wheel carts. There were no railroads
or plank roads.7
Many decades later while recalling his boyhood
days, Thomas W. Palmer would vividly remember that early
Detroit "had no furnaces, hot water heaters, nor steam
only some crude stoves, Open fireplaces, and the Franklin,
no gas, only tallow candles and lamps, and sperm candles
for company." The city's sanitation and sewer facilities
were crude or nonexistent. In 1832, troops from the steam—
Ship Henrnglayfion their way to aid in the Blackhawk War
brought a cholera epidemic that ravaged Detroit. Elec-
tions were wild affairs as intoxicated immigrants often
Attempted to intimidate voters. (Thomas W. Palmer main-
tained that the state capitol was moved from Detroit to

lensing because of the "orgies" that were held on the

Lon. V "HAS )
2:..VA 9.03““ '

    
 

3:33” or the we.

Thomas Paine
ZLSLZESS iterests.
Eerie"; by the c‘

ash
‘

.‘ V .\ ' \\
31.311858 . “.31 I E”. ..

n ‘:_,: 5'. S'a"* 1
n maul Uu 5. \u 5 J
3
P .n b ‘:.
-‘.‘:a.§‘1 cl.y 6“ ‘.
.i .

‘:“'vc
.

.,...e: 1r. these 3
l‘ngo" ' " ‘
':tu¢Uu :ne ‘ :10 ‘e (

H; ‘I-n‘ .

'8'. Uncading is at.

I “
$.13. n .
5
o ‘ ne anVEE
. a
I _

gb' V
“ '
"LT
\ME‘DQ .
~“ in +—
O
18:.
I. a.
\ EQ*IVV
\"e I
l
.'3~.'
\“E If": ‘
‘ueat.’
¢
3:.

capitol grounds.) Early Detroit was clearly no place for
the timid or the weak.8

Thomas Palmer, Senior, was a man of diverse
business interests. In 1823 he and two associates were
awarded by the city of Detroit the contract to build a
courthouse. In return, Palmer was given a generous portion
of land on a tract located on the outskirts of Detroit.
Evidently city officials were pleased with the results
of Palmer's labors.9 An investigative committee of two
reported in these words: "We would remark that in our
opinion the whole of the work is substantial, looks well,
the building is an ornament to the place. . . . We are
satisfied with the manner in which Mr. Palmer has executed
his contract."10

The elder Palmer also constructed a business
tmilding in Detroit and helped to build at least one
twidge. He invested in river wharves and bought valuable
[fine lands in St. Clair County. He founded the settlement
Of St. Clair, originally known as the village of Palmer.
He also owned a lumber mill in Detroit and at various
times had investments in steamships plying the Detroit
River. He was also active in civic and social affairs.
He helped in the construction of the First Baptist Church,
was an active participant in the Association for Promoting
Female Education in Detroit, participated in church

mndvities, and served several terms as an alderman.ll

 

Despite The."
as frequently in (in
2325 often exceede.
Eyes: after the hir
fists that he hired
isiebts and arrive

Thonas W. Pa.

 

.::., the third of it

a
:‘va. ‘
'I-nu‘5.

31.3“. 1
.I.‘ IRAQ'.
hug. ‘VVGyed in Q
B
133:9: O C
‘II ”
0 . ‘.‘C:u

"“E’R “'E“ar e.
r. .vuo a gory
Huh-’:

5;: ¢ ‘ .
‘Or the
Ge
2 at
a. 3 V‘ . -
" «Cm-3a“ 1'
a No
”I
'-
et.vh‘as \
h. ;
a.»

(551' q
A
te F‘,
P‘an..6r
\..A
R‘h ‘ Q
‘ :l
5“1 0‘ h
. . 154
8‘:

O r95'; %
‘1‘. :f t; sad.
.3 “ latter'

Despite Thomas Palmer's lucrative investments he
was frequently in debt. His appetite for business ven-
tures often exceeded his ability to meet his obligations.
A year after the birth of his son, he was so pressed by
debts that he hired an agent, who attempted to consolidate
the debts and arrive at a settlement with his creditors.12

Thomas W. Palmer was born in Detroit on January 25,
1830, the third of four children (and the only male) who
grew to maturity. Young Thomas began his schooling in
Detroit. At the age of twelve after having completed his
elementary studies he was sent to a private coeducational
academy located in St. Clair, whose headmaster was the
Reverend O. C. Thompson. Thomas was enrolled in the
college preparatory course and studied Latin, Greek,
algebra, English literature, and grammar. Included among
his schoolboy friends was David Jerome, who would later
defeat him for the Republican nomination for the governor—
ship of Michigan.13

Thomas W. Palmer's great ambition was to become
a lawyer in order to prepare himself for a political
Career. He planned to enter the University of Michigan
in the fall of 1847. About this time, however, he began
to suffer from an eye affliction that threatened his
sight. To rest his eyes Tom accompanied his father on

One of the latter's exploration trips to the Porcupine

Mountains in the Upper Peninsula during the early summer

fiLHT. The trip i

 

see were imprCV I 39

o
_ I

has gttihg as toll;

. . .
u-- an". A 0 "~05 9 -
-.: :ohh He~E5buAau b-

":“1 ”01‘“ l “"k I ‘F
l" 'VB‘G a“3“l .'

:23 with a pack or.

Duo.
‘.-‘.
3

Dan in Raw». 4
"I- .V‘rbodg HQ... 1
i

:35: to get rough

The Pa 1:.e r s

N: :E'J'lv
av restore:
o. .
N": "‘f‘ .n
"us “curs of
ii: a

:Vv
.. e
::‘b a.“
0‘ “C‘\r
u e‘
G
'4

of 1847. The trip seemed to have a therapeutic effect
upon him. He wrote exuberantly to his mother that his
eyes were improving from the inflammation and that he
was "getting as tough as a bear." In his letter he stated
his grim determination to improve his physical condition.
"You would laugh," he wrote, "to see me going through the
woods with a pack on my back-~fighting the mosquitoes, the
sweat pouring down in large globules. . . . I am deter-
mined to get rough and hard."15
The Palmers returned from their Upper Peninsula
excursion at the end of July, 1847. Refreshed by his
vacation in the "wilderness," Tom eagerly awaited the
approach of the fall term at the university.16
Once at the university he was to discover that
his newly restored health was of a very impermanent nature.
The long hours of study began to take their toll. His
eyes became increasingly inflamed and sore. At times the
affliction was so bad that he could not find his clothes,
and he had to have his lessons read to him by some of his
Companions. Even with this aid Tom could only study
about an hour each day. A friend, David James, had been
in New York in the summer of 1847 and had conferred with
a Dr. Francis about the condition of Palmer's eyes. The
doctor had assured James that if Tom could visit New York

for five or six months, he would "entirely cure them or

Fwy all expenses." Tom was so exhilirated by the doctor's

  
    

2:13 that he wrote
:2:':.:enc a1, b“ts
tiliw'illingly sea =

‘Hieb uar"

'3‘! I“.A‘.,

-:.L.~uv¢!o At I“!

 

“' a

3:: that he was

‘—.

A: w
~~ 5:3001.

Mr”: AF“
‘- “wars he

5.: 3““; MC.‘ntau
1:13;.“ t

.- 0 SEQ 2
:‘E

reply that he wrote thus to his mother: "You may think
me chimerical, but sore eyes are such an evil that I
would willingly seal my lot and let him try his skill."17
By February of 1848 Tom was more distressed and
melancholy. At Ann Arbor he had consulted a doctor who
told him that he was not afflicted with any particular

eye disease but was instead suffering from a debilitation

of his general health.18

With the approach of spring he thought of dropping
out of school. He could no longer afford the student aid
without whose help it was impossible to complete his
lessons. From New York Dr. Francis had written that for
thirty dollars he would send the cure for Tom's eyes.

Tom began to think that a trip to the West, perhaps to
the Rocky Mountains or the Pacific coast, and a visit to
New York to see Dr. Francis, would be the prOper restora—
tive. If he could not attempt this trip, he confided to
his cousin Friend, he might take a job as a warehouse

Clerk if there was an opening.19

Spring came and Tom Palmer left the University of
Michigan. Although he regarded it as a temporary depar-
ture, he would never again enter the institution's portals
as a student. Following the plan that he had outlined in
the letter to his cousin, he set out for the West with a
number of companions; they traveled west and then south,

eventually reaching Baton Rouge. Palmer was surprised to

    
  

' v
i;s::':er mat a 1a.

\

‘- fiat scutnern c .

2:111 mss a fort."

.:.\.Q‘

‘ o
un-gb:fi to er‘V’ES h 0

u...
I

“ ~~ ‘
ma :ecent fa...“

':-~ .t ‘m‘

"‘0 M “.5 eyes a 'M

in» o

I

.'. ”A“

5.5er a “‘Vc‘
.. .;.. ‘ ’
‘ 7‘
“NE! Sara.. t:
II: q.!‘
~U vg‘N

1‘“ tfike as 1::-
:‘~i 2 "§

:‘u. In PIE
"" Scze mgsta.
"5w 22

N4 .“| c ; ‘
S “‘53::
:u.‘
N ‘v ‘
“‘ ‘qea t‘h ‘
“‘
‘.'
. .‘
‘~:,‘ “a
v
\“
“e“ 'v:
~s
iC‘v 23
st~s
'7»...
“.e ‘OA‘
v
I.‘
"2 in
~\: ‘

10

discover that a large number of wealthy northerners resided
in that southern city. It was his observation that one
could amass a fortune quite quickly there if he had the
capital to invest.20
September, 1848 found him in New York rooming
with a "decent family" and visiting Dr. Francis for treat-
ment of his eyes. He wrote his parents that the doctor
seemed honest but "his partner and wife are sharks in
appearance."21
After a month he began to feel restless. He wrote
his sister Sarah that he and five companions (including
his cousin James Witherell) were planning to sail to
Spain where they would visit Cadiz, Cordova, and Seville.
From Spain they planned to go to Rio de Janiero and then
back to the United States. He anticipated that the voyage
nught take as long as three years--or as long as his eyes
tmld out. In preparation for his trip, he was going to
grow some "mustachios" to impress the nations he would
visit.22
Two days after writing this letter he set sail
With his friends for Spain. They left in late October
atidarrived thirty-four days later after a stormy passage.
After three weeks in Spain, they sailed for Rio de
Janiero.23

The young Palmer did not return to the United

States until May 1, 1849 when he debarked at New Orleans.

is was in debt an

 

 

 

{£217. :0 Detrcit.
:if :15 debts befcr‘
M;yn:h

ulvsvo- bnls pride \

‘“" HVH'WO‘ v ‘
"'0: re v1.11 y. t

'\ )
‘-

| I
31' '.‘ F Yure
m.‘ u y... .
I

395! the "'“

V01\

:25. A return to

a
"VA
.'.=

an impossihih
:35" he decic

::::':.-e elsewhere .

I}:

-. ‘VsKEd 10.19 ‘.n
o ‘09

.1. - ‘
.“‘ufin ‘\ ‘ .

V ‘bn 16a:
:‘EISV ;

scr ah},

9-315

11

He was in debt and lacked even the funds necessary to
return to Detroit. Although at first determined to pay
off his debts before leaving New Orleans, homesickness
overcame his pride and he wrote home for funds. These
were promptly forwarded to him and he arrived in Detroit
early in June.24
Despite his trans-Atlantic voyages and subsequent
adventures, the condition of Tom's eyes remained about the
same. A return to the University of Michigan was there-
fore an impossibility. After pondering his future for
some time, he decided to leave Detroit and seek his
fortune elsewhere.25
In the spring of 1850 he boarded a steamer bound
for Green Bay, Wisconsin. In Wisconsin he obtained work
as an agent for a firm of forwarding and commission agents.
He*worked long hours on his new job and continued to be
pflagued with headaches and sore eyes. He remained alert,
however, for any business venture that might present
itself, for Wisconsin was even more raw and unexploited
than Michigan. He wrote his parents in reference to
Wisconsin that "everything is in its transition state
from barbarism to civilization and we cannot affect much."
It was his opinion that a resourceful man who possessed
a sharp eye for business could rapidly make his fortune

there.26

    
 

It was in w
are of p: ctical ;

. . _ o" '
13.:1‘33 to a M‘

06‘

1'. ICE SLEEVES: 1031 a:

:rFOIIvy :‘

u-u..v..i& cori‘V'eF ‘ ‘ I

1.5.

.o-«np I
‘ puw‘ 5w- v.0
D‘~~-I:SS CVMQH$ Hquo 5

ozu-q‘ ‘5 fi‘p

clogvtli fl» hue CC:
a. fi‘ ‘ ‘ V .

”to!“ I b a brAErA:

2';

to.

«..e “late

i in \
t.' “A o
5 .‘ “UQQ. E‘
c

:3: h‘a
U Vaaez.es Ce.-
'
7-: 3"
k"‘“:lal a‘wfl
y.

‘
H ‘
\A‘
2a
a
N.‘»E 3" ~ :
“a.“ F V
‘V‘
-: .
'. ‘I- .
5‘.e HQ
“in
H‘.

12

It was in Wisconsin that Palmer received his first
taste of practical politics. In the fall of 1850 he was
delegate to a Whig convention. He was appointed secretary
of the convention and was asked to be a delegate to the
senatorial convention to be held at Manitouwoc. Prior
business commitments prevented his accepting the invi-
tation. At the convention he helped to procure the nomi-
nation of a friend as a candidate for the legislature.

His candidate was almost elected--running nearly 100 votes
ahead of the rest of the Whig ticket.

The winter of 1850-51 found young Tom in a re-
flective mood. He was doing well at his job and his
employers wanted him to remain with them, but the young
Detroiter felt adrift in the world. His future goals and
aims were hazy and uncertain. The many profitable busi—
ness schemes generated by his fertile brain required a
substantial amount of capital. He himself lacked both
money and credit. He had already written his father for
advice and for funds. His father wrote back warning him
of the dangers of speculating without sufficient funds,
and he did not enclose any money. This stern letter was
followed by one more kindly and sympathetic in tone. He
wrote with some embarrassment that he would have sent
funds to Tom but that he himself was under an “immense
load of debts" as a result of his own "expensive habits."

This did not comfort his son for he admitted to his

131:6: that he was

rated. DlSCCT.-

   

$5123.13, my mind,

'.u-b ‘

save a profs;
w ~ .
.:.e acvent

‘m...

V f: V
on:... a Niels. 53::

53133 3636‘; to enat

I: 26 an astute mer

:‘VA:

'-'"‘;t' He Has 5
Disaster st

. ‘: W"

1852, A .

u ‘2.
‘ me VA.
‘. z

\' “5“

U
.. ‘*‘«
is" \ ‘

U“ v

has be
' -

. *1"
Q.

13

mother that he was "externally comfortable but internally
troubled." Disconsolately he wrote her that "my pride,
my health, my mind, and my own inclinations demand that
I must have a profession."28
The advent of spring brought bluer skies and
brighter days. Somehow young Palmer scraped together
enough money to enable him to open a general store. He
also speculated in land warrants and in flour. He proved
to be an astute merchant and the business quickly showed
a profit. He was soon thinking of taking a partner.29
Disaster struck unexpectedly on a night in
January, 1852. A flash fire destroyed his store and stock
of goods. Merchandise worth about $2,000 was insured for
about a quarter of that amount and the insurance company
defaulted on that. Tom wrote his father that the fire
had left him "burnt out and worn out." His attempts to
re-establish himself proved futile. By late fall of 1852
he was back in Detroit.30
His father, who had just been appointed an agent
for the Monarch Fire and Life Insurance Company, offered
him a partnership. Tom accepted and the firm of Palmer
and Son was born. They soon became agents for other
insurance companies and also extended their Operations

to real estate--buying, selling, and investigating land

titles in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Illinois.31

   
    

Business dis
1:. Be avidly at°
2::e he expressed t.

C.

wa: me can been in:

ch

'.
In
(I)
I
ff

. A

.. a. 13:1 ‘
.‘
"'s'

“ "351‘ E“
' h‘\ ‘
o‘v“hfi
a... ,
x :- a, ‘
‘~:»¢.Ce:t beq . A
1 v21:
"‘ STee:

'1".
..e s ‘1“.
cc: ~
r111 s.
. .er'fi-
\:2-‘ . “‘
‘ ‘3 ‘
, mafie k
itfesfi‘ he
NH
5‘y
A ‘
(2“. gUQQ t
“~1 L
. «3:3 Ev
“‘1 P: E:
”s

14

Business did not occupy all of the younger Palmer's
time. He avidly attended parties and other social events.
Once he expressed to his sister Julia his disappointment
that he had been invited to only one party in a month's
time.32

Several young ladies caught his eye. A particular
favorite, Cora Farnsworth, deeply disappointed him by
leaving Detroit to spend the winter of 1854-55 in New York.
He was not daunted by this minor frustration. He quickly
turned his attention to a pert little miss named Lizzie
Merrill. He escorted her to numerous concerts and to
several Unitarian church socials. Rumors soon spread that
Tom and Lizzie were engaged. Tom confided to his sister
Julia that they were not engaged "although she might like
it well enough. . . . She is a pretty smart girl but
independent beyond measure." He thought that it would
be sheer "folly" to marry before he was thirty because
he was "having too much fun, making too much money and
not growing old very fast." He reckoned without Miss

Merrill.33

The summer of 1855 found Tom visiting Lizzie at
the Merrill summer residence in Portland, Maine, deter-
mined to make her his wife. He seems to have been on
extremely good terms with her parents from the first.
Merrill had even tried to reimburse the suitor for the

cost of his trip East. Tom told his father that he

. - .' !
$~R~c“t LlZZle S
- utd'.".

”:e :elieved that ..r

 

a- v 5 Le

..e 1"“"85

   
   
   

Q Q
‘.. ' v- H 7 H0 4 '
24:: r. “au 33.. b u

me that Lizzze we.

a Q Q !
:::::r.a:.e length. c.

fiQ-o...n
..
.'-'a-ID‘

Lizzte's ta:

th-fi.’
e‘:..bee:‘
“r: " \- -

b v s ‘6' 1836

Pz‘w .

7E3" Reexh~

c " —=§b-ilnec‘ WC”
C.

-2 -
N:.: EA‘ '
"c I“! f‘n

V.‘ .

‘ I
.._ h
“e astezipte’;
\4
.-: VA.-
~"tc T‘he ‘
a. “‘Q“ ._
a. §
"=-‘~at the
.
a ‘.err ‘
T ‘ .
t'&
‘h Cy .
‘ CILEA as.
‘
*&
s:"‘e d
Daer. a m.
_ & fie
.‘t
“ HQ»,
ss‘llls '
U *‘h
Si‘i‘ ‘.t
U.“‘:E
Cr~
'.“a: ‘3 '
‘v‘ c-
‘ EGO-:4
\A
w t3
“ S‘

15

he thought Lizzie's father was "one of the greatest."34

He believed that Mrs. Merrill approved of him also. In
July he informed his mother that he was engaged. He said
that he had wanted to tell her sooner but waited to make
sure that Lizzie would stick to the engagement for a

reasonable length of time.35

Despite the good relations
between Lizzie's parents and the prospective bridegroom
it was not until the end of September that Palmer was
able to persuade them to "consent to the nuptials." The
Merrills had thought Lizzie too young. According to Tom,
Lizzie was eighteen but looked twenty. They were married
on October 16, 1856.36
Palmer quickly discovered that he had married a
very determined woman. He could not persuade her to end
their honeymoon. January, 1856, found them in Boston
where he attempted unsuccessfully to get her to return to
Detroit. The months passed and they remained in the
East--at the Merrills' expense.37
Lizzie pleaded illness when Tom talked of going
home or cried "like anything" when he threatened to
leave her.38 They continued to live on the largesse of
the Merrills, who did not seem to begrudge the added
expense as long as their daughter was near them. Merrill
could afford to be generous as he was engaged in a number

of successful business ventures in the East and in the

lumber business in Michigan. Tom wrote his mother that

Q

.'..- Y' "
wggn‘ rlZZLB S

l v
(‘0

:elteved that M:

II.
(1-

. Q

he informed h;

¢

:2: 3e had wanted

that Lizzie w:

Ill
3‘
(I)

 

 

 

:eastnable length c

tetieer. Lizzie ' s p;-

 

:: was not until t'"

.-

3.5 ‘0 e r W ‘ '

. ,e.s..at: t'
irv“

.....“;5 k -A

\
“Cu th.:: :19 '-

Pfi‘v- Y .
nag-“e4. :1ch
a
.: 4‘
‘.I
. MeyemlnEd 'h”
we;»
c ubanE’mOCr
|o
u
itivc

I
J" 'a
“w" m
" fie
‘ ‘u
b. £LIAF‘”.
‘V.. "
I y.‘
1“
l ‘
”VA: § ~
5 ‘c

 

 

 

b abet. h.
i "e‘
.I. ..
M: V‘E‘V‘\ 1 V 1
‘t
11‘s, R“
I‘a.be

15

he thought Lizzie's father was "one of the greatest."34

He believed that Mrs. Merrill approved of him also. In
July he informed his mother that he was engaged. He said
that he had wanted to tell her sooner but waited to make
sure that Lizzie would stick to the engagement for a
reasonable length of time.35 Despite the good relations
between Lizzie's parents and the prospective bridegroom
it was not until the end of September that Palmer was
able to persuade them to "consent to the nuptials." The
Merrills had thought Lizzie too young. According to Tom,
Lizzie was eighteen but looked twenty. They were married
on October 16, 1856.36
Palmer quickly discovered that he had married a
very determined woman. He could not persuade her to end
their honeymoon. January, 1856, found them in Boston
where he attempted unsuccessfully to get her to return to
Detroit. The months passed and they remained in the
East--at the Merrills' expense.37
Lizzie pleaded illness when Tom talked of going
home or cried "like anything" when he threatened to
leave her.38 They continued to live on the largesse of
the Merrills, who did not seem to begrudge the added
expense as long as their daughter was near them. Merrill
could afford to be generous as he was engaged in a number

of successful business ventures in the East and in the

lumber business in Michigan. Tom wrote his mother that

1.5'a1fe's father

 

:: 1:2: teat the «2-:
:f?a'.:er and Son 5
:a:;ir.g fro four 'h
253;;te the kindws

O.

as to share their

“i:..9,
' “V... .»‘ -
d

‘-
.1ve minute

5: E‘JP': ‘v
““ elie Steel
§ '%
..
“3

~35 ‘4 .

(f

S a

1.

‘.Q '.“h ‘ ‘
\su.~=.d air 4 4
'4 o
l .
u] the e_
3:"..- - ”
s.“..,'h ‘
1‘. he: .
m
t. c
:‘ ‘e “
“‘-‘.fiea

3‘33.
NE"
a: ‘
~33: Q E
5‘ a
\\ was .
l
11 a,
In 1.
G o
1::I‘ ‘ ‘ E J
‘ ai, k‘b‘ic‘

16

his wife's father "was for anything in the way of busi-
ness." He generously lent Tom money when it became known
to him that the elder Palmer needed loans to keep the firm
of Palmer and Son solvent. These loans were for sums
ranging from four hundred to one thousand dollars.40
Despite the kindness of the Merrills and their willing-
ness to share their wealth with him, Tom was dissatisfied
with his nomadic existence; Lizzie still wanted to stay
in the East.41

The highlight of the summer of 1856 for Tom
occurred when he attended a Republican meeting at Portland
and was called upon to make a speech. He spoke for about
twenty-five minutes and "gave it to them right and left."
He ended the speech with "three cheers for Detroit."
This was his first stump speech and he felt quite pleased
with his efforts as the local newspapers lavishly com-
plimented him.42

By the end of 1856 Palmer was back in Detroit
working for the family firm. To placate his wife he
allowed her to visit her parents each summer. Much of
the summer and fall of 1858 was spent in the East because
Lizzie was ill and refused to return to Detroit.43

In 1860 Tom formally joined the firm of Charles
Merrill, which carried on a lumbering business in Michigan.

His life was still not very stable as Lizzie continually

wanted to go East to visit her parents. Tom wrote his

lie

1. ‘ ' fk ‘ f
rate" JJ.13 a

5.6 V

 

. - ; ,_
...‘ 6n~ ”7
:t.>8 "" Sr. ‘

a
la" 0
I
I IA “
:: :55 33-361' 0

t - -
cyan-1" RA“ Q a

' ‘
T F I "
ou'vfl VVAA -uELE-U‘:

 

‘

I- .\~.\ ‘0‘

...e t' .u- u
::IIA..'~ . ‘ A ‘ IF "
.g-ugoanj ‘u “Ne
:" Q‘.A ‘
-: :-:t.- rat: "7.5;:3.
0!. :‘
._— .--st ward. :-‘
Q-c‘

.\
I“
I”: v " O h I ,
‘
5“ CUS tr.
5
-;5 :ch-.‘._‘ ‘.
oa-w-‘H‘ A-“
*~o.‘ w»
.n‘
.
.‘
. ‘I-A, .
K _Q —
.‘°v_‘..t *‘H q ‘-
d ‘-¢Q 5
t; - ,
...— -Q
“‘.‘l .’A‘ ‘
V~es 1:
~
.‘.‘~‘
"-:: ‘L
-“e reS‘ f‘
»
\—
‘L‘. -.‘
N .‘Q h
ufin ‘.Qt t6”
v {
.-§.
‘4‘ l: ‘1:-
‘ “E 15:4
.
‘~‘
.“
‘\':-\H
‘ A
‘ ‘Vt‘.§“.~;
" h
‘M P~
«‘.
' 2‘.
«:5‘ :
‘

4"
‘~:-:“: ‘_
“‘-“:~_‘ ‘
‘2: in
N
‘ N
- ‘\.
‘ \
‘ \
"~ c.
“~I‘H
.‘

‘\
No“:
x
‘ x
.‘ ‘
‘.‘ .. ‘
w‘ch ‘
‘~.Q
“ \
. g -
-“ _‘
\

17

sister Julia that they planned on "going back to the old
people this spring. She is going ostensibly to take care
of her mother. . . . If the old people behave themselves
I may stay there a year." Mrs. Merrill's condition im—
proved considerably during the summer and by fall the
Palmers were back in Detroit.44

The tumultuous political campaign of 1860 saw Tom
favoring "Old Abe" but doubting his chances of success.
He also ran unsuccessfully as candidate for alderman in
the first ward. He told Julia that at the Republican
caucus meeting he had received all the "decent vote" but
that his rival, N. P. Jacobs, "ran in so many Irishmen
and locofocos" that he was swamped. Although Jacobs won
the Republican nomination he was defeated in city elections.
Tom thought that he himself would have been elected by
seventy votes if he had been the Republican candidate be-
cause the rest of the Republican ticket won by that margin.
He was not too disappointed, however, because he thought
that if he had been elected the job would have been too
time-consuming and would either have cost him $2,000 from
lost fees or his reputation as an alderman.45

In 1861, Palmer was engaged in the business of
expanding the Charles Merrill Company's pine holdings in
northern lower Michigan and in the Upper Peninsula.
Although the beginning of the Civil War and particularly

the defeat of the Union forces at Bull Run temporarily

3.5:enc'ec busmess
Eezzzte to ..15 mo
‘.0 ‘ n

:;,.:.e: that the

Kate seezs to be

 

g... |
.-

...._ heath la:

. s” N
.1 rather 5

av::..“. he “Tot

  

3"" ‘ '-
...: be...;3rar‘:v . ‘

":5: l-'~’~‘U&ase:l a:

-'..‘ .

I I. ‘

“3 NA,‘

V"“‘:u le‘hv C
fi‘.l V.”
“V‘
. .
:~-: I-
H

“=5 a." ‘ 1 .
§ v-
s$~Ln$g to fly
“
L:

.3 he» 3‘
‘ Q‘ C0 1
t; 43 Gets:
1;
‘ «44.2219.
‘EEZ . a
‘M‘ESS

18

suspended business activities, he was not unduly disturbed.

He wrote to his mother with respect to Bull Run, that he
imagined that "the effect upon the country will be good.
There seems to be no lack of confidence in the govern-
ment." A month later, after returning from a moderately
successful lumber selling trip to Dayton, he was less
hopeful. He wrote to his father that "times are perfectly
awful here as to money matters, worse I think than 1857.
Lumber is a drag."47

The slowdown in business activity proved to be
only temporary. As the war progressed, the demand for
lumber increased and business "was very brisk." There
abounded many opportunities for profitable investments
and Tom was able to take advantage of them on the strength
of his father-in—law's purse. According to Tom, Merrill
was willing to finance any venture he cared to engage in.
Among his money-making enterprises were included a piano
store, a produce and commission store, and a lumber busi—
ness at Muskegon. He believed that the Muskegon business
was an especially good one and would grow "better in time
as the old gentleman will furnish money to pick up lots of
which there are many." He also speculated in the bonds
sold by Jay Cooke and associates on behalf of the govern—
ment . 4 8

Lizzie's attitude was the one flaw in Tom's

happiness. She constantly complained about her health

and his patience was sorely tried. He wrote his sister

~=t '5‘;e is certa

 

arse than heart 6
:ttter' cause he

2: than he could
genercsity (his git

I: used to buy ‘i -

LL"

 

' ‘
0-.aj pan

' ..nk
loco-s, mail it fiiuboo

.. . 4 9
:zxsyncrac re s .

:o; '
a... d {233(20: tent

:;.".ties in the c:

.fi‘fia‘ ‘ ‘
I~ ‘
. ‘~V“Q‘

1y check:

. .

‘-
u usge COENany ' s
7.35:

‘ I
'1"‘
‘3‘}:55‘; ,_
a..
a.
"354::
s\ ‘
“‘Ver
1;. g
Ԥ
“Ed a~ .
4"”. E
‘ Q
. “‘
‘t; 6‘ *. _
¥‘lttlr‘
“a
_._
’h“'\
'§ ~5‘t‘.
“Ry
. N
5“- ‘
5:»:
\‘ ‘fi
g“ t‘
k
.. as
\t“ \ ‘ ‘
“
\“‘.q

19

that "she is certainly hypochondrical and that I think
worse than heart disease." Tom avoided visiting his
mother because he feared that Lizzie would trouble him
more than he could stand. But Merrill's unflagging
generosity (his gifts included a large sum of money that
Tom used to buy five acres on Woodward Avenue for a future
home) made it much easier for him to bear with his wife's
idiosyncracies.49

The years immediately following the Civil War saw
an expansion of the Merrill Company's lumber activities
and a concomitant increase in Tom's power and responsi-
bilities in the company. He was frequently in the field,
personally checking logging Operations and the condition
of the company's lumber camps. When he was not in the
woods, he was in constant correspondence with the com-
pany's chief land scout, Asa Bither. It was Bither's
job to investigate the quality of pine lands offered for
sale and to advise Palmer and Merrill on purchases. The
main holdings of the Merrill Company were located above
their Saginaw mill, chiefly in the region of the Titaba-
wassee River. The prime timber located there soon became
exhausted and as the secondary growth was generally not
worth cutting, it was necessary to acquire new land
constantly. The main lumber operations of the company

50

spread to the Pine River and Mount Pleasant areas. This

new land was obtained in a number Of ways. It was bought

20

from private owners, from the state of Michigan, and with
federal military bounty warrants. Eventually the Merrill
Company would own large tracts of pine land on all tribu-
taries of the Saginaw River and would cut their timber
from over 70,000 acres.51
The results of this aggressive program of expansion
were reflected in the logging records of the Merrill Com-
pany. One timber camp manager alone reported for the years
1864-68 a five-fold increase in the number Of logs cut and
sent to the mill from his camp.52
The Merrill mill at Saginaw averaged between
twenty and thirty million board feet per year during the
peak years of its Operation and produced a grand total of
slightly over three hundred million board feet during
forty-four years Of existence from 1854 to 1898. In
addition the sawmill Operated at Muskegon produced from
five to six million board feet annually during its twenty
years of Operation from 1863 to 1883. (In 1870 slightly
over 575 million board feet of lumber were milled in the
Saginaw Valley and a total of slightly over 2.1 billion
board feet produced in the state as a whole. The pro—
duction of the Saginaw Valley from 1851 to 1895 totaled
over twenty-three billion board feet.) Although the
Merrill Company's lumber production percentage may not
seem large, it was one of the leading mill Operations in
the state and owned one of the largest amounts of pine

stumpage land.53

 
  

‘
.‘1/1
‘U

-zer C0L

Q

Pa

A

   

h lzis

NV
§

ray 11""

...,.‘.. '-
“gron

.n’u
.
you"
a
I

S

fiH-w
CU...~ an'V' '
§ ‘

vué“

.
-
""~¢-&

‘i

.C

.1

:

winter c

C
“H
O!“

y».

21

As the chief administrator for the Merrill Com-
pany, Palmer could look with pride upon the company's
field operations, the burden of success or failure of
which lay upon his shoulders. The company's prosperity
testified to his managerial skills and business acumen.

The elder Palmer died in 1868 and Tom was now
shouldered with the additional duties of managing the
estate for his mother. The estate included lands located
on Jefferson Avenue and a farm on Woodward Avenue.54

The dawn of a new decade did not diminish the
Merrill Company's prosperity. On the contrary, it
heralded a period of expansion. Logging figures for the
fall and winter Of 1869-70 showed that over 8.7 million
feet had been cut at the logging camps and sent down to
the Saginaw mill. Palmer's own mill at Muskegon was also
doing considerable business. The Merrill Company's land
agents continued to be as aggressive as always in their
constant pursuit of virgin pine lands.55

In the summer of 1871 the Merrill Company's chief
field camp manager urged Palmer to increase the number of
crews in the woods. Prices were rising and sales were
increasing. The high lumber prices were the result in
part of a number of forest fires that swept the Michigan
pine lands in the summer and fall Of 1871. Remarkably,
the Merrill Company's lumber lands were hardly damaged by

the fires.56

In Decembe-

.;s estate to hi 5

 

:1: net Chang 51c;
‘ ‘ ' n t .
—;u DEEOI Lor )' ears

lei-3311C)? and car

kn" ‘

....-l. Palmer '*

I.

‘-9“£-.~

we
......uC..\. a $r¢e C:

4 A
0“»
.‘
\-‘A
'§|:’:l
su.ulr‘ev\g
a .. ‘
c.-
.::E=“
R
Y“
4-.
m.
u
u stuets k.
as It“
‘8‘.
\ v.

23’;
i §‘
I ‘
“a?! 1
‘ "‘
“-
Kg.
‘Q: “~.
A. ‘V
w- -
=“ it
he “r-
. .‘
~;:¥‘ \
‘-‘ Yr
$' ‘
‘ “t '1‘
‘
‘9.“
~‘ ‘-‘Fq
an“
rue
A
s.‘ \_
VVQ ‘
~ \ t”
‘ g
s. ‘a-\
t

.F.
y‘s‘.‘ \. ‘
\“ESK
B a
‘ C‘. ‘
-“ \‘ u
u: \ ‘
‘s

.3 ‘
\
\\s
0
K a? ‘
‘.\ s? 1
\\\ \
\ K
‘b‘
NS,-
t

22

In December, 1872, Charles Merrill died. He left
his estate to his daughter and son-in-law. Palmer's duties
did not change significantly with Merrill's death as he
had been for years the active member of the firm, initiat-
ing policy and carrying it out with some direction from
Merrill. Palmer had enjoyed Merrill's complete trust and
confidence. The only alteration in his routine was that
his trips to the lumber camps grew more infrequent as he
preferred to manage the company from his Detroit Offices,
relying on accurate reports from his logging camp managers
and sawmill Operators to keep himself informed of Oper-
ations in the field.57

The Panic of 1873, initiated by the failure of
several prominent banking houses, caused a general
cessation of normal business Operations. The lumber
business was no exception. By May of 1873 the Muskegon
mill was "standing still" because of lack Of business.
Prices were drOpping rapidly at Palmer's Saginaw lumber
yard. Many lumbermen were suspending all operations
although the normal fall and winter logging season was
nearly at hand. An upswing in business early in October
gave hope that the depression would soon subside. But as
the weeks passed it became evident that the flurry of
business activity had only been a temporary upsurge.
Palmer's customers were having difficulty in paying their
bills. Banks were calling in their notes but their

customers could not produce any cash either, and many Of

 

’
§

.u-oll"
Hunt

0"

3
\IA
k.

‘5 cu

‘rer

—
a.

v-.. A,-
.‘, I

F.

fig

Q
alt

c
.
Q.

.0.

”
U. Q

a the

v
‘

*a

‘-
'0 non
0n.‘
.— ‘
’
--- t:
Q
R
‘¢--

i

23

them failed in the Saginaw area, including a bank of
Palmer's friend, Thomas Sheldon. Palmer was able to
weather the financial storm by calling up his customers'
notes and aggressively pursuing sales in the Midwest.
November's outlook was no better and rumors of failure
and bankruptcies were prevalent in the Saginaw area.58

Although the financial crisis of 1873 brought a
brief halt to Thomas Palmer's expanding commercial empire,
it did mark the beginning of his political career--a career
that he would pursue intermittently for the next nineteen
years. In March, 1873, a law creating a Board of Estimates
for the city of Detroit was enacted by the state legis—
1ature. The board was to have the final determining
power in regard to all city taxes not definitely fixed
by law and was to acquire the power that had been pre—
viously conferred upon the city's annual freemen's meet—
ing. It was to consist of two members from each city
voting ward and five members elected from the city at
large. Half of the original members would serve for a
one-year term and half for a two-year term.59

The Detroit Advertiser and Tribune initiated the
campaign by declaring its support for a non-partisan
board. It declared that what was needed were men of
”unquestionable integrity, of established judgment and

of general public spirit." To have a successful Board of

Estimates it was necessary that the majority should "be

    

cztosed of repres
323.311: :15 or De:
Che day af

:e Republican-on

 

shit": erbarrassr. ”

Alb

:: ;:eser.t a f“‘ ‘

Mai

Q
‘A-

..;.:. The paper
2: select schemers
gt: their best me:

\

:a:€"s a; 'If‘ ‘
o . Q 8“ lye, ‘

.I 'G
. -A
~E _.: V

5“,

eras»: p. la
'P-‘C: as a 1".“

::"'An ' .
.~.VM w‘ *

V O'. h
': ~..e it

~

24

composed of representative and upright men, and not of
Republicans or Democrats or Liberals as such."60
One day after enunciating these lofty convictions,

the Republican-oriented Advertiser and Tribune announced

 

with embarrassment that Detroit Republicans had decided
to present a full slate Of Republican candidates for the
Board. The paper admonished the Republican caucuses not
to select schemers and those with an ax to grind but to
put their best men forward. The Republicans, in the

opinion of the Advertiser and Tribune, followed the

 

paper's advice, for several days later it reported that
the "Democratic ward nominees for the Board of Estimates
cannot as a rule compare in the point of personal qualifi-
cation with the gentlemen selected for the same purpose
by the Republican ward caucuses."61
Thomas Palmer, although a Republican, was not one
of the Republican candidates nominated by the Republican
caucuses. The Republicans themselves were divided in
their support of the Republican nominees. Many Republi—
cans and other Detroiters feared that the Official
Republican slate represented a faction in the Republi-
can party that wanted to push through an appropriation
for a public park. This faction owned a great deal of
land in Detroit and it was thought that they would try

to sell their land to the city at exorbitant prices if

a park project was approved. This could be better

   
    
 

a:::::lisl':ed 1f tr.
'- alert
12:25. .0 pre
2: the bear
VA$° n

.n .
a". v;-

.-..... a ballot \'

. w
-- - . maanJ-ato:
:r-s- val! PE“ .k“
“"3 ~ z-w‘lca:

-.. a H‘ 1 '
.. a repatrican c

.:.ec.tizer.s' iC

L
2:33titates was
1:: a: ethane 1
Lie.‘ '3'“

s.
\E at:
5“ $
'1‘,
A C .
he *qu
-. . ~—
5“ l )
‘o ‘.‘v‘ .
tr
J~l. 1
‘QE ‘0 l.
k
“e
\ 301:8 4
5‘5.

25

accomplished if they had their men on the Board of Esti-
mates. To prevent such action, a non-partisan slate was
nominated by a citizens' group for the at-large positions
on the board. Among the nominees was Thomas W. Palmer.62

Voting on election day was light but those citizens
casting a ballot voted overwhelmingly for the citizens'
ticket. Thomas W. Palmer led the citizens' slate with
4,438 votes. The highest vote garnered by a Republican
was 2,435. The Advertiser and Tribune blamed the tactics
of the "manipulators" in the Republican party for the
crushing Republican defeat. It said that although Detroit
was a Republican city, the Republican policy makers should
be aware that Republican voters would not approve "selfish
schemes" and that no "cracking of the party whip" would
force the dissidents into line. In the newspaper's
Opinion the people had taken a stand on the park project.
It put the matter in these words: "The majority by which
the citizens' ticket for members—at-large for the Board
of Estimates was chosen cannot be construed as anything
but an emphatic pOpular verdict on the anti-park bill
side." Thus Palmer's election was clearly identified with
the efforts for reform in Detroit's city government.63

The first meeting of the Board of Estimates was
held in April, 1873. There were two main items of busi-

ness to be considered. The first matter concerned the

members' committee assignments. Palmer was appointed to

26

the Public Sewers, Sewer Bonds, Interest, Sinking Fund,
and Metropolitan Police committees. It was the duty Of
a committee to evaluate the financial requirements of
that particular item of public business to which it had
been assigned. The second matter was to consider the
Common Council's recommendation that a total of slightly
over a million dollars be allocated for the city's ex-
penses for the new fiscal year. It was the job of the
Board of Estimates to determine whether this was a reason-
able amount to spend.64
The Board met again in May to hear the committees'
reports. The most controversial issue before the Board
was a proposal to reduce the sewer tax submitted by
Palmer as chairman Of the Committee on Sewers. Palmer
stated that sufficient funds remained in the city's
treasury to warrant such a reduction. After some spirited
discussion his committee report passed by a vote of 23—1.65
The Board met a week later to make its final
decision in regard to the committees' proposals. A member
persuaded the Board to reconsider the sewer fund tax and
another vote was taken. The original sewer tax won
approval by a vote of 17-7. Palmer's attempt to save
the citizens of Detroit money was thus defeated. The
total appropriation approved by the Board was about
$863,000, an increase of about $90,000 over the funds
appropriated for 1872, but almost $150,000 less than what

the City Council had asked for.66

27

The Detroit Free Press evaluated the work of the

 

Board and found its work on the whole satisfactory. It
was particularly pleased with the Board's economy measure
and declared that the new system was an improvement over
the annual citizens' meetings.67
Thus ended Thomas Palmer's first experience as an
elected representative of the people but it would not be
his last. His appetite for political office had been
whetted. Although his debut had been less than sen-
sational, he had proved to be a pOpular vote getter and
had shown that he had the citizens' interests at heart.
He would learn by experience that these were not all of

the ingredients necessary for a successful political

career .

v “
L -,er
::.-A

v V..‘
nun—:t' Udiv 7,
‘
‘:.'A{

iv...“ "A R

g n
V
"U‘okb

23.56 as the Pa

2

The St

I
.
\‘:u..

g

t ’H

"""‘.U.“: Fa-
I

 

.
~ 6:
I: ‘A §\e‘q .
‘\:r Pan
sers

6."

<.:?\ f C n .N
\ “ 19!! A
~‘:‘ I ‘ U V .‘
1:" .‘(PL‘H I
\‘ O.¥
.‘I‘shx, )
‘ ‘1 V A

' §‘ ‘

‘ . 85‘
.' ‘.‘ Qan-
‘U’C V.
1‘ ' C
* - V
‘ O

FOOTNOTES --CHAPTER I

1Letter of the Rev. E. H. Pilcher to Thomas W.
Palmer, July 7, 1877, Burton Historical Collection,
Detroit Public Library, Detroit, Michigan. Hereinafter
cited as the Palmer Papers.

2The Statistical History of the United States
(Stamford: Fairfield Publishing CO., 1965), p. 13.

 

 

3William Livingstone, Livingstone's History of
the Republican Party, Vol. II (Detroit: William Living—
stone, Publisher, 1900), p. 305.

 

 

4History and Biography of Detroit and Wayne
County (Chicago: Henry Taylor and CO., 1909), p. 291;
T. W. Palmer," in Illustrated American Bio ra h , Pt 2
(New York: The Lewis Publishing CO., 1895); M. Agnes
Burton, "Thomas Witherell Palmer," Michi an Pioneer
and Historical Collection, XXXIX (1915), 207 (herein—
after cited as MPHC .

 

 

 

5M. Agnes Burton, "Thomas Witherell Palmerr"
MPHC, p. 208-

6Rev. E. H. Pilcher to Palmer, July 7, 1877,
Palmer Papers.

7C. M. Burton, "Detroit in the Year 1832," MPHC,
XXVIII (1900), 163; Thomas W. Palmer, "Detroit Sixty Years
Ago," MPHC, XXX (1902), 490, 506-07; Thomas W. Palmer,
"Sixty Years of Michigan-~Address Before the Ninth Annual
Pioneer Picnic of Cass County," MPHC, XXIX (1901), 209-10.

8Thomas W. Palmer, "Detroit Sixty Years Ago,"
p. 509; C. M. Burton, "Detroit Sixty Years Ago," pp. 504,
507.

28

Govern
:: incnas Page
fififm 3ft 3

"u . h .
”aria, Ue‘r"

55v.

5V» v
s d
o .lAvIfl a! “:3-
vi J Al‘u."
. “I ‘7‘ .
Clo-v“, . IOVIh-as
11
A.

‘4
' «b-rfi
-
I. ”a" " 'v n
I..-.-~u.v Cf ’.J‘
.. :‘VP;A~_'* '-
I. ..~:.CC.-.t..‘ 5‘
I. ‘..‘
‘ Id m
III iigx' ‘ . P
‘2
‘ V
2“.
vanes
{:v . L m
..-..V'~~
' I O ‘0 ‘ .
on '
‘_.‘-. " Ma:

Q
k 1'. .
0 ‘1-
:I‘ . b.‘s‘\
..O'0 ‘ .
‘ I A.‘
. ‘ ‘.tov.“as .l
H '3 ‘-
"-~er rm.
its.
Q
15
«‘4‘
\
“ "\hh
:E“h v~ “e»..
\h
5‘ r".
‘-
“sets
17
'2.‘ P;]
m a, H
\“ Paw:
5»r5
YA
N
‘. *Vv‘ ,
“£25 £3.
R Paug

A)
)

1n

29

9Governor and Judges of the Territory of Michigan
to Thomas Palmer, July 29, 1829, in the Thomas Palmer
Papers, Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public
Library, Detroit, Michigan. Hereinafter cited as T.
Palmer Papers (Thomas Palmer was T. W. Palmer's father).

10Copy of certificate from H. Cole and John Palmer
to Boyd Linydam(?), August 7, 1829, Palmer Papers; M. Agnes
Burton, "Thomas Witherell Palmer," MPHC, p. 207.

llAgreement signed by Job C. Smith and Thomas
Palmer on May 30, 1829, T. Palmer Papers; M. Agnes Burton,
"Thomas Witherell Palmer," MPHC, p. 208; History and
Biography of Detroit and Wayne County, p. 291; Articles
of Agreement Between T. Palmer and Alonzo Merrill, January
20, 1831, T. Palmer Papers.

 

12James Everson to T. Palmer, July 14, 1831; Susan
Marriott to T. Palmer, June 18, 1831; L. Stanislaus to
T. Palmer, March 17, August 9, 1831. T. Palmer Papers.

13M. Agnes Burton, "Thomas Witherell Palmer,"
MPHC, p. 209.

l4Unsigned letter to Thomas Palmer, March 11,
1847; Thomas W. Palmer to his mother, June 27, 1847.
T. Palmer Papers.

lsIbid.

16Thomas Palmer to his wife, July 25, 1847, T.
Palmer Papers.

17Palmer to his mother, January 25, 1848, T.
Palmer Papers.

18Palmer to his mother, February 5, 1848, T.
Palmer Papers.

19Palmer to his cousin Friend, February 25, 1848;
Dr. Francis to Palmer, March 29, 1848, T. Palmer Papers.

20Palmer to his parents, June 6, 1848, T. Palmer

Papers.

30

21Palmer to his parents, September 13, 29, 1848,
T. Palmer Papers.

22Palmer to sister Sarah, October 22, 1848, T.
Palmer Papers.

23M. Agnes Burton, "Thomas Witherell Palmer,"
pp. 210-11.

24Ibid., p. 210.

2Srbid.

26

H. M. Roby to Palmer, September 20, 1850;
Palmer to his parents, July 15, 1850. T. Palmer Papers.

27Palmer to his father, November 3, 1850, Palmer
Papers; M. Agnes Burton, "Thomas Witherell Palmer," p. 211.

28Palmer to Henry Roby, December 8, 1850; Thomas
Palmer to his son, January 15, 1851, February 28, 1851;
Palmer to his mother, February 25, 1851. T. Palmer Papers.

29Palmer to his father, January 1, 24, 1852.
T. Palmer Papers.

3oPalmer to his father, January 24, 1852; Frank
Packard to Palmer, May 18, 1852. T. Palmer Papers.

lGeorge Adlard to Thomas Palmer, December 24,
1852; Palmer to his sister Julia, February 24, 28, 1854.
T. Palmer Papers.

32Palmer to his sister Julia, February 30, 1854,
T. Palmer Papers.

33Ibid.

34Palmer to his father, July 24, 1855, T. Palmer

Papers.

35Palmer to his mother, July 11, 1855, T. Palmer

Papers.

 

‘1 '

'3
:.er

a1-

Q
H
5

£4.

«a»

. S
.3 a:
v. . t.
a: re
.5. 3‘
I. z. a.
u-. n b

r;
.3

2-
my.

. _
S

3.

LP.

:.

2‘
:1

t. 5‘ us
. l e
I. . ‘3
:1. at L...

S

t\
.1

31

36Palmer to his sister Julia, September 25, 1855,
T. Palmer Papers.

37Palmer to his mother, January 6, 1856, T.
Palmer Papers.

38Palmer to his mother, August 3, 21, 1856,
T. Palmer Papers.

39Palmer to his mother, August 21, 1856,
T. Palmer Papers. -

4oPalmer to his father, June 11, 1856, T. Palmer
Papers. The elder Palmer was constantly in debt to
Charles Merrill.

41Palmer to his mother, August 21, 1856, T.
Palmer Papers.

42Palmer to his parents, August 10, 21, T. Palmer

Papers.

43Palmer to his mother, September 7, 1857,
August 19, October 1, 1958, T. Palmer Papers.

44Palmer to his sister Julia, April 14, 1860;
Palmer to his mother, July 19, 1860, T. Palmer Papers.

45Palmer to his sister Julia, November 7, 1860,
T. Palmer Papers.

46E. A. Lansing to George W. Markham, February 15,
1861; E. A. Lansing to George Conant, February 5, 1861;
Wm. C. Colburn to Thomas Palmer, July 18, 1861, T. Palmer
Papers.

47Palmer to his mother, July 24, 1861; Palmer to
his father, August 10, 1861, T. Palmer Papers.

48Palmer to his sister Julia, January 11, 1863,
T. Palmer Papers.

49£big.; Palmer to his sister Julia, March 25,
1864, T. Palmer Papers.

soPalrne
1.?alner Paper
3="=r Pacers:
fiber 12, re
1353, T. Palmer

Eater Paper ;

3.1; B, 1869, T
«“12, Lard A;
.12: Effice, ca

' .A‘h'v-
‘ivu '
3:».je h. hub».
U ~ ‘ ' -
“M." Ichfin
“m“:"V \ “‘95
x
l I
BI 1..
I

5"

the Charles
i‘lLttier to Ch,-

I:‘:y
n‘~.. .
u

‘ ‘
U . h
nus-6:. I>aE:EEI-s;;

Jfi.‘
: ~ ht: .
y‘ A“
‘-‘.:‘.‘S Cf
.
u'._
"“5: ‘0 Pa”.

‘0

:z’i, u . I
‘l

32

50Palmer to Charles Merrill, January 18, 1866,
T. Palmer Papers; Asa Bither to Palmer, October 23, 1868,
Palmer Papers; Asa Bither to Palmer September 2, 27, 1869,
November 12, 1868; Palmer to Henry Hubbard, November 5,
1868, T. Palmer Papers.

51Asa Bither to Palmer, November 12, 1868, T.
Palmer Papers; Bill for land in St. Clair County dated
July 8, 1869, T. Palmer Papers. Contract drawn by John
Larkin, Land Agent--for the Commissioner of the State
Land Office, dated May 29, 1868, Palmer Papers; A. C.
Maxwell to Palmer, September 28, 1868, Palmer Papers;
George W. Hotchkiss, History of the Lumber and Forest
Industr (Chicago: George W. Hotchkiss and CO., 1898),
p. 71.

521867 statement of logs sent out by Martin Perley
for the Charles Merrill Company, Palmer Papers; J. A.
Whittier to Charles Merrill, September 8, 1868, Palmer
Papers.

53Hotchkiss, pp. 71, 97, 105; Statistical History_
Of the United States, p. 313; Statistics Of Michigan, 1870
(Lansing: W. S. George & CO., 1873), pp. 416-1 .

54J. A. Whittier to Palmer, August 9, 1868,
Palmer Papers; M. Agnes Burton, "Thomas Witherell
Palmer," MPHC, p. 212.

55Saginaw log account dated October, 1870; lumber
statements of Muskegon mi11—-dated December, 1873; Asa
Bither to Palmer, November 10, 1873, Palmer Papers.

56J. A. Whittier to Palmer, October 26, 1871,
Palmer Papers.

57J. A. Whittier to Palmer, August 21, 1873,
Palmer Papers.

58N. McGraft to Palmer, May 14, 1873; J. A.
‘Whittier to Palmer, September 29, October 5, 7, 19, 23,
November 4, 1873, Palmer Papers.

59Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, March 29, 1873.

6orbid.

 

61

h b -

 

62Detr:

——

Detrr
‘
Detr
.\—' ‘n‘ F?—

33

61Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, April 1, 5, 1873.

62Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, April 4, 5, 8,

1873.

63Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, April 8, 1873.

64Detroit Free press, April 25, 29, 1873.

 

65Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, May 2, 1873.

66Detroit Free Press, May 9, 1873; Detroit Adver-
tiser and Tribune, May 9, 1873.

 

67Detroit Free Press, May 10, 1873.

 

New Ye

cannuv“; I‘S‘r
.
.:..:..t‘u bu -u

n
I.

V .
33341 515:

Pvuig‘;.‘ Ar n
v:'§«..:al-l SVO..

f";.':
it as‘Hence 1"
‘0
‘-
..:.. SO Shin;
$1553 that .
C
G
.
:‘Q.
“:5-0'5 an a
a. ‘.Q
iii-4‘s 0‘ la
‘ 7
P a
3&2:
s_‘
.:\‘::

CHAPTER II

FROM LUMBERMAN TO POLITICIAN

New Year's day 1874 brought renewed hOpe for be-
leagured businessmen as they eagerly anticipated a revival
of normal business and financial operations. Their buoyant
Optimism soon changed to anxiety, dismay, and frequently
to despair as they came to realize that the nation's re-
covery from the financial crisis of 1873 would not be
immediate. Instead, business activities were marked by
wild fluctuations as prices and sales rose and plummeted
with all the consistency of a runaway roller coaster.
Confidence in the nation's financial institutions had
been so shaken with the collapse of the leading banking
houses that almost six years would pass before the re-
cessions and business failures that were triggered by the
events of 1873 would be halted.

Palmer's business Operations reflected the uncer-
tainty of the times. Early in 1874 the market for Michigan
lumber was good. His mill managers at Saginaw and at
Muskegon reported in March that logs were in demand and

that prices were rising. Palmer's logs were being

34

shred to Milwa

-' v- F
a:e:tm..allv s .

fallen out of tf‘.

ru-

35. ...er ant. 1315.315

Our lather
mt: us 5
Gantry and
any price 5
h!“

ssgete wit
I see so:

At the

O. a bus;
.;:. Ry; .
u... ytsces 1:
~12. r: #-
“Zeu hat

35

shipped to Milwaukee, where the market for lumber was
exceptionally strong. By May, however, the bottom had
fallen out of the lumber market.l Joseph Whittier, Palmer's
partner and manager of the mill at Saginaw, wrote to
Palmer as follows:
Our lumber sales are nothing--there are so many
ambitious sellers that they are running around the
country and Offering lumber at ruinous prices, taking
any price so that they can get some money. We cannot
compete with these distressed individuals but I think
I see some indications of a speedy let up.2
At the end of the summer, after having prepared
the financial statement for fall, Whittier was less confi-
dent of a business revival. He could see no evidence
that prices in the autumn would be any better. He
theorized that they might be a little higher in the
winter "due to the fact that small streams will be filled
to the overflowing with timber beyond their capacity.“
Thus mills would not be processing as many logs and the
ensuing scarcity of milled lumber might tend to drive the
market higher. This would only be a temporary solution at
best. As soon as the streams cleared, the logs would
pour into the mills and the market again would be glutted.3
Meeting the next pay roll was not the only problem
that beset Tom Palmer in 1874. His wife remained ill but
possessed sufficient strength to maintain a constant
verbal barrage aimed at persuading Palmer to abandon his

business affairs for a vacation trip to the East. Lizzie

detested winter and particularly winter in Michigan. The

1

O

36

combination of her illness and winter made her so ill-
tempered that her husband wrote to his sister that
Lizzie's illness "took all the enjoyment of life away."4

Palmer's personal life was further disturbed by
the death of his mother. He had been deeply attached to
her and in her memory gave $5,000 to the Superannuated
Preacher Aid Society of the Detroit Annual Conference.
Later he would also endow a church in her name. She had
been sympathetic with the movement for women's rights.
Undoubtedly her attitude in respect to that issue had a
lasting influence on her son.5

Business did not return to normal in 1875.
Whittier still reported to Palmer that lumber was "slow."
In the fall of that year he predicted that business would
not improve until after the presidential election. Time
proved he was correct, but it was considerably after 1876
before the lumber market fully recovered from the effects
of the depression.6

From 1876 to 1878 Whittier could report no brighter
outlook in market conditions. In 1878 Palmer decided to
build some salt works as the lumber market remained in-
active. Whittier advised him to "go a little slow in
salt" as they needed the money to pay off their bills.
Palmer's papers do not reveal whether or not he heeded
Whittier's advice.7

Palmer did not have to worry long about his

financial problems because his wife provided a solution

ed

I
d

p

U
.QO-FF

”up.
\ A-
~
'a
.—

.a .Fa”
.‘IA
uguvv’

enact

-

bi
ofldb uév“ I
'5
O...

'
~>nmv
-uaa‘g

"‘_"F:~' '
Uvé-u'
. ‘

on-
.-
Q».

-;~.' ‘
---

-.

 

37

to them. By an agreement between him and Lizzie, Palmer
was released from indebtedness to the Charles Merrill
estate amounting to more than sixty thousand dollars. In
addition, his lumber firms at Saginaw and at Muskegon were
released from debts to Merrill's estate totaling over
ninety-one thousand dollars. Then in 1879 Lizzie agreed
to withdraw from the Merrill and Palmer Company for the
sum of one dollar, thus giving Palmer complete control of
his father-in-law's business.8

The unpredictability Of the lumber business was
responsible for Palmer's continued involvement in politics
in 1874. In that year Canadian representatives met in
Washington to discuss with the Grant administration the
possibility of a fisheries treaty which would supplement
the Treaty of Washington made in 1871. Secretary of State
Hamilton Fish had also been informed that the British
government would look favorably toward a renewal of the
reciprocity treaty of 1854. At the same time, Democratic
free trade organs such as the Detroit Free Press were
loudly trumpeting the advantages of free trade.9

The impact of these proceedings on Michigan lumber-
men was predictable. With the lumber industry in a de-
pressed state and extremely vulnerable to outside influ-
ences that could cause prices to fall even lower, they
immediately conjured up visions of cheap Canadian timber

flowing south, glutting an already over-supplied market.

38

Such an influx, they were sure, would spell certain doom
for Michigan lumbermen who had not gone bankrupt already.
Thus they rallied to the cause Of anti-reciprocity. None
were more vociferous in their opposition than the lumber-
men Of the Saginaw area led by Thomas W. Palmer.

One of Palmer's first actions was to send off a
long letter to Michigan's staunch symbol of Republicanism
and long time foe of free trade, Zachariah Chandler. In
his letter Palmer attacked the secrecy of the negotiations
and expressed his fears Of any reciprocity treaty. He
said that such negotiations were "too grave a matter for
hasty legislation" and that they represented "unjust
oppression for lumber." Palmer argued that Michigan
lumbermen had a flourishing trade until 1854 when the
Reciprocity Treaty between Canada and the United States
was signed. The flow of tax free logs from the north, he
maintained, had spelled disaster. He explained that
Canadians had lower production costs because United States
lumbermen paid higher wages and the cost of living in the
United States was higher: Canadians, therefore, could
easily undersell Americans in head to head competition.
Furthermore, he contended that the United States in the
long run would be doing itself a disfavor by allowing
Canadians to use up their forests. He argued that it
would be an "act of criminal carelessness on our part to

prompt this destruction by throwing aside the incidental

I 1
yr? 3‘! “l
tad» \nb‘ u 0
O

reserve cf t
thigh dut
As t

Apt-66p” d t’
vVu-btaue -‘

o .n‘ .
p
8' .6'4' see
0......
"""U’er or":

:: Presm‘e-

U.~-o‘:.-v.

s
I
‘ “¢( 4

I”

39

protection of our laws. British America is the timber
reserve Of the United States. These forests will stand
if high duties are enforced by the government."10
As the reciprocity negotiations dragged on, Palmer
continued to rally anti-reciprocity support. On December
1, 1874, he wrote a letter to the chairman Of the Michigan
Lumber Commission, J. S. Estabrook, and urged him to write
to President Grant and describe the "injustice of dis-
crimination against our great industry which Reciprocity
certainly does." He also suggested that Estabrook drum up
support for Chandler in the coming senatorial election.
Palmer maintained that Chandler was the "best man for the
lumbermen that can be returned senator" and would do more
to defeat reciprocity "than any new man."11
Estabrook wrote back that he was aware of the
strong reciprocity interest in Washington. He suggested
that a lobby be sent to Washington to remonstrate against
the movement. He wished that Palmer would be a member
of this lobby. At any rate he wanted him to "spill lots
of ink" in his effort to rally lumbermen to the cause.12
Palmer was soon busy stirring up his fellows with
his pen. Most of his efforts were directed at lumbermen
in the Grand Rapids area. In his letters he outlined the
Lumber Association's activities on behalf of Michigan
lumbermen. He told them that the Association had hired

a man in Washington to fight reciprocity. He explained

that a delegation was being sent to Washington on behalf

‘
A: p! ‘ ‘Vw n
v. bu *‘Ou‘

scald he 5*.

in

x . . ‘
rub!- w». I";-
'O-‘ ‘.‘b“

':A0"' n. .
obb.~. U. _
o

u."“‘"~‘(

.A- ‘ .

" A—

v',“ I— - V '
“PM. .

 

‘ '\

d) I

I
I”
t

40

of the lumber interests and he hOped that Grand Rapids
would be strongly represented in it.13
Meanwhile Estabrook was busy soliciting funds
with which to finance the lumber association's anti-
reciprocity campaign. He had telegraphed Senator Chandler
and G. B. Stebbins (the Michigan lumbermen's lobbyist) for
information on the treaty negotiations. On the same day
the Michigan Lumber Manufacturers Association met and
agreed to send a delegation. They also signed a petition
condemning reciprocity. The next day Chandler telegraphed
the Michigan lumbermen that they need not act in haste as
nothing would be done before the Christmas holidays. He
suggested that Palmer and one or two others go in the near
future to washington and meet with the wool, iron, and
steel men to prepare plans for "future operations." If
Palmer still felt it necessary to bring down a lobby then
a "rousing delegation could go down after the holidays."
With these words of advice the Michigan lumbermen abandoned
some of their frenetic anti-reciprocity activities and
settled down to enjoy the holidays.14
There were some Michiganders, however, who did
not let the festivities of the yuletide season deter them
from engaging in political activities. They were busy
organizing a coalition with which to oppose Zach Chand-

ler's re-election as United States Senator by the state

legislature in January. The election results of 1874 had

. . ,
:1': n C:.ar.d.e:
I

city}: over

.-

elected J chn

v::es. Two yl

2‘::es. Prior

Q!

:.seats in
fall electior
sure was;

Senate

Ecuse

‘1. I
‘.‘q‘. R .
s» 02‘ ‘
d ‘0;
‘.q. o ‘
'- H
1“
“°:“e
‘ i“
\
fie.
. b _
s‘g lc
‘
g
‘5 Y.

41

given Chandler's opponents confidence that they could
triumph over wily ”old Zach." The Republicans had
elected John J. Bagley governor by a margin of 3,000
votes. Two years earlier he had been elected to the
same position in a landslide--a margin of over 57,000
votes. Prior to the election of 1874 the Republicans had
31 seats in the Senate and 94 in the House. After the
fall elections the political balance in the state legis-
lature was:

Senate 17 Republicans 15 Democrats

House 54 Republicans 46 Democrats
The Republicans had lost 54 of their seats as a result of
15

the election.

The Detroit Free Press (a Democratic paper) had

 

immediately interpreted the elections as a "revolt against
Grantism, with its attendant evils of Butlerism, Chandler—
ism, third termism, Credit Mobilierism, and centrali—
zation." So confident was the paper of the change in
public Opinion that it declared that the best thing that
could happen was for Chandler to be re-elected by the

Republican party. The Free Press thought that no other

 

act would do more to shatter the Republican party and

strengthen the Democratic party.16

The anti-Chandler forces led by the Detroit Adver-

 

tiser and Tribune were made up of anti-prohibition Republi-

cans and Democrats, the Granger elements, and Chandler's

i

"I

a".

ll

42

personal enemies. Their hope for victory rested on the
expectation that anti-Chandler Republicans would boycott
the Republican caucus, thus not being bound by its
decisions. They could then, it was hoped, unite with the
rest of Chandler's enemies and help elect a suitable
compromise candidate.17
Chandler supporters began to arrive in Lansing
on January 5, 1878, preparatory to the Republican caucus
scheduled for the following day. There were strong dele-
gations of Chandler men from Saginaw, northern and west-
ern Michigan, and the Upper Peninsula. (Palmer did not
join the Saginaw delegation in Lansing until January 8.)
Since Chandler did not arrive until the evening of the
6th, the caucus was postponed for a day. At the caucus
Chandler was selected as the Republican nominee, but the
meeting had been boycotted by fourteen anti-Chandler
Republicans. The election was to be held on January 19.
In the intervening days, Chandler and his supporters made
desperate attempts to undermine the anti-Chandler faction
but to no avail.18
The balloting on the 19th saw the voting distri-
.buted among a number of candidates with Chandler receiv-
ing the high total of 53. On the following day Chandler
:received 64 votes to the Democratic candidate's 60.
Chandler needed only 3 additional votes to win. Seven

of the Republicans originally Opposed to him still remained

obdurate. They met with the Democrats and an agreement was

:aie that all
Zfzis.iancy.
21:15:: my de
um. Nee P

.
0...... ‘ .

a ‘ .

' I'FAA ~ ‘

\ ...»\. 2a.” 14
I

1oLn.

‘buQ‘u
.35.”. if. the 9;
335636: . :'6
259-5 to dEfea
ttzlize the g
I: :51? teen:

"awe I
I

I
,tuv

Dishe

; _.
‘ ‘

43

made that all anti-Chandler men would support Isaac P.
Christiancy. On the third ballot, on January 21,
Christiancy defeated Chandler by a vote of 67-40. The
Detroit Free Press declared that this defeat had "con-
signed Zachariah Chandler to his political grave."20

Although Thomas Palmer had not taken a prominent
part in the electoral proceedings he had been a watchful
observer. He had carefully noted the political strategy
used to defeat Chandler. Four years later he would
utilize the political knowledge gained at this election
to help resurrect Zach Chandler from his "political
grave."

Disheartened by Chandler's defeat, Palmer un-
doubtedly felt somewhat cheered when it was reported that
reciprocity negotiations had been abandoned. With Michi—
gan's staunchest and most powerful anti-reciprocity
representative in Washington sidelined, it would have
been most difficult to find another champion of his
stature to represent their views.20

Palmer's next venture into politics was in 1876
when he sought the Republican nomination for Congress from
the First District. He was Opposed for the nomination
by two other prominent Detroiters, John Newberry and
Henry Duffield. It was thought that Palmer might have a
slight edge because he had the backing Of the Republicans

who controlled the Detroit Custom House patronage. He had

 

44

also received an endorsement from the colored voters of
the 6th ward. The campaign generated much heat. Accord-
ing to the Detroit Evening News the "parties hung out the
black flag and threw the laws of civilized warfare to the
dogs."21
Palmer's chief support was in the outlying areas
while Duffield's strength was in the city. The Evening
Eggs reported that Duffield and Palmer had an "offensive
and defensive" alliance against Newberry. If a Newberry
victory seemed probable, most of Palmer's votes were to
gO to Duffield because the Palmer-Duffield forces wanted
to defeat Newberry at all costs. Newberry had supported
a plan to build a bridge across the Detroit River and the
"vessel interests" vehemently Opposed this scheme on the
grounds that a bridge would seriously hinder navigation
on the river.22
The Republican Congressional Convention was held
on August 24, 1876. Considerable pressure was exerted by
supporters of the Opposing candidates in the hope of
making last minute conversions. Palmer's adherents were
quite active in this respect. The atmosphere of the con—
vention was charged with tension and the crowd was
boisterous and unruly. A drunken Wyandotte delegate pro-
vided some amusement when he periodically punctuated the
noisy din with loud and irreverent soliloquies. Then he

would slump back into his seat in a sodden slumber.23

45

The convention was finally brought to order and

two informal ballots were taken with the following results:

First Ballot Second Ballot

 

 

Newberry 34 35
Duffield 32 34
Palmer 35 35

There followed ten formal ballots, with the first eight
being standoffs and none of the three candidates receiv—
ing fewer than 31 ballots nor more than 37. On the ninth
ballot Newberry received 35 ballots, Duffield 36, and
Palmer 30. When the results of the ninth ballot were
announced the convention broke into an uproar, "Duffield
men swung their hats and screamed themselves hoarse." A
delegate stood up and announced that although he had voted
for Palmer every time he was now going to throw his sup—
port to Newberry. Other Palmer supporters then rose and
declared themselves for Duffield. Pandemonium reigned
for ten minutes. The tenth and final vote was taken with
Duffield receiving 54 votes, Newberry 45, and Palmer 2.
Duffield was declared the winner.24
The defeated candidates were asked to make a
speech. Newberry could not be found but Palmer came for-
ward and gave a short address. He told the convention
in reference to its selection of a candidate that "you

could not possibly have made a better one with one

exception"--a statement that evoked a great deal of

laughter. He
mid be that

free from res

iefeat at the

Lia: he was 1

Du. L.
'-=~ «ad suff
CI

to
{t
it
I
w
'— J
3‘0
(I)

D
1‘ n .
. u
a N
‘Hecu .‘
o
A
THE
I
a. §_ .
N to t
2.“
IQ‘E:i‘

46

laughter. He concluded by saying that his one consolation
would be that he could work in the election campaigning
free from responsibility.25

Although Palmer had humourously accepted his
defeat at the Congressional Convention, rumors persisted
that he was bitter about it. Newberry and W. G. Thompson
(Newberry's campaign manager) were also reported restive
after their defeat at the hands of Duffield. These three
men had sufficient power to insure Duffield's defeat in
the general election if they chose not to support him.
Since the Democrats had nominated a powerful Opponent in
General A. S. Williams, Duffield could not afford to have
a split in the party ranks.26 According to the Detroit
Evening News the Republicans planned to have a "pow—wow
Of the big sachems to smoke the peace pipe at the Wig-
Wam," Detroit's Republican meeting hall.27

When the meeting was held, Newberry, Thompson,
and Duffield attended but Palmer did not. He sent a note
expressing his disappointment at not being able to be
present. He declared that he would "take the earliest
Opportunity to blow my bugle blast on the walls of Zion"
and was ready to "smite with the sword of the Lord and
of Gideon."28

The dissension in Republican ranks was too deep-

rooted to be smoothed over by mere protestations of

allegiance. On election day, the Democrats swept Wayne

“Nu-b y 7‘"
'U‘M-‘l Atu

IQQAV “‘
we” W‘-

but

‘3"\.‘ V.
:‘O. .1 6‘
2‘ ven‘ ‘
.::_.:3 e

A: "

q~ ._
do ‘.3C:
4-_‘
':... g:-
‘. ‘ I...
. c ‘4;:'

\
‘\ »
C-
t
\“
‘- .~y
‘
“ " ‘
"\ ‘
\
\ _
V~i
\
Q
‘
O‘
‘C s
\‘
v
Q“
.-
“ a
s
\
‘~

47

County and Duffield was defeated by Williams by a vote of
14,349 to 12,435. The state of Michigan as a whole, how-
ever, went Republican, electing Charles Croswell, the
party's nominee for governor, and placing the state in
Hayes' electoral column.29
Although undoubtedly dissatisfied with his politi-
cal fortune, Palmer had some consolation in his moment
of discouragement. In July he had been notified by Presi-
dent James B. Angell of the University of Michigan that
at a meeting of the Board of Regents he had been awarded
his degree as a member of the class of '49. This was
certainly an unusual honor considering that he had attended
the institution for scarcely a year. (Possibly Palmer
had made financial contributions to the university but his
papers do not contain evidence of it at this time.)30
1877 was an Off-political year for the state of
Michigan and for Tom Palmer. He occupied himself with his
business and church. Among his new endeavors was the
erection of a grist mill and a saw mill at Falmouth, a
profitable enterprise greatly appreciated by the area
settlers. The same year the Unitarian Society appointed
him chairman of its Social Life Committee, and he also
taught Sunday School as this was required of committee
members. At no time during the year did he give a hint
as to his future political plans or goals.31

The following year saw Palmer involved in politi-

cal activities from the outset. The renewed threat Of a

48

reciprocity treaty with Canada galvanized Saginaw lumber-
men--with Palmer at their head--into action. He began to
make addresses on behalf Of the anti-reciprocity forces
at lumbermen's trade meeting and exchanges.32 On Febru-
ary 2, 1878, he and Giles B. Stebbins, the lumbermen's
lobbyist in Washington, addressed a meeting at E. Saginaw.
In their speeches they accused the British delegation in
Washington of conducting secret negotiations for the pur-
pose Of renegotiating the Reciprocity Treaty. They urged
the lumber and salt manufacturers to "respectfully protest
and remonstrate against any legislation which would tend
to reduce the duties upon lumber and salt and open our
markets to foreigners without any reciprocal advantages."
It was decided at the meeting to send a Saginaw dele-
gation to Washington for the February 19 meeting of the
Board of Trade to make known their grievances.33
The Michigan lumbermen received aid from the
American Iron and Steel Association. James M. Swank,
Secretary of that organization, sent Palmer a bulletin
outlying his association's response to reciprocity and the
proposed WOod Tariff Bill. He suggested that protected
interests increase their COOperation to combat assaults
upon protective tariffs.34
In April Stebbins wrote Palmer from Washington

that wool interests were working with the lumbermen and

that the Iron and Steel Association of Philadelphia was

Q + .
I
I I ' ‘
'tezzzts a.

n
.A

“15% REESE

Czfi CUP"
‘4. , .“
'-‘-"‘:~-Q
~vb“~e
I ' .

AAV ~§v
nn“§\“‘.

‘
..

2 As,
““‘ ‘~b-.
:V“'\n~ ‘
.sqrvba
..

.i‘.‘
fi‘.

49

Opposed to all tariff legislation at the current session.
Stebbins also reported that he was clandestinely slipping
House members facts and information for their daily
speeches against reciprocity and low tariffs. The
efforts of Palmer, Stebbins, and their co-workers in
behalf of lumber protection were successful as recipro-
city was forestalled and the Wood Bill was defeated in
the House.35
With the end of spring, Palmer shifted his inter-
est from national to state politics. The state Republi-
can convention held on June 13, 1878, was significant
because it saw Zach Chandler become again the leader of
Michigan Republicans. Although many Republicans wanted
Chandler to run for governor he refused to consider this
proposal. He was aware of the popularity of the incum-
bent Charles Croswell. It would not do to splinter anew
the recently healed segments of the party. Croswell won
renomination while Chandler was elected Chairman of the
Republican State Central Committee. He now had the power
to advance his own political fortunes. His address to
the convention revealed that he had lost none of his
"radical" vigor as he keynoted his speech with a blast
against the "rebels" whom he accused of capturing Wash-

ington. The Detroit Free Press remarked that Chandler

 

was again "flaunting the Bloody Shirt . . . before the

gaze Of MiChigan radicals."36

50

Although Palmer was not prominent in the state
convention, he played a much more active role in the First
District congressional convention. He was a delegate from
the sixth ward and served on the committee on resolutions.
He also gave a short address in support of John S. New-
berry, one Of his Opponents in 1876. Palmer himself had
declined to be a candidate again. Although Newberry won
the nomination over John J. Bagley, he was not the over-
whelming choice Of the convention. A large number of
Republicans thought him too aristocratic and austere for
the rank and file to accept.37

Palmer's political reputation must have been en-
hanced by his activities at the congressional convention.
At the Republican Second District senatorial convention
held in October his name was placed in nomination for
state senator. No other names were proposed and Palmer
won the nomination by acclamation. He accepted the con-
vention's decision, saying that "under the circumstances
he could not decline the nomination so heartily tendered
to him."38

The Democrats campaigned on the issue of economy
and thrift in government, attacking the Republicans as a
"party of extravagance and corruption." The Detroit Free
g£g§§_maintained that the "question of economy, not the
financial question, the rebels claim question, or Tilden

bribery question," was the real issue Of the day.39

51

Palmer argued in his campaign that he should be
elected because Of his extensive business experience in
Detroit and in the state as a whole. Because of this
business background he held that he was more than ade-
quately prepared to deal with the pressing financial
questions of the day. The leading Republican paper in

Detroit, the Post and Tribune, strongly lauded him.

 

(Chandler had started the Detroit Post in 1866 but his

 

financial backers withdrew in 1877-—two years after his
senatorial defeat--and the Post merged with the Advertiser

and Tribune. In 1879 the Post and Tribune office burned,

 

and in March, 1880, a Detroit syndicate led by James

McMillan, James Joy, and Russell Alger purchased the

paper, which then became the Detroit Tribune.)40

 

The Democratic Detroit Free Press, on the other

 

hand, roundly attacked Palmer, declaring that it was well
that he based his campaign on his being born in the city
as many peOple would be otherwise unaware Of his presence.
It further said that there was no evidence of Palmer's
having rendered public service. "He has never," it said,
"been active in any public work or given the people the
benefit of his valuable advice, counsel or labor in any
capacity." This latter indictment was clearly an ill-
researched partisan bias: Palmer's record showed that he
had been a member of the Board Of Estimates and had been

active in local church and political activities. The

y

. e P E
flaky.» H
Htv‘jo.‘ 5‘

..‘.5 be

\‘I‘
I

I I u“
.l L .
.T.
A:
.c. :
Hi .2
up u M.”
:—

c-x
‘ I

3‘

‘Q.

52

Free Press concluded that Palmer was a "good fellow" but

 

thought that Michigan wanted "something else in the state
senate besides good fellowship and good nature." As for

Palmer's love of Detroit, the Free Press believed that he

 

would be happier there than in Lansing. It offered its
advice in these words:

Don't you go, Tommy, don't go 41
Stay at home, Tommy, stay home.

Palmer emerged victorious by a plurality of 602

over his Democratic rival. The votes were distributed in

this way:
Palmer (Republican) 4,320
Hinchman (Democrat) 3,718
Gruesel (Greenback) 1,338

In the other two senatorial districts in Wayne
County the Democrats were triumphant. Statewide returns,
however, showed the Republicans victorious, re-electing
Croswell governor and posting sweeping majorities in both
houses of the legislature.

The Republican papers reported that it had been a
"glorious day" and said that there was no mistaking the
meaning of the peOple at the polls. They had clearly
voted for "honest money" and against the Democratic con—
federates and their policies. But Palmer's victory in
Detroit was not the result of the Republican platform or

Republican newspaper support. His personality and the

”CIT. 0

mo,
Lu“

5.

.5

§

5‘ . *{kh

.r;1V-F

t0

val-a ‘V
OCDUECv-
O

E
4‘
O.—

can.
"d.

‘.V a...
Vuu¢t‘.2‘

-
.2
U

‘2
5‘

S

‘.-
NJ:

 

53

support of a number of Democratic friends had helped him
to triumph over a strong Democratic Opponent.43
Palmer began his career as a state senator in
January, 1879. The state legislature heard a short address
by Governor Croswell and then the Houses retired to their
respective chambers to begin the work of the new legis-
lative session. One of the most important questions
facing the legislature was whether the state or the
counties should be responsible for the collection and
settlement of delinquent taxes. Under the existing system
the state--through the Auditor General's Office--kept a
tax account with each county and charged the counties for
the amount Of the annual tax assessed each county. When
a county made its tax returns, it was credited with pay-
ment by the state. When a county failed to collect taxes
on property, it turned over to the state the tax delin-
quent property. The state then attempted to auction the
property, but frequently there were no bidders. Opponents
of the system argued that counties should be given the
responsibility of Obtaining revenue from such prOperty
because they would be more assiduous in their efforts
to obtain revenue from it. The northern half of the
state favored the county system while the southern half
desired to retain the existing manner of collection. A
joint committee was assigned the task of studying the

prosand cons of the issue for the purpose of making

54

recommendations. NO positive action on the tax reform was
taken in 1879. Other important bills before the legis-
lature included proposals for a higher liquor tax, a
reform school for girls, regulation of railroads, improv-
ing the city Of Detroit, and the navigability Of Michigan
rivers.44
Palmer was to play an important role in the deter-
mination of the success or failure of many of the signifi—
cant proposals before the legislature of 1879. There
were several reasons why he was able to exert considerable
influence during this session. First of all, his com-
mittee assignments and the support he received from
Michigan lumbermen greatly enhanced his influence. He
was appointed to five committees--those on banks and
corporations, lumber interests, appropriations, religious
and benevolent societies, and rivers and harbors. His
position on the lumber committee enabled him to look out
for the interests of his own industry. Furthermore, his
presence on the two main financial committees meant that
no tax or revenue bill affecting the lumber industry
could be passed without undergoing his scrutiny.45
Another reason for Palmer's influence was the
prestige he earned as the chairman of the Republican
senatorial caucus that paved the way for Zachariah
Chandler's return to the United States Senate. The

resignation of Senator Isaac P. Christiancy to take a

pmst as minister to Peru presented Chandler with the

::;ertunity to
in January 1:. my

.
IV‘,

t.-.stiar.cy's I
ice resign tic:
that Chandler l
Screed his res
:‘ezied this, IT.
:15 was anot‘:

.‘ I‘
3:. 111338996: S

:egley had C’
.liey were 0?
ea:.:g" poll
keegmg with

rechrfiFu ‘
”3“'LZEQ k
:“C..
05‘ l towé
:6

3:13.; ‘
u Onky
n

55

Opportunity to return to power. During the last two weeks
in January many rumors had been spread forecasting
Christiancy's resignation because of poor health. When
the resignation became fact, there was much speculation
that Chandler had put political pressure on him and
forced his resignation. Although Christiancy publicly
denied this, many remained firm in their conviction that
this was another one of Chandler's Machiavellian politi-
cal maneuvers.46

There were two men other than Chandler who were
considered to have a chance to succeed Christiancy: Omar
Conger and John J. Bagley. Conger lacked significant
support but Bagley was a real threat to Chandler. Around
Bagley had coalesced the new breed of Michigan Republicans.
They were Opposed to reverting to the "Old radical fire
eating" politics because they believed that it was not in
keeping with the progressive elements of the party. This
group Of young Republicans felt that although they had
been doing all the hard party work they had not been
recognized by Chandler. Thus they were bitter and re—
sentful toward him and were not ready to aid him in his
struggle to regain power. They believed that his election
would only insure a Democratic victory in the next
election.47

Bagley's political friends knew that Chandler's

support throughout the state, particularly in Detroit, was

szrcng. They I
35;:9Y REPUblle
sgzgathetic De
15: at any cos
1.2::- caacus w:

‘
':"A (

Wt agains‘
:45 “as the
be;

eazlier, me:

:‘n‘ 4:
‘ V w .l .
.‘t. l “L .4.

I. .

“'3 petition
“13' 36:: ~
Q

'17.“.
O‘B‘ ““
c!
§
“u‘.
." H. 4
K- H
‘0 :4.
‘ C
5“ s
\-
..
‘
~ '!~
Vt: CC
V.
‘ V
§
9»._
‘
‘VI.~ E‘-
U ‘*‘3
‘n
\
..
‘ h
N ‘ .
3‘ J
-
._.. ‘.‘A
‘. ‘ VA
‘\

56

strong. They believed that he could be beaten if the
Bagley Republicans refused to caucus and then joined with
sympathetic Democrats for a "determined defeat of Chand-
ler at any cost fight." They were convinced that to go
into caucus would guarantee defeat and that only by this
revolt against the caucus could Bagley be elected. Since
this was the strategy used to defeat Chandler four years
earlier, there was considerable hOpe for success among
Bagley men.48
The Chandler supporters were also active, publish-

ing petitions and letters in support of "old Zach." The

major Detroit Republican newspaper, the Detroit Post and

 

Tribune, lavishly praised Chandler's accomplishments and
heavily stressed his contributions to the Republican party
and the Union. Palmer, as chairman Of the Republican
caucus was busy evaluating and analyzing the sentiments
of his fellow senators, attempting to discern the nature
of Chandler's support in the Senate.49
As the time for the caucus approached, the state
capitol was crowded with the supporters of the senatorial
candidates. Chandler was favored to win. Bagley's slim
hOpes of victory rested on his ability to persuade a
strong minority of Republicans to resist the caucus call.
He was given a good chance of winning if no caucus was

held.50

57

On February 12, 1879, a petition calling for a
joint Republican caucus signed by seventy-five Republi-
cans was given to Palmer. To counteract this move, the
Bagley supporters presented a petition signed by over
twenty Republicans calling for an adjournment or postpone-
ment of the caucus. Palmer told the Bagley people that as
chairman he could do nothing and that the caucus would be
held. A staunch Chandler man, he was not prepared to
agree to a procedure that might deprive his candidate of
the prize as it had in 1875.51

Two days later Palmer called the Republican caucus

to order. An informal ballot was held, with the follow-

ing results:

Zachariah Chandler 69
John J. Bagley 19
Thomas W. Palmer 1

This approval of the majority of the Republicans virtually
guaranteed the position for Chandler. On February 18, the
state legislature cast 88 votes for Chandler and 22 for
Orlando M. Barnes, his Democratic opponent. Old Zach had
made a triumphant comeback.52

The Republican newspapers throughout Michigan were
ecstatic over his re-election. Michigan's political senti-
ment, in their opinion, was perfectly reflected by Chand-
ler's success.53

Palmer was pleased with the role that he had

pflayed. He had been instrumental in Chandler's election,

‘.‘e.

 

58

standing firm under pressure, thereby thwarting the
opposition's strategy. Hundreds Of peOple had heard him
give speeches on behalf of Chandler. He himself had even
garnered one vote for senator; this, however, did not
please him because a person unknown to him had attempted
to start a Palmer boom in an effort to split the Republi-
can vote. Yet even this was significant, for if his
political enemies considered him strong enough to chal-
lenge Chandler, it meant that he was growing in political
stature.54

Palmer's most important legislative work was the
successful sponsorship of a bill authorizing the state to
establish a reform school for girls. His bill provided
for a Board of Control composed of a number of ladies
appointed by the governor. The school was to be organized
as a graded school on what was known as the cottage plan
(many small housing units in contrast to one large bar-
racks or dormitory building). The proposed maximum age
for confinement was to be twenty-one.55

There were no less than five other bills before
the legislature proposing some sort of detention home
for wayward girls. One of the bills provided for a home
for girls wherein they would be educated and taught
trades. The other four bills provided for penal insti-
tutions whose aim was "reformation of the vicious."56

The state Senate, obviously confused by the pro—

liferation of bills, convened its Committee on State

59

Affairs to hear testimony from various ladies groups.

As a result of these hearings the committee recommended
that the proposed institution be penal in nature. The
committee recommended Palmer's bill because it best re-
flected the ideas of the reform school supporters--that
the school be penal in nature and be managed in part by
women. Palmer's bill was passed in the Senate by a vote
Of 18-2. The House Committee on Education, which had
charge of theSenate bill, favored Palmer's bill for the
same reasons as the Senate. The committee also took the
view that an institution with women as administrators
was a worthy social experiment. The bill passed the
House by a 61-17 vote on the last day of the session.57

Palmer's successful guidance of his bill testi-
fied to his skill as a legislator. It also revealed his
astuteness in formulating a measure that achieved success
because it represented the consensus of the reform school
backers.

As a Detroiter, Palmer was particularly sensitive
to legislation relating to his native city. Several bills
of importance came before the legislature in 1879 that
dealt directly with Detroit. The first of these was
Senator Duffield's proposal that Detroit be separated
from Wayne County. According to his plan, Detroit,

Grosse Point, Hamtramck, Greenfield, and Springville

would become the County of Detroit while the rest of the

present count
'2‘; his trier-.6

:gpcsition tc

iivided . He

the county‘ 5
the city 0 f

'ii'fie Counts,

60

present county would remain Wayne County. Palmer, aided
by his friend and fellow senator, James Shepard, led the
Opposition to Duffield. He declared unequivocally in a
newspaper interview that Wayne County should not be
divided. He said that he had lived in Detroit for forty-
eight years and had never heard of any public demand for
the county's division. In his Opinion, the plan to make
the city of Wayne the county seat of the proposed new
Wayne County was a scheme of a "few designing men" to
secure more Offices to go around and to make the city of
Wayne dominant over other towns in the outlying areas.
He further implied that Duffield had been perhaps un—
wittingly made the tool of "these designing men." Al-
though Duffield's proposal passed the committee of the
whole it was eventually defeated by the Senate.58
A bill proposed by Palmer's good friend, Senator
Cottrell of Wayne, was enthusiastically supported by
Palmer. Cottrell's bill provided for a boulevard in
Springwell, Greenfield, and Hamtramck, consisting of rows
of shade trees, grassy lawns, footwalks, carriage drives,
and a park. A Board of Commissioners was to be estab—
lished, made up of representatives from the areas to be

included in the boulevard plan and the mayor and the

Board of Works of Detroit. The Detroit Evening News re—

 

ported that Palmer thought that the proposed boulevard

would prove to "be a sanitary and pecuniary advantage to

Detroit“ a

except owe

‘ I ‘ Q‘
leg; .at.r

attil afte

3'30 wanted

330k to t‘:

:C
\_,,>
318:;131 t:
.‘FF
'1 1.

.,5
QCUs
~ 8‘de
:13- A;
5 V‘ f

 

61

Detroit" and nothing would persuade him to Oppose it
except overwhelming opposition from the people.59

The Boulevard Bill stirred much debate in the
legislature. The measure remained stalled in the House
until after the spring elections when it was passed and
sent to the Senate. In the Senate Palmer vigorously de-
fended it and once again met Opposition from Duffield,
who wanted to add amendments that would throw the bill
back to the House and thus virtually kill the measure for
that session Of the legislature. Once more Palmer was
successful over Duffield as the Boulevard Bill passed the
Senate without amendments and was approved by the

governor.60

One of the most vexing problems to come before the
legislature involved the regulation of liquor. There was
strong prohibition faction in both houses but there was
also Opposition to any further changes in the liquor laws.
Senator James Shepard (who was later to become Palmer's
personal secretary) was one of the most aggressive of the
prohibitionists, doing everything in his power to arouse
the people in favor of further restrictions on the liquor

traffic.61

Many Republicans, Palmer among them, were hesitant
about advocating any drastic change in the liquor laws
out of fear of alienating Michigan's substantial German

element, which resented any tax on liquor. Palmer received

 

letters decl
gainst the
tam of the
cf the Oppcg
Get; as won.
3’0:le lose
prohibition
The
'55 voted d

7 ,
' Mt
«1.9.0: and

'38 H.
L“at 0:
‘~
:5..-
Ava;
“eat 1
1“»!

O‘te
‘A.
‘ 0
!
LR?
‘-
\Q

62

letters declaring that any change in the laws would work
against the cause of temperance because it would "throw
many of the foreign born who are Republican into the ranks
of the opposite party." One letter predicted that the
Germans would not stand for it and that the Republicans
would lose 2,000 votes in Detroit alone if a strong
prohibition measure was passed by the legislature.62
The moderates were able to prevail and prohibition
was voted down in the House, 59-34. An increased tax on
liquor and the sale Of liquor sponsored by Senator Shep-
ard did pass the Senate. The bill originally passed by a
20-8 margin with Palmer voting with the majority. Senator
Duffield, however, attempted to reduce the severity of the
tax by seeking to amend the bill so that no person paying
a tax on spirits would pay a tax on beer and wine. Un-
doubtedly this was aimed at immigrants who mostly drank
beer and wine. Palmer voted for Duffield's amendment but
it was defeated 18-10. The bill was then approved by a
22-6 margin with Palmer again voting with the majority.
(Since the bill had been resubmitted with the amendment,
it was necessary to vote again for the original measure.)63
Palmer's most important role in the state Senate
was that of chief protector of the lumber industry. As a
prmminent lumberman and as chairman of the prestigious
lumber interests committee, he had both knowledge and
power. Lumbermen were quick to keep him informed of

their needs and wishes.64

63

Much of the legislation affecting the lumber
industry was aimed at keeping the rivers and streams
clear from the refuse of mills and logging camps and thus
making it possible for log drives to continue. Palmer's
vigilance in lumber matters is illustrated by his success
in getting a bill passed to prevent the obstruction of
navigable streams. The bill won approval in the com-
mittee on lumber interests but was at first defeated on
the floor. Palmer, however, obtained a reconsideration.
This time the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 18-8
and it was later approved by the House.65

Other bills aimed at aiding logging and lumbering
Operations, including a measure approving the establish-
ment Of a lumber exchange won legislative approval. The
high percentage of such bills meeting success can be ex-
plained by the cooperation between Palmer and close friend
and fellow lumberman, J. S. Estabrook, who was chairman
of the House Committee on Lumber and Salt.

Palmer enjoyed his work as a legislator even
though it entailed a great deal Of time and effort. He
‘wrote his sister Julia that there seemed to be no end to
'the toil and that it was the hardest work he had done in
years. He added that he led a "full life" and liked his
vnxrk. His cheerful attitude was undoubtedly helped by
Iris wife's social activities. Lizzie gave occasional

parties, which she graced in her "Paris finery."66

Near
Eetrci-t Eveni
\
Palmer as a J
the 'most ma:

Etchigan leg

'35 900d nat

man with
.7155 Of L
VCXSE fa
rn the s

64

Near the end of the legislative session the
Detroit Evening News published a glowing editorial on
Palmer as a legislator and as a man. The paper called him
the "most marked and individualized character in the
Michigan legislature." It lauded his warm personality
and good natured humor. The editorial read in part as

follows:

A millionaire with a social democracy that places the
humblest and poorest man on his own level, a lumber-
man with high classical and literary attainments, a
man of unblemished public and private character whose
worse fault is an unlimited toleration of everybody.
In the Senate he is a pet and a leader.

The paper continued in its tribute to Palmer by
praising his work as a senator. It described him as
extremely hard working and suggested that he was guberna-
torial material. In the judgment of the paper, he would
make a first-class governor and "the annals of Michigan

for all time to come would teem with the reminiscences

of its warm hearted, mirth loving, clear hearted and
"68

pOpular executive.
This was certainly heady praise for a relatively

inexperienced legislator and politican. The flattery of

the paper, however, cannot be written off as the adulation

Of a Republican newspaper for one of its favorite sons.

TheeEveninngews, although leaning toward the Republican

 

point of view, maintained that it was an independent

newrspaper. The News had been too lavish in its praise of

I
’.II

65

Palmer, but the resultant publicity could certainly do him
no harm.

After the legislative session ended in June,
Palmer returned to Detroit to consider his political
future. Whatever plans he may have made were altered
by the unexpected death of Zachariah Chandler on November
1, 1879. Chandler's death further fractionalized an
already demoralized and divided Michigan Republican party.
As Chandler had not groomed a successor, a leadership
struggle was certain to ensue.69

Among those urged to step forward as Chandler's
successor was Thomas W. Palmer. Letters sent to him
following the news of Chandler's death indicated wide
support for him for either senator or governor. A printer
in Lansing, however, suggested that he become candidate
for the chairmanship of the Republican State Central Com-
mittee to succeed Chandler. Since there was an unwritten
law that the man in this position would not be a candidate
for any political office, the printer thought that it
would be the ideal position for Palmer. He would be in
a place Of importance and power in the Republican party
but.could remain aloof from party squabbles that would
leave indelible scars on the participants.70

Despite all the advice to enter the struggle for

Chandler's legacy, Palmer followed the cautious counsel

Of an attorney, G. A. Farr Of Grand Haven. Farr warned

66

him not to be "seduced into any schemes for the senator-
ship" and thus be "killed by the mistaken kindness of your
friends." Farr said that he "smelled a rat" and thought
perhaps someone was setting Palmer up, i.e., pushing
Palmer for the United States Senate, knowing that if he
was defeated, his political career would come to a pre-
mature end. Palmer followed Farr's advice and did not
present himself as a senatorial candidate.7l
While Palmer was debating his political future,
Governor Croswell was coming under considerable pressure
because of his failure to appoint Chandler's successor to
finish the unexpired senatorial term. His dilatory tac-
tics gave rise to speculation that the governor was think-
ing of taking the post himself. The pressure on him in-
creased as the Chandler faction exerted a maximum effort

to persuade him to appoint a man who would meet their

approval. The Democratic Detroit Free Press sardonically

 

remarked that Croswell could cut the "Gordian Knot" and
escape the Republican pressure by appointing a Democrat.
The troubled governor retired to his home in Adrian and
then returned to announce his decision.72

The man selected was Judge Fernando C. Beaman, a
political nonentity. Political strategists believed that
by this appointment, Croswell had avoided alienating the

major contenders and their supporters. They believed

that because Beaman was so politically weak, he stood no

67

chance to be elected by the next legislature and thus the
way would be open for Governor Croswell to emerge as a
prime candidate for the Senate seat.73
Croswell's plans--whatever they might have been--
were altered by the sudden and unexpected declination of
the appointment by Judge Beaman. The governor then ap-
pointed the sixty-five year Old former governor, Henry
Baldwin. Although the other contenders and their sup-
porters were disappointed, most Michigan Republicans were

relieved to have the matter settled. When Palmer was

interviewed by the Detroit Free Press for his Opinion on

 

Croswell's action, he reiterated his neutral stand. He
said that he had "signed no papers and took no part in
this matter."74
Despite his protestations of indifference, Palmer
was secretly pleased with Baldwin's appointment. In the
first place, Baldwin was a potential gubernatorial rival
and his appointment as a United States senator had effec-
tively removed him from contention. Secondly, Bagley,
a rabidly anti-Chandler Republican, had been defeated,
thus preventing his use of the influence of the senatorial
office to dictate the choice of the Republican nominee for
governor. It did not remove the possibility of Bagley
himself running for governor. The elevation of Bagley to

the governor's seat would be a political threat to Palmer.

Bagley had been bitterly nursing the wounds inflicted on

lit. by the I
would be ea
particularl;
enough to CI

The
:cntrol of '

atti-Chandl:

:Tn“ .
\a. “101‘, .
L,
“3;! 1a“
\‘ “ b
Y a
31:4

68

him by the Chandlerites. Given a position of power he
would be eager to purge the party Of the Chandler faction,
particularly of those men such as Palmer who were strong
enough to challenge him politically.75

The first victory in the campaign being waged for
control Of the Michigan Republican party was won by the
anti-Chandlerites. In December, James McMillan was
elected chairman of the Republican State Central Com-
mittee. McMillan was an anti-Chandlerite and his ele-
vation meant that a foe of Palmer controlled the official
party machinery in the state.76

During the early months of 1880 Palmer worked hard
at consolidating his strength. At the urging of some of
his prominent supporters he began visiting Republican
leaders throughout the state. His purpose was to gain
support among the delegates to the gubernatorial con-

vention.77

The results of the Republican State Convention
held in May were encouraging to Palmer. Henry P. Baldwin
‘was elected chairman of the State Central Committee.
McMillan's removal from this Office was welcomed by
Palmer. He was also happy when McMillan was defeated by
James F.Joy as a delegate to the Republican National
Convention. His supporters interpreted the defeat of
hMmMillan by Joy and the victory of Baldwin over Bagley's
candidate, Henry Duffield, as indicative of the dimensions

of the "Palmer boom" for governor. The convention was

69

fairly harmonious with only the sporadic internecine

bickering of the Detroit representatives disturbing its

tranquility.78

The atmosphere of the Wayne County Republican
Convention held in the first week of August just two days
prior to the Republican gubernatorial convention in Jack-
son, was anything but harmonious. It was in the hands
Of anti-Palmer men from the start. Palmer's old political
rival, Henry Duffield, was elected temporary chairman.

A caucus of anti-Palmer Republicans composed of 70 Of 102
delegates met to plan the convention proceedings before
the official meeting. When the time arrived to present
the slate of candidates for the state convention, Duffield
read from a list prepared by the caucus. The Palmer men
were astounded by this turn of events and were too dis-
couraged to make much more than token resistance. Of the

49 delegates selected for the state convention, over 30

were anti-Palmer men.79

The Detroit Free Press reported that the anti-
Palmer men-~that is the group led by McMillan and Duffield
--were bitter over McMillan's defeat by Joy in May. One
delegate was quoted as saying that "Tom Palmer is knocked
on the head and you can say so--that is if Wayne County
luis anything to say in the state convention." The Detroit
Evening News said that Palmer was personally pOpular in the

cij:y and in the county but that he faced stiff Opposition

70

because of his affiliation with the Chandler faction.
This Wayne County Opposition virtually ruined Palmer's
chances for governor before the state nominating con-
vention had even met.80
Despite the odds facing them, Palmer and his
supporters made a spirited attempt to win at the con-
vention. William Livingstone, a personal friend of
Palmer, nominated the Detroiter for governor. There were
five other men nominated, with David Jerome, John Rich,
and Francis Stockbridge being Palmer's most formidable
opponents. Jerome, a former schoolmate of Palmer in
Detroit, had settled in Saginaw, where he was engaged in
business. He had served in the state Senate from 1862-
1868. Rich, a farmer in Lapeer, had served in both
branches of the legislature. Five informal ballots were
taken with the only result being a slight shift of Stock-

bridge's strength to John Rich.81

Informal Ballots

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Jerome 102 107 107 119 135
Rich 115 133 135 122 125
Beal 107 103 106 105 109
Palmer 105 104 107 112 105
Stockbridge 103 100 92 85 77
Gorham 16 13 12 13 13

The first formal balloting began with Palmer sup-
porters still hopeful Of electing their candidate. They

counted on Rich's strength going to him. The results of

71

the first ballot, however, indicated a substantial in-
crease in Rich's vote and a decrease in Palmer's.
Palmer's strength continued to erode on the second
ballot. After this ballot a representative of David
Jerome came over and asked the Palmer men to unite on
Jerome. (Jerome's support came from Detroit Republicans
not affiliated with Palmer or the anti-Palmer faction and
from the Saginaw area, where Palmer also had strong sup-
port.) The Palmer men decided to cast their ballots for
him once more and then, if the outlook appeared hopeless,
go over to Jerome. That is what happened. Palmer re-
ceived only 26 votes and on the fourth ballot the Wayne
delegation united and gave their support to Jerome, who
82

won the nomination.

Formal Ballots

 

 

l 2 3 4
Jerome 138 187 261 318
Rich 152 174 218 238
Beal 103 81 46 4
Palmer 97 87 26
Stockbridge 55 17 l
Gorham 10 6

Palmer seemed to accept his defeat with good
grace. He made a conciliatory speech to the convention
that was well received by the delegates. He alluded to
the defeated candidates as martyrs and said that they
passed before the convention "not with the spirit of

martyrs, but rather with the spirit of apostles--apostles

72

Of liberty and the great Republican party." Reminding
the convention of Napoleon's soldiers, who, in their
frozen retreat from Moscow, could still salute Napoleon,
Palmer said that the candidates who had been "frozen out"
could still cry "long live the Republican Party." He
concluded his address by pledging his support to David
Jerome.83

The protracted struggle at the convention did not
have a disastrous effect on the party's fortune in
November. The Greenbackers helped the Republicans by
splitting the Democratic vote. Jerome received a total
of 76,684 votes and a plurality of over 27,000. For
President, Garfield rolled up 87,071 votes to 38,496 for
Hancock. Newspapers called it a "clean sweep for the
Republicans, a victory by 'an old time majority.”84

Palmer did not brood about his defeat, but kept
himself active and in the public spotlight. Governor
Jerome appointed him to represent the state at a con-
vention held in Davenport, Iowa, in May, 1881. The pur-
pose Of the meeting was to promote a water connection of
the Upper Mississippi with Lake Michigan by the con-
struction of a canal from Hennepin on the Illinois River
to Rock Island on the Mississippi. Palmer also maintained
political contacts with key political leaders throughout
the state as he kept striving for his political goal, the

governorship in 1882.85

73

During the fall Palmer attempted to discover
whether Jerome was going to run again for governor. He
received reports that many Republicans were dissatisfied
with Jerome and that Palmer would receive considerable
support if he put himself forward as a candidate. A
close friend, James Shepard, told him that "Jerome would
die a yearling," and that Palmer would "come into his
kingdom two years in advance Of expectations." Shepard
warned him, however, not to make a premature move that
would harm him.86

Palmer apparently followed Shepard's advice: a
letter from one of his most avid supporters, Don Henderson
of Allegan, complained that he had been cold toward his
efforts to "boom" him. He told Palmer that "Zach Chandler
never had such fears, neither has Senator Ferry and others
I might name."87

In May, Shepard again advised Palmer not to make
any rash moves. He told him to be sure Of his ground
before taking any action. He said that the best thing
that could happen was for Jerome to retire, but thought
that was out of the question. He insisted that the only
way Palmer could accept the nomination was if it was
Offered "without a scramble," for he could not "afford
to be defeated again for anything, anywhere."88

After carefully analyzing the information he had

received, Palmer decided not to make himself a candidate

74

for any post at the Republican convention. It had become
apparent by August that Jerome would be renominated with-
out a struggle in spite of the dissatisfaction of many
Republicans. The tradition of supporting the incumbent
was too strong.89

At the Republican convention held on August 30,
1882, Palmer was elected permanent chairman. He exhorted
the Republicans to be vigilant in their campaign, for he
warned them that there was "no national issue at stake,
no great principle involved." He concluded by reminding
his audience of the Republicans who had gone before them--
“Let it not be said that we were faithless to our trusts."90

As expected, Jerome won the nomination with 561
votes. Palmer, despite his declaration of non-candidacy,
received 97 votes while 27 votes were scattered. In
November, however, Jerome lost in his re-election bid,
being defeated by some 8,000 votes by the fusionist candi-
date of Democrats and Greenbackers. The Prohibition party
also ran a candidate who cut into the Republican temperance
vote. This strong opposition combined with the dis-
affection of many Republicans spelled political doom for
Jerome.91

The Republican defeat in the fall of 1882 marked
the low water mark of Palmer's political career. He had

made a great deal of progress since serving in his first

public capacity in 1873. Yet, despite his public

75

popularity and considerable influence throughout the
state, he had been constantly frustrated in his quest

of a political Office since having served his term as
state senator in 1879. His affiliation with Senator
Chandler had proved to be a liability rather than an
asset as anti-Chandler factions in Wayne County had been
responsible for inflicting on him a series of political
defeats. The stage had been set for a fateful decision.
As Shepard had warned, he could not afford another defeat;

whatever action he embarked on had to result in victory.

{#5

atgbi

K‘s

.3
h:

-lC

P .

:u

find
., 1

:\
a a
.3
.~ a

Z
.‘s
.m

4'

FOOTNOTES--CHAPTER II

lNewcomb McGraft to Palmer, March 28, 1872; J. A.
Whittier to Palmer, March 29, 1874. Palmer Papers.

2J. A. Whittier to Palmer, May 17, 1874, Palmer

Papers.

3J. A. Whittier to Palmer, August 13, 18, 1874,
Palmer Papers.

4Palmer to his sister, Julia, May 20, 1875, T.

Palmer Papers.

58. Reed to Palmer, October 1, 1874; Rev. E. H.
Pilcher to Palmer, July 7, 1877. Palmer Papers.

6J. A. Whittier to Palmer, June 9, 1875, July 28,
1875, September 5, 1875, Palmer Papers.

7J. A. Whittier to Palmer, May 21, 1876, July 24,
1878, April 1, 1878, Palmer Papers.

8Agreement between T. W. Palmer and Lizzie Merrill
dated March 16, 1878; Agreement between T. W. Palmer and
Lizzie Merrill dated 1879. Palmer Papers.

9Detroit Free Press, June 1, 1874.

 

10Palmer to Zachariah Chandler, June 15, 1874,
T. W. Palmer Letterbooks, Palmer Papers.

11Palmer to J. S. Estabrook, November 18, 1874,
T. W. Palmer Letterbooks, Palmer Papers.

12J. S. Estabrook to Palmer, December 1, 1874,
Palmer Papers.

76

l?
1574: Pair
Letterboo‘.

l

at
lrscraas G:
F

ripers .

’F
flucther I

0: a worse

’11

m
(D
'd

77

13Palmer to unknown person dated December 1,
1874; Palmer to Moore and CO., Muskegon. T. W. Palmer
Letterbooks, Palmer Papers.

143. A. Whittier to Palmer, December 9, 1374;
Thomas Granage to Palmer, December 10, 1874. Palmer
Papers. .

15LansingState Republican, November 6, 1874.
Another result of the elections was the crushing defeat
of a women's suffrage amendment. See Detroit Free Press,
November 6, 1874.

 

16Detroit Free Press, November 5, 1874.

 

7Lansing State Republican, November 6, 1874. See
also the following: Harriette M. Dila, The Politics of
Michigan, 1865-78, Vol. XLVII, NO. 1, ColumbiELStudies in
History, Economics and Public Law (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1912); Detroit Free Press, November 6,
1874.

 

 

18Detroit Free Press, January 5, 1875; Palmer to
J. A. Whittier, January 8, 1875, Palmer Papers; Detroit
Advertiser and Tribune, January 5, 6, 7, 1875.

 

 

19Detroit Free Press, January 20, 21, 22, 1875;
Detroit Advertiser and Tribune, January 22, 1875.

 

 

20Lansing State Republican, February 5, 1875.

 

21Lansing State Republican, August 16, 1876.

 

22Detroit Evening News, August 22-23, 1876.

 

23Detroit Free Press, August 25, 1876.

 

24Detroit Evenin News, August 24, 1876; Detroit
Free Press, August 25, l 76.

 

 

25Detroit Eveninngews, August 25, 1876.

 

26Detroit Evening News, September 9, 13, 1876.

27Ibid.

28

Be

29
De
Uetroit Eye:
K

Pf.“ m ':
Vli.e 12' .

4?: h
I ' \IEO
1"}:
‘v ~
\. a!“

 

78

28Detroit Evening News, September 18, 1876.

29Detroit Free Press, November 9-10, 1876;
Detroit Eveninngews.

3°J. B. Angell to Palmer, July 20, 1876, Palmer

Papers.

31Maurice White to Palmer, March 11, 1877; A. W.

Pierce to Palmer, January 23, 1877. Palmer Papers.

uv-s—fi-a-r

'(Il,

32C. Emerson to Palmer, February 1, 1878, Palmer

Papers.

33Detroit Post and Tribune, February 4, 1879.

1
r
3
l
4

34James M. Swank to Palmer, February 7, 1878,

Palmer Papers.

35G. B. Stebbins to Palmer, April 6, 1878, Palmer

Papers.

36Detroit Evening News, June 12, 1878; Detroit
Post and Tribune, June 14, 1878; Detroit Free Press,
June 12, 14, 1878.

 

37Detroit Eveninngews, August 31, 1878; Detroit
Post and Tribune.

38Detroit Post and Tribune, October 21, 1878.

39Detroit Free Press, October 21, 1878.

40Detroit Post and Tribune, October 31, November 1,
1878; George G. Catlin, “Adventures in Journalism,"
.Mdchigan History, XXIX (July-Sept., 1945), 361.

41Detroit Free Press, November 2, 5, 1878.

42Detroit Free Press, November 6, 1878; Detroit

Post and Tribune, November 6, 1878; Grace Swihart, "Thomas
vv. Palmer“ (unpublished Master's thesis, Wayne State Uni-
'versity, 1940). PP- 40-41.

 

 

‘ I
.3 i

«.3

z“

‘..

p:

\

I I
u:
\r:

 

79

43Lansing Weekly Republican, November 13, 20,
1878; J. A. Whittier to Palmer, November 10, 1878, Palmer
Papers.

 

44Lansing Weekly Republican, January 8, 1879;
Detroit Free Press, January 11, 1879: Detroit Post and
Tribune, January 13, 1879; Michigan, Legislature, Senate,
Journal, 1879, pp. 145, 234, 251, 275, 309, 321, 323.

 

 

 

 

45Lansing Weekly Republican, January 8, 1879.

 

46LansingRepublican, February 5, 1879.

 

47Elliot Slocum to O. Spaulding, January 29, e
1878, in John J. Bagley Papers (University of Michigan '
Historical Collections, Ann Arbor, Michigan). Herein-
after cited as the Bagley Papers.

48J. S. Crosby to John J. Bagley, February 6,
1879. Detroit Post and Tribune, February 19, 1879.

 

49Lansing _Weeklprepublican, February 19, 1879;
Detroit Post and Tribune, February 12, 1879; George
Fowler to Palmer, February 3, 1879, Palmer Papers.

 

 

SODetroit Evening News, February 12, 1879.

 

SlIbid.

52Lansing_Weekly_Republican, February 19, 1879;
Detroit Post and Tribune, February 18, 1879.

 

53Lansing Weekly’R_publican, February 19,1879;
Detroit Post and Tribune, February 19,1879.

 

54Palmer to his sister Julia, February 25, 1879,
Palmer Papers.

55Detroit Post and Tribune, January 27,1879;
Detroit Free Press, February 15, 1879.

 

. 56Detroit Free Press, March 12, 13, 1879; Michigan,
ILeglslature, Senate, Journal, 1879, p. 232.

 

 

570'

earth 13, 3
NEWS, March

“my re
\

'V‘usuu.'

“at? "+ t'v
J:5.C“ ~'
m
. W . g
V101da‘y (J

80

57Detroit Free Press, January 10, 13, February 27,
March 13, 30, April 17, May 3, 23, 1879: Detroit Evening
News, March 13, 1879; Michigan, Legislature, Senate,
Journal, 1879, p. 937.

 

58Detroit Free Press, January 10, February 27,

1879.

I

59Detroit Post and Tribune, January 17, 1879;

Detroit Evening News, January 24, 1879; Detroit Free Press,
January 25, 1879.

60Detroit Free Press, February 26, March 26, i
May 1, 2, 1879; Michigan Local Acts, 1879, pp. 177-83.

61Detroit Post and Tribune, January 22, 1879; i

Detroit Free Press, February 26, March 8, 1879.

62J. B. Bloss to Palmer, April 17, 1879; J. H.

Carstens to Palmer, April 22, 1879. Palmer Papers.

63Detroit Evening News, April 24, 1879; Detroit
Free Press, May 23, 1879; Michigan, Legislature, Senate,
Journal, 1879, pp. 917, 918, 1155, 1320.

64S. Gillet (agent for Titabawassee Boom Co.) to
Palmer, March 20, 1879, Palmer Papers, is a typical
example of letters to Palmer on this subject.

65Michigan, Legislature, Senate, Journal, 1879,
pp. 321, 329, 375, 876-77, 921.

 

66Palmer to his sister Julia, March 13, 1879,

Palmer Papers.

67Detroit Evening News, May 19, 1879.

SBIbid.

69Detroit Post and Tribune, November 3, 1879;
Lansing Weekly Republican, November 5, 1879.

70D. McLaughlin to Palmer, November 1, 1879;

C. M. Jones to Palmer, November 10, 1879; W. S. George
t0 Palmer, November 10, 1879. Palmer Papers.

 

71Ge

Papers.

72“

u‘.
Elliott to ‘
‘.etri a
4g

'73,‘

U
35! 4. 1879
Paine: Page

Vy:‘ ‘
.1

~~ l {q 1
.

81

71George Farr to Palmer, November 3, 1879, Palmer

Papers.

72Detroit Free Press, November 7, 8, 1879; John T.
Elliott to John J. Bagley, November 7, 1879, Bagley Papers;
Detroit Evening News, November 10, 13, 1879.

 

73Detroit Evening News, Detroit Free Press, Novem- r»
ber 4, 1879; Henry F. May to Palmer, November 14, 1879,
Palmer Papers.

 

74LansingWeeklyRepublican, November 19, 1879;
Detroit Evefiing News, November 18, 1879; Detroit Free
Press, November 18, 1879.

 

75J. P. Thompson to Palmer, December 10, 1879,
Palmer Papers.

76Detroit Free Press, December 5, 1879.

77Thomas McDaniel to Palmer, February (?), 1880,

Palmer Papers.

78Detroit Free Press, May 13, 1880; Detroit
Evening News, May 13, 1880.

 

79Detroit Free Press, August 4, 1880; Detroit
Eveninngews, August 3, 4, 1880.

80Detroit Evening News, August 5, 1880.

 

81Detroit Post and Tribune, August 5, 1880.

 

82Detroit Evening News, August 6, 1880; Detroit
Post and Tribune, August 6, 1880; Swihart, "Thomas W.
Palmer,fpp. 55-56.

 

83Detroit Post and Tribune, August 7, 1880.

84Detrgit Evening News, August 12, November 3,
1880; Detroit Free Press, November 4, 1880; Lansing
Republican, November 13, 1880.

 

 

.zer, C
Sweater

tattert:

1
a

David H.

Pa

Nut “‘ 7

L r .
- Av

«a n . vi

P e .

\H‘
c u... A:
9» a NO

82

85E. W. Cottrell to Palmer, February 19, 1881;

David H. Jerome to Palmer, May 6, 1881; D. Henderson to
Palmer, October 1, 1881; A. H. Harrison to Palmer,
November 19, 1881. Palmer Papers.

86J. s. M. to Palmer, December 13, 1881; M.

Chatterton to Palmer. Palmer Papers.

87Don Henderson to Palmer, January 3, 1882, Palmer

Papers.

88J. Shepard to Palmer, May 22, 1882, Palmer

Papers.

89J. Shepard to Palmer, July 7, 1882; K. W. Noyes

to Palmer, August 14, 1882. Palmer Papers. Detroit Post
and Tribune, August 29, 1882.

 

90Detroit Post and Tribune, August 31, 1882.

91Lansing Republican, September 6, 13, 1882;
Detroit Evening News, November 8, 1882.

 

CHAPTER III

THE 818T BALLOT: THE SENATORIAL

STRUGGLE OF 1883

The yoke placed upon the shoulders of Michigan
Republicans by their defeat at the polls in the election
of 1882 was an onerous and uncomfortable burden to bear,
particularly for a proud political party that had grown
accustomed to victory. The magnitude of the defeat
stunned Republican leaders and the rank and file alike.
The confused Republican press lashed out with bitter
attacks upon the fusionists, the prohibitionists, and
the "traitors" in the Republican party in an effort to
fix the blame for defeat. Gloom and despair enveloped
Michigan Republicans in the aftermath of their sudden
and unexpected political reversal.l

One of the few Michigan Republicans in that bleak
November who could look to the future with an optimistic
spirit was Thomas W. Palmer. He believed that although
the defeat was by a "landslide," he had confidence that
the Republican party possessed enough vitality to sur-
vive»,a "good drubbing" and he had "hope for better things
in tlie future."2

83

.fim! Aiy4.lh'_

n“. An vL >1. ‘0...

l tter ‘

.0 a
ACCEGS
wand a

. y
in .ne

84

The reason for his optimism may have been the
letter written to him by J. B. Whittier on November 5,
1882. Whittier reported that at a clandestine meeting
some thirty office holders had decided to run a candidate
for the United States Senate to Oppose the incumbent
Thomas W. Ferry. The group had also decided that they
would attempt to persuade Ferry's Republican Opponents
in the legislature to boycott the caucus call. Whittier
indicated that he believed, despite Palmer's protestations
to the contrary, that Palmer wanted to be a United States
senator. Whittier thought that Palmer could achieve that
goal by accepting the draft Offered him although it might
mean having "to tread on somebody's toes."3

Palmer's immediate reaction to Whittier's proposal
is not known. However a letter from a J. W. French dated
December 6, 1882, inquiring about Palmer's chances in the
"political field" indicates that Palmer must have been
giving some thought to his prospects for the senatorship.
Undoubtedly he had discussed with some of the "thirty"
the extent of his backing and the risks involved.4

Palmer received even more food for thought when
James Shepard, his trusted political advisor, wrote him
a confidential letter from Washington. Shepard informed
him that he had Obtained certain information concerning

Senator Ferry that should cause him to be tabooed by all

Republicans. Shepard thought that the evidence was

..-- lam-L... 1.. ._..rr p-..‘.nn—Aa.‘.. .Hfi

85

sufficiently damning to justify Perry's enemies in any
action that they might undertake. He was confident that
Ferry could be beaten although it might require a bitter
battle to defeat him. Shepard advised Palmer to become
a candidate for senator but cautioned him to remain
friendly with Ferry and his supporters since it was from
their ranks that Palmer would have to draw his margin of
victory. Shepard, did not, however, give specific details
in regard to the information against Ferry.5

After receiving this letter Palmer began to work
secretly for the Republican nomination for senator. His
strategy as it developed was based on the information and
ideas provided by Shepard. Palmer was aware that certain
Republicans would boycott the Republican caucus and thus
prevent an immediate Ferry victory whether he participated
or not. Therefore he would remain aloof from the proceed-
ings but, if asked, would indicate that he supported
Ferry. As Ferry's position grew weaker, trusted Palmer
agents would attempt to persuade Ferry supporters to
select Palmer as their second choice. When the damning
information against Ferry was revealed and the senator's
support faded, Palmer could step into the breach. Since
he would refrain from conducting any personal campaign
against Ferry, he would not be the Object of Ferry's rage
and vengeance when he was faced with defeat. It was a

shrewdly devised plan but also a big gamble. Palmer's

 

86

ally was time. The more protracted the struggle became,
the better would be his chances of victory. Palmer's
position was strengthened by an unexpected and an inad-
vertent ally. Congressman Jay Hubbeel from the Upper
Peninsula disliked Ferry intensely. His personal animosity
drove him to make a bitter and vindicative public attack
on the senator. The Detroit Free Press thought that al-
though Hubbell's remarks would not guarantee Ferry's de-
feat, the resulting controversy would reveal to the public
the characters of Hubbell and Ferry as well as the inner
machinations of the Republican party. Time would prove
the Free Press to be highly prophetic.6

As the time for the choice of a senator drew
closer, leading Republican newspapers such as the Lansing

Republican became apprehensive. Rumors Of Republican dis-

 

sension and the "caucus bolt" were widespread throughout
the state. The advocacy of the candidacy Of James F. Joy
by the Detroit Post and Tribune, Chandler's former paper,
caused further dismay in the Republican ranks.7

The Lansing Republican warned Republicans of the
need of unity. It pointed out that the united Opposition
was ready to take advantage of any dissension in Republi-
can.ranks to elect Orlando M. Barnes, the chairman of the
Democratic Central Committee. The Lansing paper did not
underrate Barnes, declaring that he had "the faculty of

facixmg north, south, east and west at a moment's warning

to take advantage of any passing political breeze which

 

gi"es I

‘ I
tnotgn

IOI t3

ICI VlC

' Q
9. .‘
... CaJ

Q.
fl‘yvu

H. t icec

6"”.r

-

“ts-JC‘E

‘ s

..

FA -
M F o

no; r:\

87

gives promises of carrying his party into power." Al-

though the Republican believed that it would be impossible

 

for the Democrats to succeed in such a venture, it con-
ceded that the Opposition would exert a maximum effort
for victory regardless of the odds against them. Despite
the calls for harmony, the Michigan Republicans remained
divided, as declared and undeclared opponents Of Ferry
prepared for battle as the election drew near.8

On December 29, 1882, the Detroit Free Press set
the pattern for the Democratic campaign against Ferry's
re-election. The paper had conceded that it was impossi-
ble for a Democrat to defeat Ferry. Therefore it issued
a bipartisan appeal for Ferry's removal. It pointed out
that a senator represented his state and that a state was
judged by its senators. Senators, it said, such as
"Mahone and Platt and Conger--and shall we add Ferry--
convey a poor impression of the state they profess to
represent and all the peOple of those states without
distinction of party suffer thereby." Thus the Eggg
§£g§§_attempted to depict Ferry as a strict party
politician who should be replaced by a man who--regardless
of party affiliation--would be sensitive to the needs of
the state as a whole.9

Two days later, the Detroit Post and Tribune
began a series of attacks following the lead of the £233

Presss, calling upon all members of the legislature to

88

reject Ferry. The paper made a particular appeal to
Republican friends of Ferry, exhorting them to rise above
personal friendship and to act on behalf of the "Republi-
can party and the nation." The Post and Tribune accused
Ferry of being a tool of the political machine and de-
clared that the Republican party was ripe for a change,
demanding new men, purer methods, and a leader. The paper
further called upon Ferry to do the honorable thing and
withdraw from the contest to avoid a bitter split in the
party. Of course the Post and Tribune did not "honorably"
admit that the real reason that it opposed Ferry was be-
cause it had its own candidate, James Joy.10

Ferry was not unaware of the opposition that was
developing to his renomination for he sent out letters
both personally and by his agents requesting aid and sup-
port from key legislators. He not only asked for their
votes but also requested them to use their influence in
his behalf. As the incumbent, he had control Of the
official party machinery and the party patronage, both
assets which he did not intend to overlook. He was also
aware of the great conflict over the geographical repre-
sentation of the senatorship. As the Republican majori-
‘ties were generally furnished by the western portion of
the state, which he represented, Ferry could count on its
firnl.loyalty. Both northern and eastern parts of the

state: feared the domination of the south, and particularly

 

 

the Detrc
candidate
930L‘p of
position
stood th

EOItSEII‘.

~E
.~
We a
K.‘ “t
Es;
\ke‘ ‘
"I
s '7 H
at we
\
‘,-.
"3351

89

the Detroit area, too much to settle readily on a Detroit
candidate. With the Opposition divided and with a loyal
group of followers behind him, it appeared that Ferry's
position was fairly secure because as the incumbent he
stood the best chance of acquiring the votes of the
northern and eastern delegates.ll

Although members began to gather during the first
week of January for the Opening of the 1883 session of the
state legislature, the crucial balloting for the United
States senator was not to begin until January 16. There
was ample time and opportunity for the various interest
groups and factions to engage in campaigning for their
favorites. The newspapers were also busy, issuing declar-
ations of support for candidates, denouncing their oppon-
ents, and generally providing more grist for the rumor
mills that were already active.

The newspapers were confused as to the actual
state of affairs because no one was quite sure how effec-
tive Ferry's control over his supporters was and how
united in its efforts was the Opposition. On January 1,
the Detroit Evening News reported that Ferry's chances
for re-election appeared dim. On January 2, however, it
admitted that the expected Opposition had not as yet
materialized in any considerable strength. On January 3,
the Detroit Post and Tribune agreed that the Ferry

Opposition did not seem to be solidly organized. The

papers 1

t ' .\‘I'1‘
.01 buu'

0f Detn

the Rap

ment of

90

papers did report that scattered support had developed
for Judge Solomon Withey of Grand Rapids and James McMillan
Of Detroit.12
The strategy of the Ferry forces was to dominate
the Republican party caucus and win the party's endorse-
ment of Ferry, thus virtually assuring his victory since
the Republicans held a clear majority in the legislature.
To prevent this, a coalition of anti-Ferry Republicans
held a meeting on January 3 at Jay Hubbell's Lansing
headquarters. They agreed that they would recognize no
petition for a caucus as binding upon them unless at
least sixty-seven of the eighty-one Republican legislators
signed it. Since over twenty Republicans Opposed Ferry's
re-election, it was believed that he could never muster
the required number of signatures. One of the dissidents
explained to the press that they were not party "bolters"
but were only seeking "to control the nomination Of a man
who will represent the views and wishes of the peOple of
this state and not merely of the machine politicians."13
Ferry and his supporters did not let the actions
of the dissatisfied minority disrupt their plans. They
held a caucus which fifty-six Republicans attended. As
expected Ferry won their backing. Twenty-five of the
eighty-one Republican legislature remained unpledged.l4
The days following the Republican caucus were

filled with tension and anxiety as the various factions

 

 

attempt
lator,

1301.3“ t
rtpture
anti-F e

influen

91

attempted to solidify their strength. One veteran legis-
lator, Brackley Shaw of Adrian, wrote his wife that he
thought that the "senatorial question" might end in a
rupture Of the party and reported that both Ferry and
anti-Ferry forces were exerting maximum efforts to
influence legislators to vote for their respective candi-
date.15
Palmer in the meantime was following his plan of
being ostensibly for Ferry while secretly working for his
own nomination. Two of his letters illustrate his deli-
cate position. He wrote the following to Sam H. Row:
I want to say I am a friend of Senator Ferry's and
hope to see him nominated despite the vituperation
heaped upon him. If he can't get it and the party
can harmonize on me better than on another my friends
are at liberty to use my name. I will not scramble
for the place.
In a slightly different vein he wrote these words to
George HOpkins:
I have not yet got the senatorial bee in the bonnet.
I am friendly to Senator Ferry and hOpe he is re-
elected. The unification Of the party is the first
thing—-after that--selfish interest.
In the first letter Palmer called attention to his avail-
ability while he maintained his pose Of being a loyal
Ferry supporter. In the second letter his aim was to
allay the fears of a Ferry follower who had heard that
Palmer was secretly undermining Ferry's support. It was

a dangerous game that Palmer played but the stakes were

high and victory could only be achieved by disguising

his tr

. 1
teen.

can".

their

92

his true intentions until the proper time came to reveal
them.16
There was one factor that undoubtedly caused
Palmer and the other anti-Ferry men a great deal of con-
cern. That was the reaction of the Greenbackers and
Democrats to the maneuvering going on in the Republican
camp. Although not numerically strong enough to elect
their own candidate, they could decide the election by
supporting Ferry. There had been rumors that Ferry had
made overtures to the political opposition for support.
If such an alliance was made, then Ferry would win.
Whether actual negotiations between Ferry and the Green-
backers took place is not known, but no such support was
immediately forthcoming. On January 12, the Greenbackers
and Democrats met in joint caucus to choose their candi-
date. On the seventh ballot they selected Byron G. Stout,
a former speaker of the Michigan House from Pontiac. The
anti-Ferry men breathed a sigh of relief.17
As the day for the election drew closer, evidence
Of increased anti-Ferry strength appeared. Several
Republican names were being brought forward as possible
candidates. The rabidly anti-Ferry Detroit Post and Tri-
bggg_reported that popular Opinion was rising against the

senator. More significantly the most representative

party organ in the state, the Lansing Republican, unleashed

 

a torrent Of abuse against the anti-Ferry Republicans who

A
o
-

 

 

‘

u.
4,-
Ql 5‘
‘A
4::

a t

E»

93

insisted on avoiding a party caucus. It declared that it
was "poor Republicanism where personal spite would allow
the United States Senate to be turned into the hands of
the democracy."18
On Tuesday, January 16, the first Of eighty-one
ballots for United States Senator was taken by the

Michigan legislature. On this ballot sixteen men received

support. The four leading candidates and their totals

are as follows:19
Thomas W. Ferry 59
Byron G. Stout 50
Byron M. Cutcheon 4
Benton Hanchett 4

The Ferry forces did not expect that they would
win on the first ballot but did expect to garner 62 votes
and were slightly disheartened when they discovered that
they had fallen short of that number. Both Ferry and
anti-Ferry forces prOphesied victory although there were
newspaper reports that some Ferry supporters were looking
for an alternate candidate. The Post and Tribune declared
that the bitter and intense feeling exhibited by the
Opponents of Ferry was so great that the only solution
would be the "election of some inoffensive man, a compro-
mise candidate between the warring factions." The Detroit
Ngw§_was of the opinion that no Detroit man could be

elected unless he had Ferry's blessing. It also believed,

however,
oppositi
Ferry.

which ca

the sene
with fr:

learner;

Q
.\ ‘\
“'35
I“
“an
i":
5

94

however, that any Detroiter selected by Ferry would face
Opposition from the "coterie" in Detroit who Opposed
Ferry. Such a candidate would be defeated no matter
which camp he favored.20
Palmer, meanwhile, was keeping himself posted on
the senatorial situation by correspondence and telegrams
with friends who were in Lansing for the contest. He
learned that his enemies in Detroit were pushing a candi-
date from the western portion of the state to attract
some of Ferry's supporters. If this information disturbed
him, he did not indicate it in his letters. More vital
to Palmer was the report made to him by Thomas Smurth-
waite in a letter written three days after the first
ballot had been taken. Smurthwaite predicted that Ferry
would be beaten and confirmed the newspaper reports that
a compromise candidate seemed to be in the offing. He
urged Palmer to be at Lansing when the "breakdown"
occurred. He also advised him not to subvert the candi-
dacy of Byron Cutcheon a well-liked mid-Michigan Republi-
can. He argued that if Cutcheon was removed from con—
tention, a dozen candidates would spring up in his place.
It would be easier, he advised, to leave Cutcheon where
he was for the present as he could easily be defeated
When the time came.21

On January 18 the voting resumed. Three ballots

‘were taken and the day ended with Ferry losing three more

95

votes. On the 19th, Ferry received 52 votes while on the
20th his support had dwindled to 40. Even the pro-Ferry
Lansing Republican called the situation "complicated" and
urged the minority factions to remember that in the majority
rested the future of party organization. It also reminded
Republicans that the "eyes of the country" were on Michi-
gan, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Illinois,
where incumbent Republicans were striving for re-election
to the United States Senate. The Republican's attempt to
elevate the conflict to the status of a national issue
fell upon deaf ears and the fruitless balloting con-

22

tinued.

The Democratic Detroit Free Press thoroughly

 

enjoyed the discomfiture of the Republican party as it
went about its business of destroying itself at Lansing.
In a concise analysis Of the senatorial struggle it
pointed out the seemingly impossible solution to the
Republican dilemma:

What the Republican opponents of Ferry want is a

candidate who will not only unite their scattered

force in a solid phalanx but by personal magnetism

or in some other effective way collect recruits and

build up a majority vote. They want the darkest

kind of dark horse.23

As the voting progressed in the succeeding days

it became apparent that the Ferry vote was going to remain
in the 40's. The Democrats stood stolidly behind their

candidate while the anti-Ferry Republican votes were

scattered among a number of candidates. Ferry was unable

 

 

towin b)
Detroit 1
senator

'their 9

if; the c
Colonel

dHS lat

96

to win but unwilling to allow anyone else to win. The
Detroit Eveninngews attributed the stubborness of the
senator and his supporters to a reluctance to relinquish
"their grip upon the spoils of Office."24
Palmer had refrained from overtly participating
in the contest. On January 22, he received word that a
Colonel Ward had been sent to Lansing on his behalf. Five
days later he himself became more active. He wrote to a
Muskegon business partner, Newcomb McGraft, and gave him
the following instructions:
Please organize your force and be in readiness to go
to Lansing on receipt of the telegraph from Living-
stone. Get some men who can influence Read if

possible so that when the break up comes as it is
likely to at any time, you can bring him over to me.

25

That same day he wrote the following to a Paul Blackman:
You are stirring the thing up as it should be. Keep
me posted when you leave home so that I can tele-
graph the time to bring the friendly cohorts to the
aid of the righteous if the Ferry men cannot get
through. Brin down 3 or 4 influential men from
each locality.

These letters indicate that Palmer's plans were
well laid and called for a concentration of backers arriv-
ing in Lansing to "boom" him when the break in the Ferry
ranks came. As Palmer apparently had prior knowledge as
to the time Of the "break," it may indicate that he or
his supporters were responsible for it.

January drew to a close with the contest still

undecided. Each day brought new rumors of new combi-

nations developing for one candidate or another. The

97

most sensational story going around was that the Democrats
and the Greenbackers were working on a plan to throw their
support behind Judge Thomas Cooley--an eminent and re-
spected jurist--who could attract Republican support. The
success of such a plan would be a severe defeat for the
Republican party. The Lansing Republican again warned
Republicans of their dangerous position by declaring that
"the Republican party of Michigan stands today on the
brink of a political Niagara--one more step will bring

the final plunge."27

A significant development in the contest occurred

on January 30. On that day the Detroit Free Press noted

 

that a number of Palmer's friends were in Lansing drumming
up support for him. The paper reported that "if the
football of fortune should come in their direction they
are prepared to lay hold of it.“ On that same day three
ballots were taken in the legislature and Palmer received
three votes on the first, nine on the second, and eight

on the third. This was the first evidence of his strength
and it took many political Observers by surprise. It
appeared that Palmer's strategy had begun to work.28

Coinciding with Palmer's surprising" emergence as

a senatorial candidate was the Detroit Evening News'

 

"bombshell," dropped on January 30. The paper accused
Senator Ferry of resorting to bribery to secure his re-
election. Specifically it charged him with offering his

arch-enemy Hubbell a foreign mission and control of

5;.

gr

I

“

Uta

CC

FA‘

4:

«\v

a:
.Hh

A

Q

98

federal patronage in Michigan in return for support. The
following day the paper announced that a joint legis-
lative committee was to be established to investigate
the charge. Ferry did not issue an immediate statement.29
Meanwhile, the voting continued. On February 2,
the Republican minority handed a proposition to Henry W.
Seymour, the chairman of the Republican caucus. The
group declared that they were loyal Republicans but were
unalterably Opposed to Ferry. They desired to settle the
contest by the choice Of a compromise candidate. This
move may have been prompted by the fear that Ferry might
align himself with the Greenbackers and Democrats. If
so, this fear was justified. On the following day the
"fusionists" began voting for Ferry. This movement was
halted by subsequent defections of half-hearted Ferry
supporters to other candidates.30
On February 3 the legislature adjourned for ten
days amid rumors that Ferry had met financial disaster
and the news that Senator William Windom, the Republican
incumbent in Minnesota, had been defeated in his bid for
re-election. Many people expected Ferry to be the next
in line. Ferry, however, remained outwardly optimistic,
and newspapers backing him continued to defend him with
undiminished volume.31

Palmer in the meantime was busy answering accu-

sations that he was acting in bad faith by working for

EXCEI

the ‘r:

104,:

'1’7’1‘1‘1

‘
:erru
CI“, to

‘- .

k .

~'_'_' 1 ‘I
4 a‘

99

his own nomination while pretending to be for Ferry. He
repeatedly declared that he was not a "dark horse candi-
date" while Ferry was in the field but that in the event
the senator should withdraw from the race, he might
possibly allow his name to be presented. The following
excerpt from a letter of a Palmer supporter is probably
the best example Of Palmer's tactics. He wrote:

We are trying to elect Senator Ferry. If we cannot

do it we must look for a second choice. See Loring

your representative to make Palmer second choice.

Palmer will not allow his name to be used until Mr.

Ferry's name is withdrawn.

During the legislative recess the rumors of

Ferry's financial insolvency proved to be true. Ferry
had been involved in numerous business enterprises, of
which the most important was a lumber company in Grand
Haven. The failure of a silver company in Utah precipi-
tated his bankruptcy. According to newspaper reports
Ferry had used almost every penny he could lay his hands
on to maintain the mine's solvency. Unpaid bills in-
cluded one for his room and board in Lansing. To make
matters worse, it was claimed that he had obtained money
by illegal means. Among other things he was accused of
having pocketed an advance he had received to pay the
bills of the Ottawa Iron Works, a company in which he
owned stock. This news of Ferry's financial failures

and transactions reportedly had a deep effect on even

the staunchest of his supporters.34

100

The legislature resumed its balloting on February
13 with Ferry leading the pack with 44 votes. The rest of
the Republican ballots, however, were scattered over a
number Of candidates, making a Ferry victory highly
improbable. In the meantime a joint legislative committee
was assigned to investigate the allegations Of bribery and
corruption leveled against Ferry and began to hold hear-
ings. The most damning testimony against the senator was
that of Detroit's mayor to the effect that Ferry had pro-
mised that he "could have the Detroit Custom House" if he
supported him. The mayor said that he had agreed to
Ferry's prOposition. He also said that Ferry had re-
vealed a list of legislators who had been paid to support
him. The Eveninngews reported that despite rigorous
cross-examination, the attempts to "shake" Mayor W. G.
Thompson's testimony were "ineffectual."35

On February 16, the day after this startling
revelation, a hurried consultation was held by Ferry
supporters. It was decided to release the members from

their caucus Obligation. The Post and Tribune reported

 

that as "soon as the news was heard, a Palmer boom broke
out and its pent-up logs ruled the city. Livingstone,
who holds the ends of the Palmer wires, was chirpy and
as a cricket in the lobby Of the Lansing House."

Despite the Post and Tribune's report the Evening News

 

 

could only state three days later that there was still

101

"no gleam of light in Lansing." The contest had broken
into a free-for-all with "every man for himself and
devil take the hindmost."36

The voting reflected the unexpected turn of
events. On February 16 Ferry received only 13 votes. On
February 17 and 20 he received 11 and 12 votes while
Palmer on those days received 12 and 13 votes.37

By February 19 Palmer was in Lansing reportedly
"working like a beaver" to advance his cause. The success
of his efforts was reflected in the increased number of
votes cast for him. On February 23, the Evening News
reported that his prospects looked good.38

On February 22 Palmer attended a meeting of Ferry
supporters at which it was decided to try one more “Ferry
boom." The next day Ferry received only 29 votes while
Palmer had increased his total to 27. It was clear that
Ferry could not win.39

Legislators were resentful Of the pressures by the
various factions and exhausted by the long continued
balloting. Still the pressure upon them increased as the
people of Michigan grew weary of the unresolved contest
whose end seemed not in sight. The Lansing Republican
did report on February 27 that there seemed to be a grow-
ing feeling that a senator from the western part of the
state would be elected. If this was true, Francis
Stockbridge would be the man most likely to win the

. . 4
nomination. 0

bloc

21.28

is

f]

the J

V; Id

0C

&
u

a:

FA‘
we ‘

.a

vi a: .s — A»
E .. a S l
. {u :4 r c a
u: A: .s s u a
b _. . - CL u u

I 1 ‘ "
C. C C
‘flu is e Wt:
.. a a c a. c
b a «Q A v I \
-hU u ... 5.. I?

n\\
RN

102

Although the Lansing Republican and most other
political Observers did not know it, Palmer had already
blocked this threat. He had persuaded Henry Seymour, the
chairman of the Republican caucus, to declare for him when
time for the break came. It was believed by Palmer and
his supporters that Seymour would carry the majority of
the Ferry vote with him. They had also infiltrated
Stockbridge's supporters and had promises from a number
Of them to switch to Palmer after it became apparent that
Stockbridge could not win.41

The last days of February witnessed a gradual
polarization toward two candidates, Palmer and Stock-
bridge. The beginning of March brought hopes that the
new senator would be selected at last. Two ballots were
taken on March 1, but no decision was reached and the
legislature was recessed until 7:30 in the evening. The
first two ballots in the evening session were not sig-
nificant. On the next ballot (the fifth ballot of the
day) a movement began to strip votes from Palmer. Stock-
bridge's campaign manager, however, suddenly and dra-
matically withdrew Stockbridge's name. A change of 1
vote from Lt. Governor Crosby to Palmer gave the latter
41 votes and a majority of the 81 Republican votes in
the legislature. Then Ferry supporters began to switch
to Palmer and "soon it was only a question with the rest

of the boys to see how quick they could get in out of

 

103

the wet," as one Palmer supporter later remarked. The

final vote totals were as follows:42

Palmer 75
Ferry 2
Stout 42

In his acceptance address Palmer said that he

did not regard his election as a personal triumph. He
said that he had had no idea that he would be elected,
having thought, rather, that his contribution to the
"conclusion of the conflict" would be his withdrawal as
a candidate. He ended his speech with an appeal for
harmony, not only in the Republican party but throughout
the state as well.

My first duty [he said] I consider to be the flag of

my country--that flag which has been baptized in

blood and consecrated by prayers. My second duty

will be to my state. It will be no eastern district;

it will be no western district with me. I shall not

be confined to southern or northern lines. The

question of location shall have nothing to do with

my preference or my acts. My aim will be to serve

the peOple of Michigan faithfully.43

The reaction of the press to Palmer's election was

generally favorable. The Post and Tribune--the newspaper
which now represented his Detroit enemies--declared that
if Palmer "lived on the west side of the state he might
have been elected immediately after Ferry disappeared."
The partisan Saginaw Weekly Courier called his election

"Tom's Triumph" and said that although he might "not be

as brilliant a senator as has graced the halls of the

104

United States Senate" he would "look after the interests
of his state loyally and intelligently." The Detroit
Free Press called Palmer's victory a "personal triumph"
because he had had to overcome the Opposition of his
Republican enemies in Detroit. The paper went on to say
that if they "regarded the senator-elect solely with
reference to his personal qualities the people of the
state of Michigan could not have a more agreeable repre-
sentative in Senate."44
The best analysis of Palmer's victory was made by
the Detroit Evening News. It commented on the confusion
surrounding the election and remarked that the "lack of
discipline" had been so great that it was "impossible at
any time to draw a visible line between contending hosts
and difficult to tell what any particular faction was
struggling for." It called Palmer's success "a matter Of
survival . . . a selection of wind and bottom rather than
speed." The paper particularly noted the "consummate
skill" with which Palmer's campaign had been handled.
Palmer's key to victory, it said, was the unity possessed
by his followers: from the first there had been "en-
45

tirely cohesive."

The Evening News was perhaps more accurate than

 

it knew in its analysis of Palmer's success. The key to
Palmer's victory was indeed organization. The newspaper

could not have known the extent of the planning and

 

105

organization that lay behind his triumph. Backed by a
dedicated group of supporters, Palmer had been able to
plot his strategy down to the last detail. Professing
outward loyalty to the incumbent Ferry, he had cleverly
subverted and undermined Ferry's support in order to pave
the way for his own candidacy when Ferry inevitably
faltered. Palmer--who had been forewarned that there
was information that would destroy Ferry--had gambled
his political future upon exploiting the "break" to the
fullest when it occurred. It was a plan that required
patience, steady nerves, and a certain amount of ruthless-
ness. Palmer's actions revealed that he possessed these
qualities in abundance. Aided by his loyal and close-
mouthed supporters and the charm of his "genial" person-
ality, Palmer had emerged from political limbo to win in
one of the most controversial and bitter political con-
tests ever tO be waged in Michigan.

Three days after his election, Palmer's nephew,
Henry Roby, expressed his surprise at his uncle's victory
--he had thought the cause was hopeless. Roby commented
in his letter that "it would be an interesting piece of
political wire working to know the inside history of how
it was brought about." Perhaps Palmer satisfied his
nephew's curiosity.46

Now a United States Senator, Palmer was faced

with the delicate task of binding the wounds created by

.Pl
+\.

10

she

par

 

 

106

the lengthy senatorial contest. Many people expected him
to be the Republican leader who would finally fill the
shoes Of Zach Chandler. Others expected him to live up

to the words of his acceptance address when he stated

that he would represent his state first and the Republican
party second. Thus the people of Michigan would be closely
watching and weighing his actions. Only by hard work and

distinguished service could he hope to win their approval.

3.

Pa

mu.

Pa

Pa

, x

2
\u

t\

 

 

FOOTNOTES --CHAPTER I I I

lLansing Republican, November 15, 1882.

2palmer to E. F. Guild, November 16, 1882, T. w.
Palmer Letterbooks, Palmer Papers.

3J. B. Whittier to Palmer, November 5, 1882,
Palmer Papers.

4J. W. French to Palmer, December 6, 1882,
Palmer Papers.

5James Shepard to Palmer, December 7, 1882,
Palmer Papers.

6Detroit Free Press, December 15, 1882.

 

7Lansing Republican, December 20, 1882; Detroit
Free Press, January 2, 1882.

 

 

8Lansing Republican, December 20, 27, 1882.

 

9Detroit Free Press, December 29, 1882.

 

10Detroit Post and Tribune, January 1, 4, 1883.

 

11Thomas W. Ferry to Byron M. Cutcheon, December
21, 1882, Byron M. Cutcheon Papers (Burton Historical
Collection, Detroit Public Library, Detroit, Michigan).
Hereinafter cited as Cutcheon Papers. Charles Bowerfind
to Brackley Shaw, January 8, 1883, Brackley Shaw Papers
(University of Michigan Historical Collections, Ann
Arbor, Michigan). Hereinafter cited as Shaw Papers.

12Detroit Evening News, January 1, 2, 1883;
Detroit Post and Tribune, January 3, 1883.

107

.FU

Fr:

(h-I—

he fits

YE. ‘Ht‘ h

H:

11

s s

has

108

13Detroit Evening News, January 3, 1883; Detroit
Post and Tribune, January 4, 1883.

 

l4Detroit Post and Tribune, January 5, 1883;
Detroit Eveninngews, January 5, 1883.

 

15Brackley Shaw to his wife, January 9, 1883,
Shaw Papers.

16Palmer to Sam H. Row, January 9, 1883; Palmer

to George Hopkins, January 9, 1883, T. W. Palmer Letter-
books. Palmer Papers.

l7Detroit Evening News, January 4, 12, 1883.

 

18LansingRepublican, January 10, 16, 1883;
Detroit Post and Tribune, January 13, 1883.

 

19Detroit EveningpNews, January 16, 1883.

 

20Detroit Post and Tribune, January 17, 1883;
§aginaw Weekly Courier, January 18, 1883; Detroit Post and
Tribune, January 18, 1883; January 16, 1883.

 

 

21A. H. Morrison to Palmer, January 12, 1883;
Thomas Smurthwaite to Palmer, January 19, 1883. Palmer
Papers.

22Detroit Evening News, January 18, 19, 20, 1883;

Lansing Republican, January I9, 1883; Detroit Post and
Tribune, January 20, 1883.

 

 

23Detroit Free Press, January 21, 1883.

 

24Detroit Evening News, January 25, 30, 24, 1883.

 

25A. H. Morrison to Palmer, January 22, 1883,
Palmer Papers; Palmer to Newcomb McGraft, January 27,
1883, T. W. Palmer Letterbooks, Palmer Papers.

26Palmer to Paul Blackman, January 27, 1883,

T. W. Palmer Letterbooks, Palmer Papers; Swihart, "Thomas
W. Palmer," p. 76.

27Lansing Republican, January 31, February 1, 1883.

 

n: .J

P—

uni

3:25. P

A:
u.

E
\1.

2w
~\~

34'.

ll’
R).
I :1

109

28Detroit Free Press, January 30, 1883; Detroit
Evening News, January 30, 1883; Detroit Post and Tribune,
January 31,1883.

 

 

 

29Ibid.

3oDetroit Evening News, February 2, 1883; Detroit
Post and Tribune, February 5, 1883.

 

31Detroit Evening News, February 3, 5, 1883;
Detroit Post and Tribune, February 8, 1883.

 

 

32Palmer to La Du, February 7, 1883, T. W. Palmer
Letterbooks, Palmer Papers.

33E. Cottrell to J. Boynton, February 10, 1883,
Palmer Papers.

34Lansing Republican, February 7, 10, 15,1883;
Detroit Post and Tribune, February 13, 1883; Detroit
Evening News, February 12, 1883; Saginaw Weekly Courier,
February 15,1883.

 

 

35Detroit Evening News, February 13, 15-16, 1883.

 

36Detroit Post and Tribune, February 16, 1883;
Detroit Evening News, February 16, 1883.

 

37Ibid.; Lansing Republican, February 20, 1883;
Saginaw Weekly Courier, February 21,1883.

 

 

38G. Wring to Byron Cutcheon, February 19, 1883,
Cutcheon Papers; Detroit Evening News, February 23, 1883.

 

39Detroit Evening News, February 22,1883; Lansing
Republican, February 24,1883.

 

40A. O. Hyde to Palmer, February 26, 1883, Palmer
Papers; Lansing Republican, February 27, 1883; Swihart,
"Thomas W. Palmer, pp. 77, 78.

41George (?) to brother Joe, February 24, 1883;
(?) to wm. Livingstone, February 26, 1883. Palmer Papers.

U)
$31.3.
(I) L

I

'U
‘1)
It)

110

42Lansing Republican, March 1, 3, 1883; Detroit
Evening News, March 2, 1883; Detroit Free Press, March 2,
1883; Detroit Post and Tribune, March 2, 1883; New York
Times, March42, 1883.

 

43Detroit Free Press, March 2, 1883.

44Detroit Post and Tribune, March 2, 1883;
Saginaw Weekly Courier, March 8, 1883; Detroit Free
Press, March 2, 1883.

 

45Detroit Evening News, March 2, 1883.

46H. M. Roby to Palmer, March 4, 1883, Palmer

Papers.

CHAPTER IV

FRESHMAN SENATOR IN THE 48TH CONGRESS

The national political scene in the post-
reconstruction era has been frequently described by his-
torians as a time of political impotence when neither
political parties nor presidents chose to respond to the
real issues of the day. To understand this period of
political equilibrium it must be remembered that most
Americans, as well as their politicians, adhered to a
policy Of laissez-faire in regard to social welfare as
well as in economic affairs. Thus the federal government
was not expected by most of the American people to re-
spond to the social and economic problems of the day.

It must be remembered also that the nation's
voters gave no overwhelming majorities to either presi-
dential candidates or political parties. Although the
Republicans won four of the six presidential elections
held during the period, 1876-1896, in only one (1896)

did they receive a majority of the popular vote. In
none of these elections was the victorious party's popular

vote greater than 51 per cent. On two occasions, in 1876

111

112

and 1888, the Democratic loser had more pOpular votes
than the Republican winner.1

Although losing the presidency most of the time,
the Democrats managed to match the Republicans' strength
in Congress. Between 1870 and 1894 they possessed majori-
ties in the House during nine Congresses, which enabled
them to check any attempt of the Republicans to dominate
the legislature.2

The Republicans controlled the Senate during this
time except for a two-year period (1879-81), but between
1876 and 1890 they could muster a majority Of more than
three for only two years. Neither political party con-
trolled both Congress and the Presidency at the same
time. Thus, with the absence of a clear cut consensus
and an effective majority, it is no wonder that the
political process appeared stalemated. With the two
major political parties dependent upon slender voting
majorities, they were very hesitant to undertake a radi-
cal change in policy for fear that it would shift the
precarious balance of power in the Opposite direction.3

Party discipline in both houses of Congress was
extremely lax so that legislators frequently crossed
party lines, particularly on hills which dealt with such
key issues as the tariff or sound money. The House
lacked strong speakers and was hampered by archaic rules

such as its quorum rule, which required that no bill

113

could be approved unless a quorum was present and voting;
thus a minority could impede legislation by not respond-
ing to roll call. In the Senate, individual senators
prided themselves on their independence and no group was
able to control the Senate's action on many critical
pieces of legislation. Thus a party's numerical majority
in the Senate or the House would Often be a misleading
statistic since voting coalitions rapidly changed, depend-
ing upon the issue under discussion.4

At this time the executive office was dominated
by Congress. The President was not expected to initiate
legislation since most people, including a majority of
the presidents, believed that the Chief Executive's role
was to execute legislation and that it was the job of
Congress to produce the legislation. Even if a Presi-
dent attempted to assert himself as a leader, a politi-
cally hostile Congress or a divided party prevented him
from assuming this position of leadership.5

Such was the state of national politics in 1883
when Palmer entered the United States Senate. It was a
time when political parties straddled major issues, when
party discipline was virtually nonexistent, and when
legislative discussion Often avoided the crucial issues

Of the period.

 

f)

114

TABLE l.--Politica1 strength Of the parties in Congress,

 

 

 

1883-1889
House Of
First Representatives Senate
Session
Congress Demo- Repub- Demo- Repub-
crats licans Others crats licans Others

48 197 118 10 36 33 2

49 183 140 2 34 43

50 169 152 4 37 39 6

 

One of the most difficult tasks that initially
confronted the new senator was the distribution of the
spoils. The spoils in this case were the federal appoint-
ments for the positions as customs and internal revenue
collectors for the Michigan districts. These positions
were by Republican tradition the patronage plums allotted
to the Michigan senators to be distributed to their faith-
ful followers as rewards for their services. Palmer's
dilemma was that he had to satisfy not only his own sup-
porters, who were often competing for the same posts,
but he also had to placate the dissidents in the party
who were actively supporting their own candidates for the
positions.7

Palmer's most perplexing patronage problem con-
cerned the removal of General Luther Trowbridge from his
position as Internal Revenue Collector for Detroit and

the appointment of James H. Stone as his replacement.

 

 

115

Stone's appointment had been approved by both Senators
Conger and Ferry during the previous year but Trowbridge's
reluctance to remove himself from office and the support
he received from the Republican faction in Detroit that
had opposed Palmer's election, had made his dislodgement
difficult. President Arthur had complicated Palmer's
position by indicating that he would not make a decision
on the appointment until Palmer had arrived in Washington
for a conference. Palmer was caught in the middle as both
sides pressured him to make a decision favorable to their
candidate.8
The Trowbridge forces were particularly aggressive
in their campaign to persuade Palmer to retain the current
Collector. To demonstrate his popularity, Trowbridge
solicited the signature of almost every major firm in
Detroit that dealt with him in an official capacity on
petitions that endorsed him as a capable collector and
expressed dissatisfaction with his proposed removal.
Influential friends including Henry Baldwin and Russell
Alger sent a mildly threatening telegram to Palmer indi-
cating that the "removal of Trowbridge would be unfortu-
nate politically and otherwise." They also sent a tele-
gram to the President expressing their disapproval. The

anti-Palmer Detroit Post and Tribune initiated a campaign

 

against Palmer, hinting strongly that he was unqualified
for his office. In the paper's view, Palmer would have

to prove himself--undoubtedly by retaining Trowbridge--and

116

if he happened to "fail in his duty," the Post and Tribune

 

would be forced to criticize his actions "however unplea-
sant" it might be. At the same time the paper lavishly
praised the work of General Trowbridge as Collector Of
Internal Revenue and as a faithful Republican worker who
was "always ready on the stump for Republicanism."
Further, the paper portentously declared that the "modest
caution Of a man new to his place will no doubt incline
Senator Palmer to hesitate before offending the common
sentiment of his party at home and running counter to its
declared policy in the national Congress by seeking to
accomplish the removal of General Trowbridge."9
Two of Palmer's close Republican friends, William
Livingstone Of Detroit and Alexander Hamilton Morrison
of St. Joseph, both prominent men who had played an im-
portant role in engineering Palmer's dramatic election to
the senatorship, Opposed Trowbridge's reappointment. They
took this position not because they were in favor of James
Stone but because they regarded Trowbridge as a tool of
the anti-Palmer Detroit faction. They advised the new
Senator to fill the patronage positions with loyal
followers in order to build the foundations of a strong
Palmer organization in Michigan. Morrison urged Palmer
to stand by his friends and they would form the "fulcrum"
to put him in the White House. He then warned him that it

would be useless to "conciliate" any of his enemies because

\:

 

117

the peOple expected him to act independently. Morrison
concluded that if Palmer properly rewarded his loyal
followers, then he was sure to be "nominated for presi-
dent in 1884 and be elected."10
Livingstone gave Palmer similar advice and came
to an identical conclusion. According to him, Palmer
had to "make up his mind to train with his friends or his
enemies and it ought not to take him long to make up his
mind which." Michigan was to be made "Palmer country“
and "those that aren't Palmer men will wish they were in
H---." Livingstone advised that the next chairman of the
Republican State Central Committee be a Palmer man to
insure control of the party by the Palmer faction. By
following this counsel and by keeping his "head cool,"
Livingstone believed that the new Senator would have a
"wrestle for the presidency yet."11
To explain his position, James Stone wrote Palmer
a long letter in which he narrated the latest develop-
ments in regard to his appointment as Trowbridge's suc-
cessor. According to him, he and Senator Conger had had
a favorable interview with the President. He asserted
that if Palmer's last dispatch to the President had
arrived earlier, he would have already been appointed.
In the time between the interview and Palmer's letter,

however, the Opposing faction had telegraphed the Presi-

dent, calling Stone's appointment an "outrage." The

118

President had reacted by telling Stone that "all the
customary formalities should be observed with more than
usual punctiliousness" in order to avoid charges of
favoritism. By this time Trowbridge had been informed of
the President's "delicacy of feeling" and was attempting
to flood Palmer with telegrams and "letters of remon-
strances.” Stone, however, implored Palmer not to "let
the crowd who have pursued me for a year with such
ferocity and bitterness destroy me. You owe them nothing
and I am at least entitled to fair play and Senator Conger
to senatorial courtesy."12
To extricate himself from the precarious position
in which he found himself, Palmer set out for Washington
to have a conference with Senator Conger and President
Arthur. He arrived in Washington on March 9, 1883, and
on that same day endorsed Stone for the position. Stone's
appointment followed Palmer's declaration of support. His
friends and supporters were jubilant when they learned of
his action. They were sure that Stone's appointment was

a bitter pill for the Post and Tribune clique to swallow.13

 

Palmer's friends were correct. The Post and
Tribune was disturbed by his action and blamed him en-
tirely for Trowbridge's removal. According to the paper,
Palmer had stood a good chance of uniting the Republican
party, but it declared that he would never do it "by

using public Offices to reward his followers."14

119

Trowbridge received the news of his removal with
disbelief as he had been confident that the efforts Of
his friends in his behalf would be successful. SO down-
hearted was he, that one of his relatives wrote to Palmer,
urging him to Obtain a reconsideration for the General.
Palmer wrote in return a politely formal letter in which
he related his conversation with the President. He stated
that in the beginning of the discussion he had expressed
a preference for neither candidate and told the President
that he "could not be aggressive either way in the matter
for personal and family reasons--but when forced to an
expression . . . finally concurred in the previous action
Of Senator Conger and the delegation in the last House."
This answer apparently did not comfort General Trowbridge
when it was related to him for he was soon reported
drinking heavily in Detroit saloons and blaming Palmer
for his downfall. The furor, however, over Trowbridge's
removal quickly died down.15

After having disposed of the initial crisis of
his young senatorial career, Palmer left Michigan for a
short vacation, no doubt relieved to escape the hordes of
office seekers who beset him. His political friends were
not eager to see him depart because they believed that
he should be devoting his time and energy to consoli-
dating his position in the Michigan Republican party.

They pointed out that the Detroit Post and Tribune had

 

120

maintained a constant barrage of criticism against him,
blaming him "for all dire calamities--political, social
and commercial and even the cold weather." They advised
him to strike while his chances were good, before his
enemies could generate enough support in their campaign
against him. They argued that as Ferry's supporters were
now split, Palmer could easily assume the leadership of
the party.16
Palmer's supporters were quite certain as to the
course of action that the Senator would follow. An ex-
cerpt taken from a letter to him from one of his most
rabid followers clearly illustrates their position. It
reads as follows:
In short, steps must be taken to put you where
Chandler was when the Lord to help the Locofocos
took him up in the skies. If you hesitate we are
lost. People against you must be subordinates.
There can be but one general commanding and with a
little more grape we shall carry the day.17
Despite the earnest entreaties of his devoted
supporters Palmer left on his trip, traveling first to
Washington and then on to New York, not returning to
Michigan until the last week of April.18
On his return, Palmer devoted himself to other
problems of patronage. Although he diligently rewarded
his faithful followers, his close advisers did not think
that he was aggressive enough in his appointment pro-

cedures. They were particularly disturbed that Senator

Conger had secured appointments for several office holders

121

to positions that they believed Palmer was entitled to
distribute. Palmer did not allow their concern in this
matter to disturb him. It did not seem to be his intention
to establish a political machine built upon patronage
despite the urgings of his political advisers.19
One of Palmer's chief political activities during
the summer of 1883 was the promotion of pro-tariff propa-
ganda throughout the state. In an outline presented to
the Republican State Central Committee, he called for
trained agents to organize protection clubs throughout
Michigan. He suggested that the Michigan Republican party
provide financial support for these clubs. In addition,
he proposed that the Republican party supply editorial
material for Republican newspapers and speakers who would
discuss the tariff question upon call. He had evidently
foreseen that the tariff would be an important matter of
discussion in the 48th Congress and hoped by a compre-
hensive program Of indoctrination to have Michigan stand-
ing squarely behind the standard of protection.20
The fall Of 1883 found Senator Palmer busily
engaged in attending to a number of matters--both political
and business--that crowded his agenda. He delivered
addresses to organizations such as the Isabella County
Soldiers' Convention and the Allegan Agricultural Society.

He held discussions with his political advisers to plot

future strategy and to decide on political appointees.

122

In general he attempted to mend his political fences in
preparation for his departure for Washington to attend
the opening session of the 48th Congress.

Early in December the Palmers left for Washington
to settle in the house that the Senator had purchased dur-
ing his spring trip. Thus he did not have to undergo the
frantic search for lodgings that often was the experience
of first term legislators.22

The Congress that Palmer entered in 1883 was not
destined to go down in history as the most dramatic and
productive meeting of the national legislature ever to be
held. Shelby Cullom, who also entered the 48th Congress
as a freshman senator, makes the following statement in
his memoirs:

I entered the Senate at a very uninteresting period in
our history. The excitement and bitterness caused by
the Civil War and Reconstruction had subsided. It was
what I would term a period Of industrial development
and there were no great measures before Congress. The
men who then composed the membership of the Senate
were honest and patriotic, trying to do their duty

as best they could, but there was no great commanding
figure. The days of Webster, Clay and Calhoun had
passed; Stevens, Sumner, Chase of the Reconstruction
era had all passed.

Great measures and excitement there may not have
been in Congress in the 1880's. There were, however,
significant issues and measures of importance enacted.
Although they primarily involved fiscal problems and

matters of business regulation and Often required more

arithmetic than rhetoric, they were of vital importance

123

to a nation that was expanding geographically and
industrially.

The House of Representatives produced the most
excitement in the Opening session. Much of the House's
attention was directed toward the tariff as it was
generally anticipated that a tariff bill would be formu-
lated by a group of Democratic tariff reformers. The
Democrats were numerically in control of the house but
were split on the tariff issue. This division of the
Democrats had been precipitated by the so-called Mongrel
Tariff of 1883 that had raised the duty on many items.
It was expected that this division would be increased by
the renewal of tariff reform efforts.24

The first skirmish of the tariff reform war was
fought over the selection of a Speaker for the House. The
Democratic protectionists in the House favored former
Speaker Samuel J. Randall, a Democrat from Pennsylvania,
while the anti-tariff forces were united behind John G.
Carlisle of Kentucky. The election of Carlisle Opened
the way for tariff legislation.25

The opening of the Senate was a much more sub-
dued affair, devoted chiefly to committee appointments.
Palmer was named to five committees--those on post
Offices and post roads, the District Of Columbia, trans-

portation routes to the seaboard, fish and fisheries,

and woman suffrage. In evaluating the distribution of

 

 

124

committee assignments Of the Michigan delegation in

Washington, the Detroit News commented that Palmer had

 

“poor luck" because he did not draw a very "large plum.“
The Nege_was correct in its statement for Palmer did not
receive responsibilities that were highly prized by the
average senator. The Transportation Routes to the Sea-
board Committee performed negligible tasks. The Com-
mittee on Fish and Fisheries was a new committee with
little prestige attached to it. Assignment to the
District of Columbia Committee was regarded as an onerous
burden because its work involved acting as a city com-
mission for the district, a task most senators attempted
to avoid. As far as the Woman's Suffrage Committee was
concerned, the majority of the Senate regarded the issue
as a huge joke and would not have considered seriously
such a lowly assignment. The Committee on Post Offices
and Post Roads was regarded as having some merit because
of the patronage involved in distributing postmasterships.
Palmer, however, did not hold a high position in that
committee.26

Undaunted by the undistinguished character of his
assignments, Palmer plunged into his work with consider-
able fervor. On the Committee for the District of
Columbia he actively promoted social and civil reforms.
He advocated an industrial home school bill, a subject

with which he was familiar as he had successfully promoted

125

a similar bill as a state senator in Michigan. He voted
for two bills relating to the District. The first was a
bill designed to protect servants and other workers in
the District of Columbia. It died on the floor when a
proposal to set aside the rules for discussion of the
measure was defeated by a 35-17 vote. The second pro-
posed an increase in salaries of District judges. This
measure was approved by a vote of 42—13. Also in relation
to his work on the District of Columbia Committee, Palmer
wrote a report on the petition of a District resident who
desired that a woman deputy warden be appointed to the
District's jail. He indicated that the power of such an
appointment was vested in the Chief Justice of the Dis-
trict's Supreme Court and the warden of the jail. He did,
however, recommend that such an appointment be made.27
Since Palmer was a supporter of votes for women
he undoubtedly was pleased with his seat on the Woman
Suffrage Committee. A month before his departure for
Washington he had received a letter from the Michigan
Woman's Suffrage Association in which he was urged to do
all in his power to promote the cause of women's rights.
His action on the WOman Suffrage Committee must have
pleased the Michigan suffragists. The committee's main
concern for the session was an evaluation of Senate
Resolution No. 19, which proposed an amendment to the
Constitution to provide for women's suffrage. In a

special sub-committee report, Palmer and the two other

 

 

1116?]

an:

r;

:r

If

Id

In

126

members of the sub—committee, Senators Henry Blair (N.H.)
and Elbridge Lapham (N.Y.), heartily recommended its
passage. They reported that their recommendation was
based on the fact that women were being denied a "funda-
mental privilege" in most of the states of the Union--
"the right of a citizen to vote." Palmer's stand on
women's rights made him a member of a select group of
senators. Most of his colleagues were hostile or in-
different to the demands of the suffragists.28
The Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads took
more of Palmer's time than his other committees. Several
items of importance came before that committee. These
included discussions with representatives of veterans and
an investigation into the postal telegraph system to deter—
mine whether it was an unregulated monopoly.29
The most important item before the committee,
however, was an appropriation bill for the Post Office
Department. A proposal for a 5 per cent annual reduction
in compensation for railroads carrying the federal mails
--in the case of land grant railroads the reduction was
to be 50 per cent of the current rate--provoked consider-
able discussion. A number of senators believed that the
railroads, particularly the land grant railroads, had
received sufficient government aid. Defenders of the

railroad rate adjustment presented a report of the Acting

Second Assistant Post Master General estimating that the

127

new rates would save the government over a million dollars.
Palmer defended the prOposal made by the committee. The
amendment was passed and the Post Office Appropriation
Bill won Senate approval by a vote of 52-0. It did not,
however, pass Congress until the second session of the
49th Congress after conference committees from both houses
had met and worked out a compromise measure.30
The public bill introduced by Senator Palmer on
which he spent the most time in his first session was a
measure designed to increase the appropriations for a new
federal building in Detroit to house the Post Office and
other federal offices. Before introducing the bill,
Palmer had asked an old political ally in Detroit, William
Livingstone, to ascertain public opinion on: (1) increas—
ing the appropriation from $400,000 to $1,500,000, and (2)
reopening the question of a building site change. After
receiving Livingstone's reply and other reports from
Detroit, Palmer prepared a bill that called for an in—
creased appropriation while leaving the matter of the
selection of a new site in the hands of the people of
Detroit. Since the selection of a building site was a
highly partisan issue, the senator wanted to refrain from
taking sides to avoid alienating any of the conflicting
interest groups. He wrote to his cousin that in regard
to the choice of a site "the peOple must fight it out

among themselves. My preference will never be known."

 

Congre

bill :

his C
and G
to th
mitte
compa
that,
to a

that

not i

'F‘
V,“

128

Congressman Maybury of Detroit introduced a duplicate
bill in the House at the same time.31
Armed with maps and statistics, Palmer argued
his case before the Senate Committee on Public Buildings
and Grounds. Despite his efforts he was pessimistic as
to the outcome. Undaunted he again came before the com-
mittee to argue for the increased appropriations. He
compared Detroit with other municipalities and declared
that, according to his figures, Detroit should be entitled
to a building costing $1,800,000 instead of the $300,000
that had been appropriated. Although the committee did
not act immediately, it eventually approved the bill. On
May 20, 1884, the Detroit Public Building Bill passed the
Senate. It appropriated $9,000,000 for the construction
of a new federal building and left the question of chang-
ing the site to the Treasury Department. It was then sent
to the House where it would not be brought up for con-
sideration until the second session of the 48th Congress.32
Palmer did not take an active role in any of the
other bills before the Senate. He was absent for the
vote on the Blair Common School Bill, which called for a
fund of $120,000,000 to be distributed by the federal
government to the states according to the rate of illiter-
acy in each state. He was paired with Senator Zeb Vance
(N.C.) and had it announced that if he were present he
would have voted for the bill. The bill passed the Senate

by a vote of 33-11.33

 

majori
in Uta
anti-g
or a g
were a
The p}
were ‘
set a

for U

129

On other legislative matters, he voted with the
majority for a bill aimed at further restricting polygamy
in Utah. The purpose of the bill was to strengthen the
anti-polygamy act of 1882 that provided a fine of $500
or a prison sentence of five years for bigamy. Bigamists
were also stripped of their right to vote and hold office.
The principle changes in the previous anti-polygamy law
were the following: (1) the penalty for adultery was
set at three years in prison, (2) the five commissioners
for Utah were empowered to act as justices of the peace,
(3) the United States marshal and his deputies were made
the territory's law enforcement body, and (4) penalties
for fornication between unmarried persons was set at six
months in prison or $100 fine. The act, however, failed
to pass the House.34

He also voted for a measure designed to place
restrictions on Chinese labor that was approved by a vote
of 43—12. Since the 1870's Congressmen from the West
Coast had been demanding a cessation to Chinese immi-
gration. In 1880 an American commission to China obtained
an agreement with China that gave the American government
the authority to determine the entry qualifications for
Chinese laborers. Congress, however, was not amicable to
the new agreement. The new legislation provided for a
ten-year ban on the importation of Chinese laborers and

penalties against any vessel captain who brought in such

 

 

 

busy,
ctix
Spea}

A; '

U L ‘

was E
"fin
“‘“V.
t“

‘L
T at

9550:

130

workers. The bill was also approved by the House and
signed by the President.35

Although his activities as a senator kept him
busy, Palmer did find time to keep abreast of tariff
activities in the House. Despite Carlisle's election as
Speaker and the prevalence of rumors that William Morrison
of Illinois, chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means,
was preparing a Tariff Reform Bill, Palmer did not expect
much in the way of tariff legislation because he doubted
that the Democrats were in earnest in their reform
efforts. It became apparent, however, that some of the
Democrats were more serious than he thought. On February
4, 1884, Morrison introduced a bill calling for a general
horizontal reduction of 20 per cent on all import duties
and placing some items on the free list. These items
included lumber, coal, iron, copper and salt--all im-
portant staples in Michigan's economy. The bill was
immediately sent to the Ways and Means Committee.36

When Palmer realized that the Democrats were in
earnest he took action. Roswell G. Horr was the chief

Michigan spokesman against the tariff in the House. On

March 3, 1884, the Detroit Evening News reported that

 

when Horr argued before the House Ways and Means Com—
mittee in favor of maintaining the duties on lumber,
Senator Palmer was present, helping him with charts,

statistics and other materials.37

 

iron
tie
Mom
of 1
it 1
app.
the
for
. or

of

131

The Morrison Bill was also opposed by the wool and
iron industries. This opposition managed for a time to
tie up the bill in the Ways and Means Committee. Finally
Morrison moved to have the bill taken up in the Committee
of the Whole on April 15, 1884. The committee approved
it by an extremely close vote of 140-138. Since it won
approval by only two votes there was little prospect of
the bill's final success. After a debate that continued
for weeks, the bill was defeated 159-155. The defeat of
Morrison's bill came as a result of defection by members
of his own party. The Democratic protectionist leader,
Samuel Randall of Pennsylvania, led thirty-nine bolting
Democrats to vote with the Republicans. This ended
efforts for tariff reform in that session of Congress.38

One of Palmer's outstanding traits was his loyalty
to his friends, especially if they had proved to be faith-
ful to him during times of political crisis. He demon-
strated this loyalty by the diligence with which he
sought a judicial appointment for Sumner Howard, a friend
who had been instrumental in securing his election.

Howard desired an appointment as a judge in the Terri-
tory of Utah. He faced considerable opposition from
many residents of Utah because he had been the attorney
responsible for prosecuting John D. Lee, a Mormon who
had been condemned and shot for his part in the infamous

"Mountain Meadow Massacre." The Detroit News objected

 

 

132

to Howard's appointment on the grounds that it was a
political reward. "If Mr. Howard must be paid for his
work at Lansing," it editorialized, "it should be in

some other coin than judicial ermine."39

Despite the
opposition, Palmer called upon the President several times
to present Howard's case. The President delayed for al-
most three months before he made a decision. On March

19, 1884, the Detroit Post and Tribune announced that

 

Howard had been appointed to a judgeship in Arizona as
a result of Senator Palmer's efforts.4o
Palmer did not lose contact with political affairs
in Michigan; a steady stream of correspondence from his
trusted political friends kept him informed of the latest
developments. His Michigan followers were at this time
busy seeking ways by which they could control the Republi-
can spring convention. Palmer's Detroit enemies led by
Mayor Thompson and Henry Duffield were attempting to gain
control of the party. His advisers urged him to take the
chairmanship of the State Central Committee because the
party was "still floundering for a Moses." He declined
to do so, declaring that "the people of Michigan will
resent any suspicion of bossism." He also maintained
that he could not attend to his duties in Washington and
also direct Republican activities in Michigan.41
Even without Palmer's participation, his support-

ers, according to one of the senator's friends, con-

trolled the Republican State Convention by the "nape of

133

the neck and the seat of the trousers" and were able to
fill the State Central Committee with Palmer men. Thus,
although Palmer declined to make himself political boss
of Michigan after the Chandler example, his followers
were actively preparing to take over the Republican party
in the state.42
The Republican meeting was generally harmonious
despite the conflict over control. One of its main tasks
was the selection of delegates-at-large for the Republi-
can National Convention. (District delegates were
selected at district caucuses held just prior to the
opening of the general convention.) Most of the delegates-
at—large selected were Palmer men. There was no consensus
among the delegates concerning the Republican presidential
nominee. They seemed almost evenly divided between Sena-
tor George Edmunds of Vermont and James G. Blaine of
Maine, with perhaps an edge to Edmunds. Since the dele—
gates were not committed by a caucus vote to any one
candidate, any estimate as to their favorites was bound
to be inaccurate.43
Palmer's days were not entirely occupied with
his senatorial duties although he complained that he was
being "worked to death." He frequently entertained at
dinners and receptions in his large home. His enjoyment

of Washington's social life was tempered by the poverty

and misery that existed in the city in sharp contrast to

134

the glamorous swirl of political life. He found the
nation's capital a city of "collective splendor and in—
describable misery—~the daily presentation of the latter
shading the enjoyment of all in official life."44
Three months after the opening of the 48th Con-

gress, the Detroit Evening News made an evaluation of the

 

Michigan delegation in Washington. The paper pronounced
Senator Conger to be an ineffective speaker because his
voice was "too harsh." It was puzzled, however, as to
how it should judge Palmer since he had maintained a
"policy of silence" since entering the Senate. It found
his silence surprising since he had had a reputation as
a "good talker." It concluded that perhaps he had
"adOpted the surest road to popularity--he has purchased
45

a large house and entertained handsomely."

Two days after the Detroit Evening News' evalu—

 

ation, the Detroit Free Press facetiously called for a

 

"Palmer boom" for President. Pointing out Palmer's
reluctance to enter into Congressional debate, the Free
Press said that his inexperience would not hamper him as
he possessed other eminent qualifications:

It is true he hasn't much of a record: but that

is one of his strong points. . . . To the negative

qualification of having no record Palmer holds the

positive one of having a bar'l. This as the

Republicans understand is a qualification not to

be despised in the coming campaign.46

As the first session of the 48th Congress drew

to a close the minds of many Republicans on Capitol Hill

135

were not on their legislative tasks but on the Republican
National Convention that was to begin in Chicago on June 3,
1884. Since there was no clear-cut favorite in the Re-
publican ranks for the presidential nomination, there were
many factions organizing behind various candidates.
Political speculators regarded James G. Blaine, John
Logan, George Edmunds, John Sherman, and Benjamin Harrison
as the leading contenders for the nomination.47
William Livingstone reported to Palmer that in
Michigan President Arthur was the "businessman's choice"
but that most of the Republican rank and file appeared to
favor Blaine. He thought that Arthur would receive at
least 13 of the 26 votes of the Michigan delegates.48
DeSpite his political activities Palmer found time

to attend to his business interests. In his correspondence
with his business subordinates he revealed a side of his
personality rarely shown to the public. Instead of the
gracious, genial gentleman that was his usual public
image, Palmer proved to be a stern and penurious task-
master when his finances were at stake. The following
passage from Palmer to Ford Starring, a business manager
responsible for collecting property rents, illustrates
this less attractive side of Palmer's character. It
reads as follows:

You don't seem to comprehend the gravity of having

fourteen (14) cents out of the way in your cash

account. The cash is the key of your bookkeeping
and the fourteen (14) cents may lead to the

136

detection of an error of thousands of dollars.
Please remember that if you get the reputation of
being the most exacting and closest agent I have,
I will raise your salary. . . . Your business is to
see that no rents fall behind. Give them notice if
they have not paid up.49
As the day for the Republican National Convention
drew near, it became increasingly clear that the presi-
dential sweepstakes had been narrowed down to a bitterly
contested race between President Arthur and James G.
Blaine. Favorite son candidates such as Benjamin Harrison
and John Sherman had hopes of an outside chance to carry
off the prize. They based their Optimism on the possi-
bility that a stalemate might develOp between the Blaine
and Arthur forces, thus allowing a third person to emerge
as a compromise candidate.50
Although not a delegate, Senator Palmer attended

the Chicago Convention, sitting with the Michigan dele-

gation. According to the Detroit News the wealthy “Mug-

 

wumps" of the Michigan Republican party who opposed Blaine
were located chiefly in Detroit. The “Mugwumps” opposed
Blaine because of his weak record in regard to civil
service reform and because of the support he received

from the anti-Palmer Republican clique led by Russell
Alger and James Joy. At the convention Palmer led the
Michigan Republicans Opposed to Blaine, willing to sup—
port anyone who stood a chance of winning against the

"Plumed Knight."51

137

On the first two ballots, Michigan's votes were
split among Arthur, Blaine, Edmunds, and Sherman. On the
third ballot a shift to Blaine was made and on the fourth
and final ballot, all 26 ballots went for Blaine who won

the nomination.52

TABLE 2.--Tota1 votes--26 (number of Michigan votes in
1884 Republican National Convention).

 

 

 

Ballots
l 2 3 4
Arthur 2 4 4
Blaine 15 15 18
Edmunds 7 5 3
Sherman 2 2 l

 

The Detroit Evening News in commenting on the
results of the convention said that those "who attempted
to manipulate Michigan for anybody but Blaine were dis-
appointed." The paper added that the "good natured
Senator Palmer is not apt to grow thin over it but there
are some aching hearts in the bosoms of Collector Stone,
Jay Hubbell and Joe Chandler and there is scarcely a
heart left in the Conger family."53

After the convention, Palmer returned to Washing—
ton to finish the first session of Congress. Not much was
accomplished as most legislators were eager to return
home to begin the campaign. The session ended in July.54

Many newspapers and journals found little to

praise in the accomplishments of Congress. For example,

138

the Detroit Post and Tribune made the following comment:

 

"The session of Congress just closed was a failure from
every standpoint one may regard it. The national legis-
lature never sat so long and did so little." The liberal
journal, the Nation, came to a similar conclusion, de—
claring that the "late session of Congress was almost
entirely barren of legislation." The journal did point
out that there were some pleasant things that could be
said about Congress: "If it did not have the courage for
enacting some much needed legislation, it refrained from
enacting any that can be called injurious and it stood
manfully in the way of some which was positively bad."55
After returning home, Palmer did not play a very
active role in the Michigan political campaign. His cam-
paign inactivity is readily explained. First, he had
vigorously Opposed Blaine at the national convention.
Secondly, the Michigan State Republican Convention held
in August was controlled by his political enemies. They
were led by Henry Duffield and worked to secure the
gubernatorial nomination for Russell Alger. Alger's
nomination had been opposed by many Republicans as popu-
lar support, particularly in rural areas, was for Cyrus
Luce, a farmer himself. One Republican delegate had
declared "that if the convention nominates any man
except Luce (especially one from Detroit which has ob—

tained so much) there will be great soreness and

139

indignation and a great many farmers will refuse to
support the ticket." Alger gained 371 votes to Luce's
243. The victor attempted to placate Luce's supporters
by Offering Luce the nomination for lieutenant governor
but he refused.56
The Republican campaign in Michigan was hampered
because the Prohibitionists had decided to run a candi-
date for governor also. Any votes gained by a Prohibition
candidate would be at the expense of the Republicans. To
prevent large scale defections from Republican ranks, a
plank was added to the party platform recommending that
the question of prohibition be submitted to the peOple.
This action, however, influenced many German-Americans
who were staunch Republicans but against prohibition to
defect to the Democrats.57
Meanwhile, the Democrats and Greenbackers joined
to form a fusion ticket, renominating Governor Begole as
their candidate. The Republican party thus faced formid—
able Opposition in the election of 1884.58
Cleveland defeated Blaine in an extremely close
race that was decided by a narrow Democratic victory in
New York. Much emphasis has been given to the Reverend
Burchard's famous "rum, romanism, and rebellion“ address
and the presence of Blaine at an extravagant banquet at

Delmonico's as the reasons for Blaine's defeat. It is

true that the Democratic press thoroughly publicized

140

both episodes but they probably came too late to affect
the election results significantly. The Nation attributed
Cleveland's victory to the bolt of the independent Re-
publicans. It is perhaps more accurate to say that the
Prohibitionist candidate from Kansas, John St. John, bears
the most responsibility for Cleveland's victory. In New
York State St. John made forty speeches and garnered
40,000 votes.59

In Michigan, the Republicans emerged victorious,
60

although somewhat battered. Statistics are as follows:

Michigan Vote for Governor--1884:

Alger, Republican 190,840
Begole, Fusionist 186,887
Preston, Prohibition 22,207
Other 364

Michigan Vote for President-—1884

Blaine, Republican 192,669 (48%)
Cleveland, Democrat 189,361 (47.2%)
St. John, Prohibition 18,403 (4.6%)
Butler, Independent 753 (.2%)

The statistics reveal that Blaine barely squeaked through
in Michigan. If St. John had gained as many votes as
Preston, the Prohibition candidate for governor, Michigan
would have been in the Cleveland victory column.61
It was in this unsettling political atmosphere
that Senator Palmer returned to his seat in the Senate
for the second session of the 48th Congress. As in the

first session, the House provided the initial excitement.

John H. Reagan, chairman of the House committee on

141

Commerce, again presented a bill aimed at regulating
railroad rates. His bill reflected the strong sentiments
of many groups, particularly the farm interests, for
federal regulation of interstate commerce. After a
month's debate, the House passed the Reagan Bill by a
vote of 161-75.62

In the Senate Opposition to the Reagan Bill was
led by Senator Shelby Cullom of Illinois, chairman of the
select committee on Interstate Commerce, who proposed to
strike out all of the House bill after the enacting clause
and insert a Senate substitute that included a provision
for the establishment of a regulatory commission whose
function would be to rule on alleged violations of the
act. Cullom and his supporters took this action in order
to dilute the portion of the Reagan Bill that made a vio—
lation of the interstate commerce law a penal offence,
thereby giving the federal courts jurisdiction over such
Offenders. (Reagan and his supporters believed that un-
less the interstate commerce cases were tried before
United States judges, justice would not be done since a
regulatory commission's decision would not carry the same
weight as a judicial decision and there was uncertainty
also as to who would enforce the commission's rulings.)
Palmer favored the Senate's version of the bill, although

he did not take an active part in its defense.63

142

Although the Senate in the first session had
passed his bill increasing the sum to be allocated for
the Detroit Public Building, it was not passed by the
House by a vote of 107-52 until February 12, 1885.
Congressman Maybury of Detroit successfully defeated
attempts to reduce the appropriation to $750,000. The
House, however, did attach a single amendment to the
measure. The Senate unexpectedly asked for another
conference on the bill because it objected to the amend-
ment—-much to the displeasure of Palmer and Maybury who
had not anticipated that the amendment, which provided
that the Secretary of the Treasury could approve of no
plan whose cost exceeded the sum remaining after the
building site had been paid for, would create any Senate
Opposition. Both Palmer and Maybury defended the measure
and through their efforts it passed the conference com—
mittee as amended. Finally, on February 27, the Presi—
dent signed into law the Detroit Public Building Bill.64

Palmer developed misgivings about the wisdom of
the House amendment after Congress had approved the bill.
He therefore sought to amend the Sundry Civil Appropri-
ation Bill to provide a $200,000 apprOpriation for the
purchase of a new building site--if needed. It was his
opinion that because $900,000 had been apprOpriated
originally for building construction and now the build—
ing site purchase was to be deducted from that amount,

another sum of money should be allocated for a building

143

site purchase. Senator Morrill objected because he
thought that Palmer was now taking sides in the matter
of changing the site. Palmer denied this. Senator
Conger then entered the discussion in support of Palmer.
Senator Allison objected to Palmer's amendment, however,
on the ground that Palmer was out of order to Offer an
amendment to an appropriation bill without having pre-
viously submitted the proposal as a formal estimate.
Senator Conger, in response to Allison, reported that
the $200,000 public site addition was listed in the Book
of Estimates. Allison thereupon withdrew his Objection
and the amended Civil Sundry ApprOpriation Bill was
approved.65
By the 1880's many midwesterners had become dis-
enchanted with the amount of land that had been granted to
the railroads as an incentive to span the nation. As a
result, in each session of Congress during that decade,
their legislative representatives introduced bills aimed
at forcing railroads to forfeit lands that had not been
earned according to the terms of their grants. Despite
midwestern agitation, no general railroad land forfeiture
bill was passed by Congress until 1890.66
Senator Palmer was not interested in railroad land
forfeiture as a general principle but in the second

session Of the 48th Congress he found himself attempting

to amend the general railroad land forfeiture bill that

144

was before the Senate. His involvement in this issue
resulted from demands by settlers in Michigan's Upper
Peninsula for a reversal of the General Land Office's
decision to enforce a public land act passed in 1880.

In 1856 nine railroads had been granted lands in
Michigan's Upper Peninsula. A large amount of land had
been reserved for their selection. After they had
selected the land allotted to them by their land grant
contracts, there was still land left in the reserve set
aside for them. When those extra reserve lands had been
restored to federal ownership, federal land agents had
allowed homesteaders to file private entry claims at a
$1.25 per acre. There were also homesteaders who had
purchased from the railroads lands later declared for—
feited. In 1880 Congress passed an act that required
lands restored to the public domain to be offered at a
public sale before being opened to private entry claims.
This legislation was retroactive and had no provision
exempting from its provisions people who had bought from
the railroads or who had made entry after forfeiture. It
thus invalidated many land titles in the Upper Peninsula
since subsequent court decisions had upheld the act's
provision that forfeited lands had to be first offered

at public auction. Palmer sought in the Committee of the
Whole to validate those private claims made in good faith

by ”honest settlers and homesteaders" on forfeited

145

railroad lands. He argued that the land titles of these
settlers should be validated since the mistake had been
made by land office officials.67
Senator Joseph Dolph, chairman Of the Committee
on Public Lands, commented that Palmer's amendment was a
"good thing" but not important enough to take up their
time. He maintained that the general forfeiture bill
should be reported without any further amendments.
Palmer withdrew his amendment but only to change its
wording. He then presented a revised version that was
defeated by a vote of 29-38.68
Undaunted, Palmer on the following day, renewed
his efforts to protect the land titles of the Upper
Peninsula's private entrymen. Senator George Vest, a
Democrat from Missouri, objected to the amendment, saying
that Palmer had neglected to emphasize the profits that
land speculators could receive as a result of its passage.
He asserted that it was the speculators that had Obtained
large sections of land and not ordinary citizens as Palmer
had claimed. Palmer answered him by stating that his
amendment was not "intended to benefit such men alone"
for it would benefit "more poor men than rich men."
Senator Conger then entered the debate in support of his
colleague. He denied that he and Palmer were following
the dictates of pine land speculators as Vest had

charged.69

146

Apparently Palmer's stand on this issue resulted
from his honest conviction that this particular group of
settlers was being illegally cheated of their land
titles. At this time he seems not to have been con-
nected with any of the so-called "pine speculators." If
he was, and had there existed any trace of his involve-

ment, the Detroit Free Press or the Detroit News would

 

have been quick to exploit any such conflict of interest.
That the amendment also received the approval of the
General Land Office and the Acting Secretary of the
Interior seems to substantiate the evidence that Palmer
was acting solely in the settlers' interests.70

Eventually Palmer's persistence won the day and
his amendment was passed by a vote of 25-22. The House
bill to which it was attached also passed the Senate.
The amended Senate version of the bill, however, was
rejected by the House and a compromise was not reached
during the session. The conflict over Upper Peninsula
land titles was a problem that would continue to plague
Palmer for the rest of his days in Congress.71

The highlight of this session for Palmer was the
occasion of his first major address before the Senate.
He spoke in behalf of women's suffrage at the prompting
of many suffrage supporters who were aware of his

sympathy with the women's rights movement. This speech

was the first major address advocating women's suffrage

147

ever given in the Senate. In 1900 Susan B. Anthony wrote

in her History of Woman's Suffrage that Palmer had made

 

"a masterly argument which has not been surpassed in the
fifteen years that have since elapsed."72
Palmer's remarks were made in defense Of the joint
resolution calling for an amendment to the Constitution
establishing women's suffrage in the United States. This
was the resolution that had been approved in the first
session of the 48th Congress by the Committee on Woman
Suffrage. Present in the gallery to hear the senator's
speech were a number of ladies prominent in the women's
rights movement, the most noteworthy being Susan B.
Anthony.73
Palmer began by describing the movement for
women's suffrage as another step in the struggle of
mankind to attain human liberty. He asserted that failure
to pass the resolution would "delay or cripple" the
nation's advance as a whole. Referring to such important
documents of freedom as the Magna Carta, the Declaration
of Independence, and the Emancipation Proclamation, he
declared that although the emancipation of four million
slaves was a great step, "the political emancipation of
26,000,000 of our citizens equal to us in most essential
respects and superior to us in many, seems to me to

translate our nation, almost at a bound to the broad

plateau of universal equality and cooperation to which

148

all these bloodstained and prayer worn steps have surely
led."74
He then proceeded to attack the arguments raised
against women's suffrage. He pointed out that those who
refused women the vote because they could not fight were
fallacious in their argument because the vote was not
denied to Old men, Quakers, or to those "civil Officials
who like mothers are regarded as of more use to the state
at home." As for those who argued that many women did not
want the vote, he said that many slaves did not want
emancipation in 1863 and that many men did not vote at
election time "but we hear of no freedman today who asks
re-enslavement and no proposition is offered to dis—
franchise all men because some neglect their duty."75
Palmer also called attention to the battle cry of
the American Revolution--"taxation without representation
is tyranny." He declared that it would be impossible to
"endorse the principles proclaimed by the patriots of 1776
and deny their application to women."76
In answer to those who held the view that women
did not possess the minds for politics and government,
Palmer gave examples of women in history who had demon-
strated by their lives that women were capable of partici-
pating in civil affairs. He made particular reference to

such contemporary women as Clara Barton and Dorothea Dix

who engaged in tasks previously assigned to men. He also

149

referred to the success of women's suffrage in Wyoming
Territory, which proved that women could vote "intelli-
gently and safely."77

Palmer emphasized that the greatest reason for
the franchisement of women was that it would provide a
bulwark of voters to counteract the flood of immigrants,
who, without restrictions as to "intelligence, character
or patriotism,” were allowed to vote. Since American
women had been raised and educated under the "American
system“ they would be an effective counter-balance to
this foreign element. "NO valid reason,“ he said, "seems
assignable for longer neglect to avail ourselves of their
association." Despite Palmer's oratory, no immediate
action was taken on the resolution and it was returned to
the calendar.78

His speech received considerable attention and

publicity. All the major Detroit newspapers carried com—

ments and evaluations of his remarks. The Detroit News

 

said that the speech had "made a good impression.” The

Detroit Post reported that "expressions of praise were

 

heard on every hand for the pleasing language and senti-

ments of the address.”9
Palmer received many notes and letters of con-

gratulations from suffrage supporters. Clara Barton,

the president of the American Red Cross, wrote him that

his address was "masterly, unanswerable and faultless."

150

Susan Anthony wrote that she and other suffrage sup-
porters were ordering thousands of OOpies of his speech
to distribute throughout the nation. She even asked
Palmer for the printing plates so that she could "strike
Off copies" whenever she needed them.80

To honor those senators who had supported the
cause of women's suffrage, the ladies of the Woman's
Suffrage Organization held a meeting in the vestibule
of the Senate late in the session. Senator Palmer re-
ceived most of the attention and was given an ovation for
his endeavors on their behalf.81

Thus Palmer's first major Congressional speech
had been a tactical success. He had spoken on a con-
troversial subject in a manner that had won him acclaim
from both supporters and opponents of women's suffrage.
More important, he had received nationwide publicity, a
factor that no politically ambitious senator could afford
to overlook. Even if he lacked presidential ambitions,
his political supporters were determined to press such
ambitions upon him.

Palmer was more conventional in his reaction to
several treaties that came before the Senate for approval.
The first of these sought to provide commercial reciprocity
with the Spanish territories of Cuba and Puerto Rico.

The Treaty was vigorously Opposed by the tobacco and

sugar interests in the United States. Michigan business-

men, including wealthy industrialists and lumbermen of

151

the anti-Palmer Detroit faction, wrote Palmer to declare
their opposition to the treaty with Spain. They feared
that if the precedent of reciprocity was established then
it would be doubly difficult to exclude Canada from such
a commercial arrangement, a circumstance that the lumber-
men in particular wanted to avoid since they did not want
duty free Canadian lumber competing with their own timber
products in the domestic markets. The Michigan Cigar
Makers Union also Opposed the Spanish treaty. Palmer,
already an avowed protectionist, undoubtedly needed no
urging from his constituents to oppose it. In an inter-

view in the Detroit Evening News he stoutly declared his

 

position on the treaty: "I am Opposed to it. Its good
features are altogether overshadowed by the bad." The
Spanish treaty became bogged down in the Senate because
of protectionist Opposition and eventually President
Cleveland withdrew it.82
Palmer also took a strong stand on a treaty with
Nicaragua. This treaty had been prompted by the action
of a French company under the direction of Suez Canal
engineer DeLesseps, who had conducted negotiations with
Columbia to secure the right to build a canal across the

Isthmus of Panama. Since there was strong support for

the view that the United States should build an

152

inter-oceanic canal before the French, the Arthur adminis-
tration negotiated a treaty with Nicaragua by which the
United States was given the exclusive right to construct
a canal across that country. The canal was to be jointly
owned, with the United States agreeing to a permanent
alliance with Nicaragua. Palmer supported this treaty.
When it came before the Senate for a vote it failed to
receive the necessary two-thirds majority. A motion to
reconsider the treaty was taken by the Senate. In his
first annual address to Congress in 1885, President
Cleveland explained that he did not resubmit the treaty
because he was Opposed to a policy of territorial
aggrandizement and because he desired that the United
States maintain its "traditional policy" in respect to
the canal.83
The second session ended on March 3, 1885.
Palmer's performance during his first Congress had been
characterized by caution. He had avoided alienating
party leaders and had not attempted to promote much
legislation. The bills and amendments that he did spon-
sor were carefully prepared and tenaciously argued.
Although his committee assignments were not particularly
attractive, he had diligently applied himself to the
assigned tasks. He had persistently fought for an in-
crease in the Detroit Public Building appropriation. He

had waited until his second session in Congress to

153

deliver a major address. All his actions reflected the
course of a man who was intent on consolidating his
position by thoroughly familiarizing himself with the
intricacies of the legislative process before acting
and by committing himself to legislation that was rele—
vant to citizens of Michigan.

The end of the 48th Congress marked the end of
Senator Palmer's apprenticeship in the Senate. In the
49th Congress he would have a chance to practice the
skills that he had learned in his first two years in

Washington.

FOOTNOTES-—CHAPTER IV

1John A. Garraty, The New Commonwealth, 1877-1890
(New York: Harper and Row, 1968), p. 222, Fred A. Shannon,
The Centennial Years (Garden City: Doubleday and CO.,
1969): PP- 50- 51; Leonard D. White, The Republican Era,
1865-1900: An Administrative History (New York: Mac-
millan CO., 1958), pp. 49- 50.

 

 

 

2White, p. 50; Shannon, p. 53.
3
Garraty, p. 226.

4White, p. 50; David J. Rothman, Politics and
Power: The United States, 1869- 1901 (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1966), pp- 39- 40.

 

5White, pp. 17-18; Garraty, pp. 227-28.

6Historical Statistics of the United States:
Colonial Times to 1957 (Washington, 1960), p.i69l.

 

7Detroit Free Press, March 3, 1883; William
Livingstone to Palmer, March 3, 1883, Palmer Papers.

 

8Detroit Free Press, March 13, 1883.

 

98. D. Elwood to L. S. Trowbridge, March 8,1883;
H. P. Baldwin, R. A. Alger, James Joy et al. to Palmer,
March 10, 1883; James Stone to Palmer, March 6,1883.
Palmer Papers. Detroit Post and Tribune, March 5,7,
1883.

10
Papers.

A. H. Morrison to Palmer, March 2, 1883, Palmer

154

155

llWilliam Livingstone to Palmer, March 9, 11, 1883,
Palmer Papers.

12James Stone to Palmer, March 6, 1883, Palmer

Papers.

13Detroit Post and Tribune, March 9, 10, 1883;
E. W. Cottrell to Palmer, March 11, 1883.

14Detroit Post and Tribune, March 14, 15, 17,

1883.

15Palmer to C. C. Trowbridge, copy, March 16,
1883; C. D. Joslyn to Palmer March 20, 1883; Friend
Palmer to Palmer, March 23, 1883. Palmer Papers.

16Detroit_Post and Tribune, March 15, 17, 1883;
E. W. Cottrell to Palmer, March 25, 1883; T. S. Blades
to Palmer, March 27, 1883; William Willit to Palmer,
April 15, 1883. Palmer Papers.

17A. H. Morrison to Palmer, April 11, 1883, Palmer

Papers.

18Detroit Free Press, April 22, 1883.

19A. H. Morrison to Palmer, June 11, 1883; New-
comb Clark to Palmer, June 29, 1883: James Shepard to
Palmer, July 8, 1883. Palmer Papers.

20Palmer to Republican State Central Committee,
cOpy, June 16, 1883, Palmer Papers.

21James W. Long to Palmer, September 21, 1883;
E. C. Reid to Palmer, September 24, 1883; Harry A. Conant
to Palmer, November 18, 1883; G. McGreery to Palmer,
October 3, 1883; C. V. Bell to Palmer, November 15, 1883.

Palmer Papers.

22Detroit Post and Tribune, July 13, 1883.

23Shelby M. Cullom, Fifty Years of Public Service
(Chicago: A. C. McClurg and CO., 1911), p. 206.

156

24For a good description of the House's activi-
ties in the 48th Session of Congress, see Ben J. Procter,
The Life of John H. Reagan (Austin: University of Texas
Press, 1962).

25Clarence Lee Miller, The States of the Old
Northwest and the Tariff, 1865- 1889 (Emporia Gazette
Press, 1929), pp. 143;45.

26Cong. Record, 48th Cong., lst Sess., pp. 49-50;
Detroit News, December 10, 1883; according to the Detroit
Posttand Tribune, December 11, 1883, Palmer had wanted
the Post Office assignment.

 

 

 

27Cong. Record, 48th Cong., lst Sess., pp. 1577,
2239, 2240; Senate Reports, 48th Cong., lst Sess., No. 69.

 

28Detroit Post and Tribune, January 30,1884;
C. A. Stebbins to Palmer, November 8, 1883, Palmer Papers;
Senate Reports, 48th Cong., lst Sess., No. 399.

 

29Jos. W. Kay, Chairman, Executive Committee of
Veteran's Rights Union, to Palmer, February 21, 1884;
J. Buell to Palmer, February 2, 1884. Palmer Papers.

30H. S. Lymund to W. P. Hill, Chairman of the
Post Office and Post Roads Committee, U. S. Senate,
February 23, 1884, Palmer Papers; Senate Reports, 48th
Cong., lst Sess., NO. 379: Cong. Record, 48th Cong., lst
Sess., p. 5181.

31Detroit Evening News, February 2, 5, 19, 1884;
Palmer to Friend Palmer, March 2, 1884, Palmer Papers.

32Detroit Post and Tribune, March 11,1884;Cong.
Record, 48th Cong., lst Sess., pp. 4372- 75.

33COng. Record, 48th Cong., lst Sess., p. 2724.

 

34Cong. Record, 48th Cong., lst Sess., p. 5298;
Shannon, The Centennial Years, pp. 77—78.

 

35Cong. Record, 48th Cong., lst Sess., pp. 5937-38;
.John A. S. Grenvillé’and George Berkeley Young, Politics,
Strategy, and American Diplomacy (New Haven and London:
‘Yale University Press, 1966), pp. 52- 53; U. S. Statutes-at-
Large, XXIII, pp. 115-16.

157

36Palmer to Ford Starring, February 5, 1884,
Palmer Letterbooks, Palmer Papers; Detroit Post and Tri-
bune, February 5, 1884; Detroit Evening News, March 6,

 

37Detroit Evening News, March 3, 1884.

 

38New York Times, February 5, 7, 1884; Gratwick,
Smith and Fryer Lumber Co. to Nelson Aldrich, March 13,
1884; Geo. W. Bond and CO. (wool) to Nelson Aldrich,
January 18, 1884. Nelson Aldrich Papers, Library of
Congress--hereinafter cited as the Aldrich Papers.
Detroit EveningNews, April 15, 1884; Appleton's Annual
Cyclopedia, 18 5, p. 204; Detroit Free Press, May 7, 1884;
Cong. Record, 48th Cong., lst Sess., p. 3908.

 

 

 

39Detroit Post_gnd Tribune, January 12, 1884;
Detroit Evening News, January 7, 1884.

 

40Detroit Evening News, January 12, 1884; Detroit
Post and Tribpne, January 12, March 19, 1884; Detroit
Free Press, January 16, 1884.

 

 

 

41T. S. Blades to Palmer, March 1, 1884; James
Stone to Palmer, March 23, 1884; Sumner Howard to Palmer,
March 3, 1884; Wm. Livingstone to Palmer, March 15, 1884.
Palmer Papers; Detroit Free Press, April 20, 1884; Palmer
to T. C. Philips, March 24, 1884, Palmer Letterbooks,
Palmer Papers.

 

42Sumner Howard to Palmer, May 3, 1884, Palmer

Papers.

43Detroit Post and Tribune, April 24, 25, 1884.

 

44Palmer to G. B. Stebbins, March 15, 1884, Palmer
Letterbooks, Palmer Papers; Detrpit Evenin News, March 19,
1884; Detroit Post and Tribune, February2g, 1884; Palmer
to Henry S. Frieze, February 9, 1884, Palmer Letterbooks,
Palmer Papers.

 

 

45Detroit Evening News, March 19, 1884.

46Detroit Free Press, March 21, 1884.

 

158

47Detroit Free Press, March 9, 1884; James Peck
to William Chandler, William E. Chandler Papers, Library
of Congress.

 

48Wm. Livingstone to Palmer, May 10, 1884, Palmer

Papers.

49Palmer to Ford Starring, May 13, 1884, Palmer

Papers.

50C. L. Dirk to John Sherman, May 30, 1884, John
Sherman Papers, Library of Congress--hereinafter cited as
the Sherman Papers. [For a good account of that struggle
see Harry J. Sievers, Benjamin Harrison, Hoosier Statesman
(New York: University Publishers, Inc., 1959)].

 

51Detroit Evening News, April 24, June 7, 1884.

 

52Detroit Post and Tribune, June 7, 1884.

 

S3Detroit Evening_News, June 7, 1884.

 

54Detroit Post and Tribune, July 14, 1884.

 

sslbig,; Nation, XXXIX (July 10, 1884), 21.

56Detroit Evening News, August 13, 14, 1884.

 

57Detroit Evening News, August 15, 1884.

 

58Detroit Post and Tribune, August 21, October 21,

 

1884.

59Detroit Free Press, November 1, 2, 1884; Nation,
XXXIX (November 13, 1884), 407; Frank R. Kent, The Demo—
cratic Party (New York: Century CO., 1928), p. 287;

 

 

George H. Mayer, The Republican Party, 1854—1966 (New York:

Oxford University Press, 1962), p. 211; H. Wayne Morgan,
From Hayes to McKinley; National Party Politics, 1877-
1896 (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1969), pp.
§2§’300

6OMichigan Manual, 1885, pp. 411, 422, 423.

 

-—_=:=-. Ajax; .1

 

f.-——.— __

159

61Detroit Post and Tribune, November 17, 1884;
Detroit Free Press, November 11, 1884.

 

 

62Detroit Post and Tribune, December 3, 1884;

Cong. Record, 48th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 552-55; Garraty,
p. 115.

 

 

63Cong. Record, 48th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 854—55,
1246-49, 1254; Nielson, pp. 114—16.

 

64Detroit Free Press, February 12, 13, 23-24, 27,
1885; Detroit Evening News, February 12, 25, 27; Cong.
Record, 48th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 1565, 1572, 2083, 2205.

 

 

65Cong. Record., 48th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 2334-37.

 

66See David Maldwyn Ellis, "The Forfeiture of
Railroad Land Grants, 1867-1894," Mississippi Valley His-
torical Review, XXXIII (June, 1946), 27-60.

 

67Detroit Evening News, January 9, 1885; Detroit
Free Press, January 22, 1885; Cong. Record, 48th Cong.,
2d Sess., pp. 1518, 1524.

 

 

68Cong. Record, 48th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 1519-20.

 

69Cong. Record, 48th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 1555,
1560. In an interVIew reported by the Detroit Post,
Palmer was defended by Congressman Byron Cutcheon.
Cutcheon maintained that Palmer‘s actions had been mis—
understood and that Palmer was not fighting for the
interests of "any railroad company, land ring, or any
land speculators.“ Detroit Post, February 23, 1885.

 

 

 

70Detroit Free Press, January 22, 1185; Detroit
Evening News, February 12, 17, 1885.

 

71Cong. Record, 48th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 1561,
1637, 1932, , -

72Susan B. Anthony to Palmer, June 9, 1884, Palmer
Papers; Susan B. Anthony, History of Woman Suffrage, Vol.
IV (Indianapolis: Hollenbeck Press, 1902), p. 627

 

73Detroit Post, February 7, 1885.

 

160

 

 

 

74Cong. Record, 48th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 1323.
751bid.
761bid.
77Cong. Record, 48th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 1324.
78

Cong. Record, 48th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 1325.
79

Detroit EveningyNews, February 7, 1885; Detroit
Post, February 7{71885T7

80Clara Barton to Palmer, March 2, 1885; Susan B.

Anthony to Palmer, March 2, 1885. Palmer Papers. Palmer
sent two mailbags of his speech to Susan B. Anthony,
March 18, 1885. Palmer Letterbooks, Palmer Papers.

81Detroit Free Press, March 9, 1885.

82John S. Newberry to Palmer, December 17, 1884;

James McMillan to Palmer, December 18, 1884; Cigarmakers
Union 209 to Palmer, January 11, 1885. Palmer Papers.
Detroit Evening News, January 11, 14, 1885; w. Stull Holt,

TreatiesDefeated b the Senate (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Press, 1933), pp. -40.

83The negotiations with Nicaragua by the United

States violated the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. See Holt,
Treaties Defeated by the Senate, pp. 135-36; Detroit
Evening News, January 14, 30, 1885.

 

CHAPTER V

THE EXPERIENCED LEGISLATOR

A short special session of the Senate immediately
followed the second session of the 48th Congress. The only
action of the Senate in the special session affecting
Senator Palmer was that taken in regard to committee
appointments. Palmer received only one new assignment--
the chairmanship of the Fish and Fisheries Committee. This
was an important committee for a senator from a Great Lakes
state to chair. Commercial fishing in those inland waters
was a big business and a chairman of the committee who
could properly reflect the interests of the Great Lakes
fishermen could acquire valuable political support in the
multi-state area. Palmer wasted no time in appealing to
those commercial fishing interests. Six days after his
appointment to the Fisheries Committee, he called for a
resolution authorizing the committee to sit during the
legislative recess to "investigate the reported decrease
of the food fishes of the Great Lakes with a view of
recommending legislation for their protection." He also

used his influence to obtain a large stock of land—locked

161

 

162

salmon eggs from the United States Commission of Fish and
Fisheries for the Michigan Fish Commission.1

Besides his activities related to his work on the
Fish and Fisheries Committee during the legislative recess,
Palmer was able to pay some attention to both business and
political affairs in Michigan. His political supporters
were anxious that he return to Michigan to "rub bellies
with old friends and make conquests of new ones." They
informed him that his old political enemies were again
active. According to his friends, his political foes
were attempting to rally discouraged Michigan Republicans
who were still leaderless and divided almost two years
after Cleveland's victory. They had also embarked on a
campaign to discredit Palmer politically.2

Finding himself occupied with business problems
on his return to Detroit, Palmer relied on his trusted
friend James Shepard to "feel the public pulse" in the
outlying areas of the state. Shepard reported that many
veterans‘ votes could be won by sponsoring bills for
hospitals, old soldiers’ homes, and other projects that
would benefit them.3

Palmer's business problems were caused by a wave
of labor unrest that swept the sawmills in the Saginaw
‘Valley. The strikes began in the Bay City area and
spread to the East Saginaw district when about 1,500 men

from Bay City swarmed into the Saginaw mills and forced

 

163

them to cease operations. Among the mills closed down
was one owned by Palmer and Joseph Whittier. The strikers
demanded a ten-hour day with eleven hours pay. The strikes
idled approximately seventy mills producing 100 million
feet of lumber a month. When several mills attempted to
continue operations, they were attacked by the strikers.
When police failed to maintain the peace, a force of
Pinkerton detectives was hired. The presence of the
Pinkertons only further antagonized the strikers. As a
result, units of the state militia were mobilized and
sent to quell the disturbances. The militia stOpped the
violence and by the end of August most of the men had
returned to work at ten hours per day with a reduction
of one—eleventh from their previous day's wage. Whittier
reported to Palmer that the men in their mill had gone
back to work on those conditions. The mill owners esti-
mated the total cost of the strike at 182,000,000 feet
of lumber and $300,000 in workmen's wages lost.4

The first session of the 49th Congress opened on

December 7, 1885. According to a Detroit Free Press

 

report of an interview with the senator, Palmer did not
intend to be "very fertile" in the propagation of bills
but did expect to introduce a bill establishing a

national quarantine for livestock. The Free Press

 

stated that both Michigan senators Opposed any effort

to change the tariff laws. Palmer was quoted as saying

 

164

that "any measure looking toward a radical change in the
schedule of tariff duties will find as strong opponents
on the Democratic side of the Senate as on the Republican
side. The sentiment seems to be that the question should
be given a rest for awhile.” Time was to show, however,
that tariff reformers such as William Morrison, chairman
of the House Committee on Ways and Means, were again
active.5

Senator Palmer introduced two bills, both of
which died in committee. The day after the publication
of the interview, he introduced a bill calling for the
establishment of infected animal quarantines to prevent
the spread of contagious and infectious diseases. Evi-
dence indicates that Palmer's interests as a gentleman
farmer rather than pressure from his constituents was
responsible for his action. The other bill called for
the establishment of adult evening schools in the District
of Columbia. His experience on the District committee
undoubtedly motivated him to present the bill.6

There were two bills in this session for whose
passage Palmer expended a great deal of time and effort.
The first dealt with the regulation of interstate com—
merce. The Reagan Bill had passed the House in the 48th
Congress but the Senate had substituted its own bill,

with the result that no measure had been passed.7

 

165

Senator Shelby Cullom carried on the fight for
railroad legislation in the new Senate as he had in the
old. He believed that some type of railroad regulation
was inevitable despite the opposition of many railroads.
The railroad men, he thought, had been offered ample
opportunity to present their views by his select committee
that had been authorized in 1885 to investigate the prob—
1ems of interstate commerce and to provide recommendations
for new legislation. According to him, railroad officials
had ignored the committee and had even refused to provide
it with information concerning railroad operations.8

It was Cullom's purpose to avoid discussions on
the general subject of regulation that had previously
used up so much time. He believed that sufficient public
sentiment had been manifested in favor of railroad regu—
1ation to make extended debate unnecessary. His bill was
based on the premise "that publicity is the most effective
remedy for the evils most seriously complained of, so far
as it is possible to remedy them by legislation." He
therefore placed his faith in the efficacy of a commission
'that would have the responsibility of reviewing railroad
Imanagement and operations to determine whether rates were
fair and properly publicized. The Reagan Bill differed
CH1 this key point. It made no allowance for a commission

twat instead relied on the courts for regulation.9

'2
i
f
.‘l
7
n
J
6
I

 

166

On April 14, 1886, Senator Palmer gave a major
address in favor of the Senate's bill for railroad regu-
lation. He began by announcing that he was going to vote
for the bill not because it was a perfect bill but because
he hOped that its Operation would prepare the way for
"more comprehensive legislation." He declared, however,
that the object of his speech was not to berate and
denigrate the railroads. Noting that he was aware of
the railroads' contribution in having "annihilated dis-
tance," he insisted, however, that it was important that
these servants of civilization remain its servants and
not its masters.10

He went on to discuss the need for federal regu—
1ation, pointing out that all ”civilized” European govern—
ments exerted varying degrees of controls over their rail—
roads. Thus, the United States was the only major world
power that did not in some manner regulate its railroad
system. He cited railroad monOpolies and stock watering
as two of the evils that could be prevented by regulation.
In particular, he attacked the practice of railroad dis-
crimination in the form of rebates to favored shippers.

He noted that such an arrangement had allowed Standard
Oil "to practically control the oil supply of the conti-
nent." To redress these evils, he concluded, federal

. ll
regulation was necessary.

167

After reviewing the principle features of the
Senate's version of the interstate commerce bill, Palmer
called for increased salaries for the prOposed commis-
sioners. He put his views thus:

Concentrated capital never mistakes cheapness in the
employment of its agents for economy and salaries
from $12,000 to $25,000 for those intrusted with the
business management of railways are not uncommon.
The Commissioners are to have no other business. On
this account I urge upon Senators and the Committee
having the bill in charge the serious consideration
of an amendment of section 15 increasing the amount
of compensation.12
(In the bill that was eventually signed into law, salaries
were set at $7,500. Palmer's arguments obviously did not
sway his colleagues.)

He said that he did not believe that the legis-

lation would "at once bring the prOposed millenium to

American transportation."l3

He did think, however, that
the American people deserved to be given protection and
a chance for their complaints to be heard. He concluded
with these words:
All the American citizen has asked in the past or will
ask in the future is a fair chance; no odds of the
government, but its protection, for which his life
is pledged, and its schools, for which his money is
paid. Special privileges for none, equal rights for
all.

This speech in defense of railroad regulation won
praise from various sources. A political advisor wrote
that it had given Palmer "good publicity" and the repu—
tation of a “wise legislator serving a most timely

utterance.“ Another supporter called his Speech

168

"eminently fair'I and "entirely divested of narrow
partisanship."15
Other comments were not so laudatory. The

Detroit Evening News sardonically complimented Palmer
for his speech, declaring that the Ngw§_stood on the
same platform and was happy to see that Palmer had been
converted. The newspaper expressed the hope that in
particular he would live up to his "eloquent peroration
. . . special privileges for none, equal rights for all."
The paper suggested that perhaps the best way Palmer
could demonstrate his sincerity in his "advocacy of
special privileges for none" would be by responding in
a "loud clear voice yea" for the Morrison Tariff Bill.16
One of the most interesting letters that Palmer
received as a result of his speech came from a Michigan
member of the Knights of Labor. The working man praised
the Senator for his address, declaring that he had
"antagonized the most powerful ring of stock gamblers
the world possesses, the railroad monOpoly in the United
States." He went on to warn Palmer that the Republican
party should take steps to implement the principles
enunciated by the senator since "wire pulling" and
"political scheming" would not win Michigan in the fall
elections. To insure victory for the Republican party,

the vote of the working man had to be secured. This

could be accomplished, he suggested, by the passage of

169

an eight-hour working day bill--at least for minors. He
assured Palmer that if he would introduce such a bill
and obtain its passage, he would be "the most popular
man in Congress."17
In his response to this letter, Palmer insisted
that as far as the railroad magnates were concerned, he
had "never worn any man's or any ring's collar." He
acknowledged that the Republican party had made errors
but confidently asserted that despite its mistakes, it
was the party of "aspiration and free thought." He
further acknowledged that one of the mistakes of the
last election campaign had been the neglect of the needs
and desires of the working class. He advised his corres—
pondent that workingmen should retain their labor organi-
zations and continue to "agitate" for reform but that
they should always remain on the proper side of the law.
He concluded by saying that "if the country is going to
work it is because the workingman is happy and measurably
content."18
Palmer's response to the workingman's letter was
remarkably mild and free from antagonism for a mill owner
who had so recently experienced labor discontent among
his employees. His sympathy seemed to be with the
workingmen although it is noteworthy that he made no
promise to sponsor a bill for an eight-hour working day.

While the Senator was busy answering the letters

resulting from his railroad regulation address, fierce

170

debate on the subject continued in the Senate. One issue
that provoked some of the most heated controversy was the
amendment of Senator Johnson N. Camden of West Virginia,
which forbade any common carrier to charge more for a
shorter than for a longer distance over the same line
in the same direction, a practice that many shippers
had vehemently protested.l9
Palmer objected to the amendment because he
believed that it was unfair to the railroad industry
as a whole since it gave an unfair advantage to certain
railroads. He said that to insure competition some
railroads should be allowed to charge more for a short
haul than for a long haul. He asserted that nature had
favored some railroads by giving them a better terrain
and a better population distribution, factors that placed
them automatically in a superior position to their less
favored competitors. If such factors were ignored, he
concluded, then those railroads which could not compen-
sate for their natural competitive disadvantages would
fail, thus leaving in existence fewer railroads and less
competition. "We must not," he said, "cripple the rail-
roads; we must make them strong and then make them behave
themselves. There is the whole difficulty. We don't
want to embarrass them; we want to control them."20

Senator Camden responded to Palmer's comments

by arguing that if there was any discrimination, it was

171

against the shippers and not the railroads. He explained
that a shipper 100 miles nearer the market could be
charged twice as much as a shipper living twice that dis-
tance from the same market. According to Camden, the
object of his amendment was to see "that the shipper who
is 100 miles nearer the market shall not pay more in the
aggregate than a shipper 100 miles further distance from
the market."21
Camden's amendment was narrowly approved by a
29-24 vote. Palmer voted against it while Senator Omar
Conger, Michigan's other senator, also a Republican,
voted for it. Senator John Ingalls of Kansas, disturbed
by the vote, angrily accused Camden of being an agent
for the Baltimore and Ohio railroads, which had supported
the long haul-short haul amendment. Camden did not respond
to Ingalls' accusation.22
Palmer may have had a private motive for opposing
the long haul-short haul clause. Until 1880 most lumber
transportation in Michigan was accomplished by water.
After 1880 a great proportion of lumber hauling was done
by rail. According to one source, Palmer “enjoyed a
large car trade, shipping directly to the country dealers"
located in all parts of the country. Hence, if Palmer
had made arrangements for long distance shipping of his
lumber products then he would stand to gain by defeating

the clause.23

172

Another amendment to the Interstate Commerce Bill
that Palmer vigorously opposed was one that would place
lake and water carriers on the same level as railroads
in respect to notifying the public of a rate change. The
Senate bill required the railroads to give a ten-day notice
before changing their rates. Palmer argued that lake
craft were owned by many different parties and had con-
stantly competed against each other. With the advent of
the railroads, the lake craft were forced to reduce
their rates to compete with them. Thus, he reasoned, it
was the railroads who were the regulators of the lake
craft rate rather than the reverse. He argued, therefore,
that since the lake craft were already at a competitive
disadvantage they should be allowed to retain their
price flexibility because their rates would always
roughly correspond to the railroad rates. (Palmer owned
stock in the Lake Michigan Navigation Company and many of
his prominent Michigan constituents also held substantial
interests in Great Lakes shipping companies.)24

Senator Joseph E. Brown of Georgia objected to
Palmer's argument because the water carriers could, if
the amendment was rejected, adjust their rates at will
and would have a ten-day advantage over the rail carriers.
Palmer countered by declaring that if the lake carriers
were forced to give ten day's notice all freighting would

be demoralized since peOple would hold back their freight,

173

shipping neither "rail nor by boat until the ten days
were up." Palmer succeeded in tabling the amendment.25

The Interstate Commerce Bill was finally approved
by the Senate by a vote of 47—4, with Senator Palmer vot-
ing for it. The Senate bill was defeated in the House by
a vote of 134-104. The House then substituted its own
version (the Reagan Bill) by a vote of 192-4. It was too
late in the session for the differences between the houses
to be resolved.

Palmer's stand on federal regulation of private
industry was a positive one. His Senate speech on the
railroad regulation bill had clearly indicated that he
fully believed in the concept Of federal regulatory powers.
Yet he did not advocate government ownership of railroads
or any other radical measure such as had been proposed by
some of the more strident anti-railroad groups. His
attitude was that of a middle-of-the-road businessman
in that he recognized that there were legitimate com—
plaints about railroad management practices and that
these malpractices could best be remedied by judicious
government control. He believed that the federal regu—
lations provided for in the Senate bill would make the
Operations of the railroads more efficient and their
administration more honest. He was not a spokesman for
the railroads but neither was he a proponent of the type
of railroad reform proposed by Reagan and other Demo-

crats in the House.26

174

The second bill to which Palmer devoted himself
in this session was similar in one respect to the Inter-
state Commerce Bill in that it too involved the issue of
federal regulation of private industry. The bill's pur-
pose was to define butter and Oleomargarine, to provide
for the licensing Of Oleomargarine producers and dis-
tributors, and to place a tax on the product itself. It
called for an annual tax of six hundred dollars on manu-
facturers Of Oleomargarine, four hundred eighty dollars
on wholesale dealers, and forty-eight dollars on retail
dealers. Each pound Of Oleo produced for domestic con-
sumption would bear a five cent tax while Oleo produced
for foreign consumption would have a tax of fifteen cents
levied upon it. TO prevent Oleo from being fraudulently
sold as butter, the commissioner of Internal Revenue was
authorized to investigate questionable products to deter—
mine whether they were Oleo or butter as defined in the
bill. An analytical chemist and a microscopist were to
be appointed to aid in the search for impure or mislabeled
products. The commissioner Of Internal Revenue was
authorized to hire more chemists if he deemed it neces-
sary.27

The proposed legislation was highly controversial
as it matched two segments of the economy against each
<3ther--the dairy farmers and the manufacturers of Oleo—

rnargarine. Farm interests claimed that the value of

175

dairy farms had depreciated from 33 to 50 per cent as a
result of the introduction of Oleomargarine as a butter
substitute. They asserted that the entire dairy industry
was paralyzed and could only be saved by immediate relief.
Only through federal regulation and taxation of the Oleo—
margarine industry could this relief be Obtained.28
The manufacturers Of Oleomargarine aggressively
defended themselves. They generated a vast publicity
campaign aimed at counteracting the Opposition Of the
powerful dairy interests. Armour and Company sent bro—
chures to many senators explaining in detail why Oleo-
margarine should remain untaxed. Armour argued that the
production of Oleomargarine contributed to agricultural
profits because butter fats were used in the process.29
Opposition to Oleo legislation was also voiced
by stores that sold the product and by institutions such
as boarding houses and lumber camps that served mass meals
and used Oleomargarine as a cheap substitute for butter.
One supporter Of Oleomargarine wrote Senator Palmer that
"every lumberman knows Oleo is a good cheap food. I do
not like the idea of Congress trying to drive it out Of
the market.”30
. The bill to tax Oleomargarine had originated in
the House, where it had passed by a vote of 177—101 after

considerable debate. In the Senate it was referred to

the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. It was

176

reported back favorably on July 1, 1886, but accompanied
by a strong minority dissent.31
There was a delay Of almost three weeks before
further action was taken on it. Senator James Beck Of
Kentucky attempted to have the bill delayed by referring
it to the Committee on Finance. This action brought in-
stant Opposition from several senators who expressed the
fear that if such a motion carried the bill would be
buried. Beck's proposal was beaten by a vote Of 29 nays
to 15 yeas. Both Michigan senators voted against the
motion.32
One of the chief proponents Of the Oleomargarine
Bill was Senator Warner Miller Of New York. He argued
that no bill in recent years had aroused so much popular
discussion. He emphasized the need to protect the people
because the public had demanded protection and further
pointed out that the public was not protected from fraud
by existing state regulations. Therefore, since state
regulations had proved to be ineffectual, it was necessary
to introduce new legislation to enable the federal govern-
:nent to assume regulation of the Oleomargarine industry.33
Southern senators headed the Opposition to the
Oleo bill. Senator Joseph Brown of Georgia said that the
additional revenue was not needed because there was a

‘treasury surplus and that the bill could not aid the

Inajority of American farmers. Senator Richard Coke of

177

Texas saw the bill as a thinly disguised effort of the high
tariff protectionists to eliminate the Oleo industry. He
also foresaw the day-—if the Oleo bill passed-~when tax-
ation Of cane sugar to aid beet sugar, corn to aid wheat
growers, and hogs to aid cattle raisers--would also be
demanded. He concluded by declaring that the bill ex-
tended the scope of federal powers beyond the limits
allowed by law. If regulation was needed, he thought
that the states could provide the necessary legislation.
(Since America's dairy industry was located largely in
the north, the southern senator Obviously allowed
sectional feelings to influence his rhetoric. Most of
the Oleo industry was also located in the north so that
his statement in respect to the "high tariff protection-
ists" was not a very accurate assessment.)34
While Senator Miller was spearheading the defense
of the bill, Senator Palmer was quietly assembling facts
and figures for an address in favor of the proposed legis-
lation. He had been the recipient of a great amount of
information-—both solicited and unsolicited--concerning
the preparation and production of Oleomargarine. One
supporter Of Oleo assured him that there was essentially
no differencee between Oleo and butter. He claimed that
the "only way to tell good butter from Oleo is that the
genuine article usually has coarse salt and a fair

sprinkling of hairs." Companies that produced

178

Oleomargarine wrote Palmer detailed reports describing the
making of their product. Thus he became well informed on
the subject.35

Palmer's position on the issue had undoubtedly

been decided before he began assimilating information on

2.: ~ $7721

the production of Oleomargarine. Although Michigan
farmers comprised only 29 per cent of their state's work-
ing pOpulation (nationally farmers comprised 44 per cent
of the work force) they bombarded him with letters in 2
favor of the bill. It was not surprising, therefore,

that Palmer, who fancied himself a gentleman farmer,

responded to his farmer constituents by supporting the

bill. (In 1884 Michigan had 384,578 milch cows that pro—

duced 7,898,273 gallons of milk, 38,821,890 pounds of

butter, and 440,540 pounds of cheese. According to the

Michigan census Of 1884, Michigan had 178,551 farmers out

Of a total working pOpulation of 630,852.)36

The Detroit Evening News, the nominally inde-

 

pendent Detroit newspaper, put the matter thus:

But the position of Messrs. Conger and Palmer is not
surprising. There is nothing inconsistent in their
action. It is quite in keeping with the policy of
protection of which they are both advocates. It
would seem however, that Senator Palmer is getting
that celebrated ear of his further and further from
the ground.37

Senator Palmer gave his address to the Senate in
favor of dairy protection on July 17, 1886. He began by
describing the dairy industry's importance and value to

the national economy. He stated that it annually produced

179

over 500 million dollars worth Of butter, cheese, and milk.
He then launched into a brief history of the Oleomargarine
industry. According to him, Oleo was first produced dur-
ing the seige of Paris where, as a result of the scarcity
Of butter, Oleo Oil was "mixed with milk, combined with
bicarbonate of soda and pepsin from cow's udders: color- ,
ing matter added and churned." He then made the following
comment:

Of all the desperate innovations inventions to pro-

long life in the city Of horrors, only two, I believe,

have retained places in the economy of the living.

They are horseflesh for the very poor and the noxious

elaborations Of Oleomargarine for all except the very
rich and the very cautious.38

 

As for OleO's chemical composition Palmer asserted
that twelve known poisons and twenty-six ingredients of
"dubious quality" were used in the formulas that he had
examined. He admitted that one chemist had described
Oleo as "chemically the same" as butter but he sarcasti-
cally noted that "chemically charcoal and the diamond are
the same." He further cited a statement from Armour and
Company that described the additive contained in its pro—
duct. He claimed that the list "started with nitric acid
and ended with caustic soda." To protect the public, he
suggested that every butterine pot should contain a state-
ment of its contents. He also submitted a letter from
Professor R. C. Kedzie of the Michigan Agricultural
College testifying to the harmfulness of Oleomargarine

additives.39

 

180

Palmer attacked the Oleomargarine industry's claim
that it benefited the dairy industry. On the contrary,
he contended, great harm was being done to the dairy in-
dustry because of unrestricted Oleomargarine production.
He declared that the export of butter had decreased by
over 18 million pounds during the last six years while

the export of Oleomargarine had increased by 17 million

 

pounds in that same period. He claimed that this growth J

in the export Of Oleomargarine was the result of fraud. E

He asserted that he possessed information indicating ‘

that such Oleo producing companies as Armour's supplied

creameries with Oleo Oil for the purpose of mixing it

with real butter. These same companies forced reputable

retail dealers to sell the resulting produce as pure

butter.40
Palmer said that the farmers and diary men had

already appealed to their state legislatures and that

although some twenty states had passed laws regulating

Oleomargarine, the laws had proved to be ineffective

because the states lacked "adequate machinery" to enforce

them. He concluded, therefore, that federal regulation

and taxation were indeed necessary.41
Palmer's speech was expectedly pOpular with

Michigan farmers and dairymen. One of his friends in-

formed him that "Michigan farm boys" made plans to

publish the address. The bill was passed by a vote of

 

181

37-24 with both Michigan senators voting for it. Presi-
dent Cleveland signed the bill on August 22, 1886.42

The voting clearly revealed a geographical
division. Southern senators provided almost all of the

negative votes while northern and midwestern senators

supplied the majority of the affirmative ballots. It was

mflfi 3“
I.

clear from the protests of the southern senators that
they believed that it was another "high tariff" measure !
but this time aimed at a domestic industry. There appeared I
to be a two-fold fear among the southerners in regard to
the bill. First, they believed that if passed, it might
set a precedent for the future and that possibly southern
agricultural products might be similarly taxed to provide
a commercial advantage for Northern agriculture. Secondly,
they feared the extension of federal power that was im-
plicit in the measure and which they considered unconsti-
tutional.
The significance of the Oleomargarine bill was not
its regulatory details but its extension of the federal
government's powers. As in the case of interstate com~
merce, state regulations had proved to be inadequate, and
the regulatory powers Of the federal government had again
been invoked to control private industry--a trend that
had only just begun.43

As for Senator Palmer, he had further entrenched

himself with his Michigan farm constituents and had also

 

182

made himself popular in other midwestern dairy states.
Many farmers, including members of the American Agri-
cultural and Dairy Association, credited him with having
been responsible for the Oleomargarine bill's passage.44
During the eighties the high tariff policy of the
United States resulted in substantial treasury surpluses,
averaging over 100 million dollars a year in that decade.
Since Republican protectionists successfully fought any
attempt to reduce duties, other means were needed to
reduce the surpluses. Internal improvement schemes,
particularly those aimed at develOping rivers and
harbors, were the Republican answers to the surplus
problem. The internal improvement programs sparked much
partisan controversy. The Democrats attacked them as
"pork barrel" projects and because they seemed to consti-
tute another extension of federal powers.45
Among the Michigan projects being proposed for
funding in the Rivers and Harbors Bill before the Senate
were the purchase and improvement of the Portage Lake
Canal in the Keewenaw Peninsula and the improvement of
the Sault Ste Marie locks and the Hay Lake channel Of the
Saint Mary's River. Senator Palmer defended these pro~
jects and the Rivers and Harbors Bill in general. On
July 10, 1886, he addressed the Senate, declaring that

he had always believed in a rivers and harbors bill and

that the current one was "one Of the most defensible

7

Iota-“FE ".v

.2:
E
3
i:
a
i

 

183

bills ever to come before Congress." He claimed that
there was no need to apologize for the treasury surplus
when there were worthwhile projects justifying expendi-
tures.46

Palmer then launched an attack on the federal aid
for railroads over the years. He argued that it cost
twice as much to ship by rail as by water and declared
that those like Senator Thomas C. Platt Of New York who
believed that the railroads were going to take the place
of water transportation were wrong. It was essential,
he said, that the federal government improve lake and
river navigation routes to enable the public to continue
to benefit from water and rail competition. He maintained
that for $350,000 the government would receive a bargain
in water projects in Michigan. He then cited statistics
revealing that in an eight-year period--l877 to 1885--
there had been a 3.000 per cent increase in the number
of bushels of wheat shipped from Duluth by water through
the Michigan waterways.47

Opponents of the appropriations for Michigan
charged that the owners of the Portage Lake Canal would
profit from the government's purchase. Since the canal
owners had been losing money, many people believed that
the government would be taking a "white elephant" off

their hands. Palmer denied that he represented the

Portage Lake Canal owners' interests and there is no

airfi-

i
l
l
f
!

 

184

evidence to indicate that he was being unduly pressured
by them. He said that it was simply a "wise thing for
the states west of Lake Superior to secure the purchase
of the canal and put it into the hands of the general
government." He further contended that because the canal
saved a detour of 150 miles, the cost Of shipping grain
would be reduced one—half cent per bushel.48

Palmer's eloquence and his statistical presen-

tation did not convince Senator George Edmunds of Vermont,

'r, ‘4.
g
£
a
4
1.
'i

who continued to speak against the Michigan projects.
Despite the Vermont senator's Objections the Michigan
items won Senate approval by a vote of 35-21. Palmer was
ill and not present when the final vote was taken on the
Rivers and Harbors Bill, which passed 42-14. (Palmer had
it announced that he had been paired with Senator Vance
but would have voted yea if present.) The bill was sent
to the President only after four conference committees
had toiled to produce a satisfactory compromise measure.49
Despite Palmer's chairmanship Of the Committee on
Fish and Fisheries, he had little to do with the work of
that committee in comparison with his involvement with
other legislation such as the Interstate Commerce Bill
or the Oleomargarine Bill. He did attend to routine
committee matters and helped write a committee report that

dealt with an investigation into proposed restrictions

on mackerel fishing. He favored restrictions on mackerel

 

185

fishing during the spawning season to insure the survival
of the mackerel as a food fish. During the second
session of this Congress a bill with such provisions was
passed.50

Palmer, however, did not become an active par-
ticipant in the Canadian-American fisheries dispute that
erupted as a result of the expiration on July 2, 1885,

of the Treaty of Washington (1871), which had governed

Canadian—American fishing relations. Secretary of State

1
f
I
a
1
g
1

Thomas Bayard had arranged that American fishing rights
within three miles of the Canadian shore would be main-
tained in return for a meeting of a joint commission to
discuss general maritime problems of the United States
and Canada. In January, 1886, however, New England
senators, led by William Frye of Maine, George Edmunds Of
Vermont, and George Hoar of Massachusetts, sponsored a
resolution declaring that since American fishermen no
longer desired inshore fishing rights, the meeting of a
joint commission was unnecessary. The real reason that
the New England senators sponsored the resolution was the
fear that a joint commission might bring another general
reciprocity agreement such as had been made in 1854.

The senators also believed that the administration had
usurped the Senate's treaty-making powers by arranging
the modus vivendi without first consulting the Senate.

On April 13, 1886, the Senate supported the resolution

 

186

by a 35-10 vote. (Palmer abstained from voting.) In
reaction to the Senate's move, the Canadian authorities
began to enforce fishing regulations under the Treaty of
1818 that permitted American fishermen to enter Canadian
ports for shelter, fuel, and water and for no other pur-
pose. When American fishermen began to fish in Canadian
waters in defiance of warnings their boats were seized by
the Canadian authorities. In response, American fishing
schooners began arming themselves for protection.51
Even though Michigan fishermen were not directly
involved, Michigan newspapers, particularly the important
Detroit papers, began calling for action in Congress and

on other fronts. They also argued against any attempt at

reciprocity since they contended that duty-free Canadian

fish would ruin all United States fishermen. The Detroit

Eveninngews was particularly hostile to the seizure Of

 

.East coast fishermen by Canadian Officials and jingoisti-
cally declared that if the Canadians were "spoiling for

a fight they couldn't follow a better course to have

their wishes granted."52

The Detroit Tribune was equally boisterous and

 

warlike in its reaction as it endorsed a policy Of re—
taliation against Canada. It declared that the United
States should insist upon its rights and "those rights

must and shall be acknowledged by our foreign friends and

3
foes."5

‘l Human--g—vws‘mm m 1W3. q
7
.5

187

Despite the fierce rhetoric Of his hometown news-
papers, Senator Palmer remained unmoved and did nothing
to endorse any anti-Canadian feeling or to generate any
hostile action against Canada.

Some of the sharpest criticism of President Cleve-
land came as a result of his political appointments. At
the beginning of his term in Office the President had given
hope to Mugwump Republicans and other civil service re-

formers that his distribution of political patronage would

 

be on a non—partisan basis. After two years as President,
he had come under tremendous pressure from disgruntled
Democrats who wanted him to reward the party faithful.
He reacted to this pressure by removing large numbers of
political appointees and replacing them with Democrats.
One prominent Republican who had not been replaced was
the customs collector at Detroit, William Livingstone.
Livingstone was a good friend and strong supporter of
Senator Palmer. Several Detroit newspapers voiced wonder
at Livingstone's longevity. They expressed the Opinion
that Palmer had either "some sort Of hold on the Presi-
dent" or had sacrificed other Republican employees to keep
Livingstone in office.54
That Senator Palmer wielded much influence with
President Cleveland in highly doubtful. He wrote several

formal letters to the President but they were routine

letters that any senator might have written. It is

188

likely that given the President's early reluctance to
remove political appointees, he had been in no hurry to
select another collector of customs. Livingstone halted
further speculation by resigning his Office late in
October of 1886, undoubtedly in deference to Cleveland's
midterm change in his policy.55

The first session of the 49th Congress ended on
August 5, 1886. Palmer could look back on the session
with satisfaction. He had successfully championed
Michigan interests with a tenacity that had met with
statewide approval. He had given major addresses on the
two principal bills that had been before the Senate and
had been on the side of the majority in respect to both.
The House had again defeated Representative Morrison's
efforts to pass a Tariff Reform Bill, a fact that par-
ticularly pleased Palmer since lumber had once again been
on the proposed free trade list. He had received much

publicity from the Michigan Republican press as a result

Of his activities. The Lansing State Republican called

 

him "Michigan's favorite senator" and asserted that the
"honorable gentleman happens to be so all fired popular
throughout the length and breadth of this great state

that everybody is singing his praises.“ It had been a
good session for the lumberman from Detroit.56

Not all journals and newspapers were in accord

with the actions Of Senator Palmer and his colleagues.

 

189

The New York Times and the Nation were particularly in-

 

censed over the passage of the Rivers and Harbors Bill
by the Senate. The New York Times called it a "bad bill."
The Nation alluded to the ”recklessness" of the Senate in

adding "indefensible jobs" to the bill. It pointed

‘1.

specifically to the "outragious scheme" to purchase the
Portage Lake and River Company's canal for $350,000 as a
prime example of the type Of wasteful expenditure that was

included in the bill.57

i
i
i
a
i
1.
1

The Democratic Detroit Free Press attacked in a
similar vein, calling the bill "log rolling that makes
the Rivers and Harbors apprOpriations a stench in the

nostrils of every right thinking man." The Free Press

 

also attacked Palmer specifically, declaring that his
stand on the surplus problem was wrong. The paper
claimed that the reason for a large treasury surplus was
the “high taxes" imposed by lumber lords such as Palmer,
for whose benefit "every consumer of lumber from Maine to
Oregon is mulcted."58
During Palmer's absence from Michigan the politi-
cal scene had been in a state of constant flux but his
friends and advisors kept him informed of Republican
activities. The Michigan Republicans had begun in early
spring to prepare for the fall election. They feared that

the numerous labor strikes and political apathy in the

interior portions of the state might defeat the party if

 

190

Republicans waited until the fall to begin their campaign.
Palmer's advisers, however, were Optimistic that with
prOper campaign preparations, the Democrats would be
beaten.59
Some of Palmer's supporters were disappointed that
he had not used his position to thrust himself into the
leadership of his party in the state. One correspondent
urged him to act in these words: "You can make yourself
the leading man in the Northwest by assuming control of
Michigan politics. Your Opportunity is now." Palmer re-
sisted these urgent entreaties to become the "boss" of
Michigan Republicans and maintained his policy Of quiet
vigilance over Michigan political affairs by means of his
correspondents.60
Business problems occupied much of the Senator's
time during the summer. Since his pine lands were being
exhausted, he began to map out plans for a timber purchase
program. He was also plagued by late business reports
from one of his chief business managers, Ford Starring.
Whenever Starring was late in submitting the proper
accounts Palmer bitterly berated him. Starring's apologies
did little to soothe his temper. Once again, Palmer's
behavior toward an employee demonstrated a side of his
character that sharply contrasted with his public image.61

Despite the impending fall elections and their

importance to him and to the Michigan Republican party,

 

 

191

Palmer played a minor role in the campaign. In fact, he
chose to spend part of his Congressional recess in travel.
He and his wife sailed for EurOpe in September and did
not return until early in January.62
The focus of the 1886 election in Michigan was

the gubernatorial race. Cyrus Luce, the head of the

Michigan State Grange, was nominated by the Republicans

.1“ «an—M... sma-rxmfis 45,-16m

while George L. Yaple, former Greenback congressman from

St. Joseph County, was the candidate of the combined

1 ha u;‘).'.ll

Greenback and Democratic parties. Political prognosti-

cators suggested that the "fusion“ support behind Yaple

was strong enough to threaten seriously the entire Republi-

can slate Of candidates for state offices. They were

bolstered in this belief by the revival Of the Michigan

Prohibition party. It was thought that the Prohibition—

ists would sufficiently dilute Republican strength to

allow the fusionists to emerge victorious. As the

election drew near it was apparent that Michigan was no

longer a Republican stronghold and that the outcome of

the election was unpredictable.63
The election was extremely close but the Republi—

cans managed tO win small pluralities for their candidates

for state Office and to return a strongly Republican

legislature.64

Luce won by a slender margin Of just over
7,000 votes. As anticipated the Prohibition vote cut

into the Republican strength; no Republican candidate for

192

state Office received a plurality of over 10,000. The

gubernatorial vote was as follows:65
Luce (Republican) 181,474
Yaple (Fusionist) 174,042

Dicie (Prohibitionist) 25,179

P
I:

Michigan Republicans did not have much time to
gloat over their slender victory before they were faced
with another key political crisis—~the selection of a
United States senator. Ordinarily this would not have
been a difficult task because an incumbent senator was
generally assured of renomination if the legislature was
controlled by his party. Omar D. Conger, however, whose
term was expiring, was faced with stiff Opposition. In
fact one newspaper declared that "Mr. Conger's boom has
struck a cold wave," and predicted that it would take a
"political miracle" to re-elect him.66

There were several reasons why Conger was vigor-
ously Opposed for renomination. In the first place he
had been a compromise candidate when he had been first
elected to the Senate. He had never possessed strong
political support and had not won a large following since
he had entered the Senate. Secondly, there were many
prominent Republicans who were eager to succeed Conger.
Included among these were Jay Hubbell, R. G. Horr, James
Joy, James McMillan, and Russell Alger. Finally there

was a geographic consideration. Only one senator in

 

193

thirty years had come from the western part of the state.
Since that portion of the state generally furnished sub-
stantial Republican majorities, Republicans from that
area were demanding more substantial political repre-
sentation. Since Conger resided in Port Huron, he could
67

expect no help from the west.

One Of the major surprises of the senatorial race

 

was the sudden and unexpected withdrawal of one of the
leading candidates, James McMillan, a prominent Detroit 1
businessman and a frequent political foe of Senator
Palmer. Most Michigan Republican leaders had expected
McMillan to be Conger's successor. His sudden reluctance
to be a candidate confused his political foes and threw
the race wide Open.68
Since McMillan had been the leading Detroit
candidate for senator, the path was now Open for a west-
erner. There were, however, so many candidates from that
part of the state that no one could be called a favorite.
It was rumored that because there was such a plethora Of
Republican hopefuls no Republican caucus would be held.
Many candidates thought that they would stand a better
chance in the Open field than at the hands of political
manipulators in the party caucus.
Despite these rumors the Republican party caucus
was held on January 6, 1887. After three ballots,

Francis B. Stockbridge, a lumberman from Allegan in

194

western Michigan, won the nomination. Stockbridge

received 46 votes to Conger's 23. Twenty votes were

scattered over a number of other candidates.69
The Detroit Evening News was ecstatic over the

choice Of a western man since, in its Opinion, it Opened

the way for James McMillan in 1888 by "unanimous consent,"

now that the geographical debt to western Michigan had

autumn-armvnnk-‘FH “F‘ .2)

been paid. The New York Times, however, was of the Opinion

that Stockbridge had been selected because he was a lumber-

- I] be.“ A“ I...

man who would continue to work for high tariffs on Canadian
lumber. Although the fact that Stockbridge was a lumber-
man indeed stood him in good stead, the important factor
in his election was that he resided in western Michigan.7o
Stockbridge was formally elected twelve days after
his selection by the Republican caucus. He received a
total of 87 votes to George Yaple's 36. Palmer had managed
to avoid taking sides in the senatorial contest by absent-
ing himself from the proceedings. He had prolonged his
European trip and did not land in the United States until
the second week of January. By this time the second
session of the 49th Congress had already begun.71
Palmer's absence from the political infighting
that had accompanied the choice of his senatorial
colleague had not strengthened him. Indeed, his political

enemies had been encouraged by his lack of interest and

were busy working for his downfall in 1888. One Of his

195

supporters wrote the senator that "anything to beat

Palmer is the pass word." He further exhorted Palmer

to marshal his forces against the enemy. Both Palmer's
business manager Ford Starring and his cousin Friend
Palmer wrote him warnings of political danger. Starring
told Palmer that his Opponents "were doing everything they

can to fix the slide so that when you next go tobaggan-

 

ing you'll be slid into private life with a vengeance."

JHis cousin Friend told him that both James McMillan and 1

IRussell Alger were after his seat, and warned that “if

jyou want to go back again to the Senate you must put in

some hard work and fix your fences, the bears are after

:you." Again Palmer gave little indication Of his politi—

cal plans.72
Most of the legislation before the second session

«of the 49th Congress was old business left over from the

first session. Since there was such a backlog Of legis—

lation and the second session was so short, it was anti-

cipated that few new bills would be presented.73
In this session Palmer demonstrated none of the

initiative that had characterized his work in the pre-

vious session. He seemed to have little interest in

pending legislation. Perhaps the best example of his

desultory behavior was his reaction to the Senate

resolution advocating women's suffrage. This was the

tOpic upon which he had given his first major address

 

196

before the Senate. Senator Henry Blair of New Hampshire

‘was promoting the resolution in the second session. Sur—
prisingly Palmer did not make any further remarks in its

support. When the measure came up for a vote, he cast

his ballot in favor of the resolution, which was defeated

F'”

-‘- ‘.fln'fli;44

by a vote of 34-16. It may have been that he thought it
was prudent to refrain from agitating any more than neces-
sary as the issue was extremely unpopular with most 1

Republicans. Also leading suffrage supporters such as

 

Susan B. Anthony had not urged him to speak in behalf of 5
the resolution, a factor that might explain his silence.74
Palmer's main activities during this session were
concentrated on bills relating to Michigan and his work
as chairman of the Fish and Fisheries Committee. He
supported a bill regulating the catch of mackerel during
the spawning season. The aim of the bill was to regulate
coastal fishing so that mackerel schools would not be
driven from the coast. The bill met Opposition from New
England senators (including George F. Hoar of Massachu-
setts) who were against any restrictions on New England
fishermen. Despite this Opposition, the Senate passed
the bill by a vote Of 34-11. A conference committee
report was accepted by both houses and the bill signed
by the President.75
Surprisingly Palmer did not play an active role

in the debate on a bill introduced by the Committee on

Foreign Relations in retaliation for the seizure of

197

American fishing vessels by the Canadian government.
The bill, which was promoted by a number Of New England
senators, gave the President the power to deny Canadian
vessels the right of entry into American waters if Ameri-
can vessels were not allowed in Canadian waters. It
also contained provisions designed to punish Canadian
fishermen who entered American waters illegally. The
bill was passed by the Senate on a vote Of 46-1, with
Palmer voting for it. It was signed into law by the
President in March, 1887.76
Palmer met mixed success with his Michigan bills.
He managed to have the appropriation for the Detroit
Public Building increased to $1,100,000. He was un-
successful, however, in his attempt to extend the land
grant Of the Ontonagon and Brule Railroad as his bill for
that purpose was tabled.77
Palmer was urged by agricultural lobbyists to
work for the passage Of the Pleuro-Pneumonia Bill, the
Objective of which was to lessen contagious disease among
livestock. Although he owned a stock-breeding farm and
representatives of the American Percheron Horsebreeders
Association and the Michigan Shorthorn Association
petitioned him to support the bill actively, he did not
enter the debate on the measure. He did, however, vote

for it. The bill passed the Senate on February 28, 1887,

by a 31-19 vote and was then referred to the House

:33.“ An adult. -uuu‘u‘|tll .- 41- "'1' " 5¥

4“: -_¢

198

Committee on Agriculture. Since Congress adjourned four
days later, the House had no time to consider it.78

There were two important bills before Congress
that had occasioned considerable debate in the first
session and in which Palmer had taken a special interest.
The first of these was the Interstate Commerce Bill.

After the conference report came before the Senate there

was some discussion as to the merits of the report but

 

Palmer did not participate in it. The bill as agreed on
by the conference committee was essentially the Senate's
version. Reagan, representing the House, had given way
on all issues upon which the two houses differed, except
railroad pooling, to secure the passage of the bill; the
Senate passed the conference report by a vote of 43-13
with both Michigan senators voting for it. The bill was
approved by the President.79
The other bill was another Rivers and Harbors
"pork barrel" that contained an apprOpriation for the
purchase of the Portage Lake Canal, a project that Palmer
had vigorously defended in the previous session. The
bill passed by the House appropriated almost $7,500,000
but by the time it came from the Senate, the total was
over $10,500,000.) The conference committee cut over
«$700,000 from that amount leaving a final appropriation

of just under $10,000,000. The Michigan project was

included in the final version. This was the amount

199

reported by the conference committee and was approved by
Congress. The President, however, killed the bill by a
pocket veto.80
The second session of the 49th Congress ended on
March 4, 1887. A Congress that had begun with great
activity on Palmer's part, had ended with his performing
only the barest minimum of his senatorial tasks. His
efforts on behalf Of the Interstate Commerce Bill and the
Oleomargarine Bill during the first session had secured
for him the approval of many Republicans throughout
Michigan and the midwest. His refusal, however, to heed
the political advice of his trusted advisers and sup-
porters was costing him his political support as his
enemies in the Michigan Republican ranks were concen-
trating their strength to bring about his downfall. His
less than total effort in the second session Of the 49th
Congress had not enhanced his position. If his political
career was not to come to an untimely end, his behavior

both in the state and in the Senate would have to change.

 

FOOTNOTES --CHAPTER V

L
1Cong. Record, 49th Cong., lst Sess., pp. 37, 61; E
Spencer F. Baird, Commission of Fish and Fisheries, to 5

Palmer, December 14, 1885, Palmer Papers.

 

2James Shepard to Palmer, May 19, 1885, Palmer
Papers.

3James Shepard to Palmer, June 29, July 27, 1885,
Palmer Papers.

4J. A. Whittier to Palmer, August 3, 8, 1885,
Palmer Papers; Detroit Free Press, July 16, 20, 28,
August 14, 1885; Saginaw Courier, July 16, 20, 28,
August 14, 1885; The Detroit News in its August 16, 1885
edition, reported that 2,000 stfikers were back to work
in eighteen mills. That averages out to about 111 men
per mill.

 

 

 

5Detroit Free Press, December 8, 1885; Detroit
Eyening News, December 27, 1885.

 

 

6Cong. Record, 49th Cong., lst Sess., PP. 135,

 

299.

7James W. Nelson, Shelby M. Cullom, Prairie State
Republican, p. 91.

 

 

8Con . Record, 49th Cong., lst Sess., p. 1464;
§helby Cullom, Fifty Years of Public Service, p. 319.
Recent scholarship has attempted to assign responsibility
for railroad regulation to various interest groups, includ-
ing the railroads themselves. Lee Benson in his Merchants,
Farmers and_§ailroads: Railroad Regulation and New York
Politics--1850-1887 (Cambridge, 1955) concludes that the
New York merchants were primarily responsible for the
Interstate Commerce Act. Gabriel KOlkO in Railroads and
Regulations, 1887-1916 (Princeton, 1965) argues that it

 

 

 

 

200

201

was the railroads themselves that desired federal regu-
lation. Edward A. Purcell in an article entitled "Ideas
and Interests: Businessmen and the Interstate Commerce
Act," Journal of American History, LIV (December, 1967),
comes to the conclusion that it is difficult to single
out a particular business group that was solely responsi-
ble for railroad regulation: "Rather it was many diverse
economic groups in combination throughout the nation which
felt threatened by the new national economy and sought to
protect their interests through the federal government.”
Purcell probably offers the most satisfactory analysis

Of the railroad regulation movement.

 

9Cong. Record, 49th Cong., lst Sess., pp. 3471-72.

 

 

 

 

 

10Cong. Record, 49th Cong., lst Sess., p. 3475.
ll

Cong. Record, 49th Cong., lst Sess., p. 3477.
12 .

Ibld.; U.S. Statutes—at—Large, XXXIV, p. 386.
131pm.
14

Cong. Record, 49th Cong., lst Sess., p. 3478.

 

15F. A. Blades to Palmer, April 27, 1886, Palmer
ZPapers; C. C. Allison to A. N. Kellogg Newspaper CO.,
April 27, 1886, Palmer Papers. (Allison thought Palmer's
Speech was significant because he was not a Greenbacker.)

 

16Detroit Evening News, April 15, 1886.

17J. M. McGregor to Palmer, April 21, 1886, Palmer
IPapers.

18

Palmer to J. M. McGregor, April 21, 1886, T. W.
I?almer Letterbooks, Palmer Papers.

19Cong. Record, 49th Cong., lst Sess., p. 4178.

20Cong. Record, 49th Cong., lst Sess., p. 4185.

 

21Cong. Record, 49th Cong., lst Sess., p. 4186.

 

22Cong. Record, 49th Cong., lst Sess., pp. 4191,

 

4225

202

23Hotchkiss, p. 71.

24Cong. Record, 49th Cong., lst Sess., pp. 4319,

 

4320.

25Ibid., p. 4357.

6Senator Palmer owned both railroad and lake
shipping stock.

27Cong. Record, 49th Cong., lst Sess., p. 4040;

U.S. Statutes—at—Large, XXXIV, pp. 209-12.

 

 

28F. K. Moreland, Sec. of the Agriculture and
Dairy Association, to Palmer, June 14, 1886; J. T. Cobb,
Sec. of the Michigan State Grange, to Palmer, June 14,
1886; Jas. H. Real, President of the American Agriculture
and Dairy Association, to Palmer, June 5, 1886. Palmer
Papers .

. --—.“ Anfig‘l- A. *m“"“ «“41 I.

29Armour and CO. to John Sherman, May 6, 1886,
Sherman Papers .

30M. Englemann, President of the Manistee Salt
aand Lumber CO., to Palmer, June 3, 1886, Palmer Papers.

31Cong. Record, 49th Cong., lst Sess., pp. 5213,

 

6371.

32Cong. Record, 49th Cong., lst Sess., pp. 7072,
'7069, 7070.

 

 

 

33Cong. Record, 49th Cong., lst Sess., p. 7073.
34
Cong. Record, 49th Cong., lst Sess., pp. 7186,
7084-84.
35

Wright and Ketchum, General Merchandise, E.
Saginaw to Palmer, June 12, 1886; Armour and CO., to
Palmer, May 8, 1886; Tovar Bros. (Wayne County Creamery)
to Palmer, June 14, 1886. Palmer Papers.

36Michigan Census, 1884; Cyclopedia of Michigan
(New York and Detroit: Western Publishing and Engraving
<3C>~ , 1900), p. 40. Palmer was a gentleman farmer who had

203

a farm on the outskirts of Detroit where he raised
Percheron horses and prime cattle. He belonged to the
Percheron Horsebreeders Association as well as to other
breeding organizations.

 

 

4“?

 

37Detroit Evening News, July 19, 1886.

38Cong. Record, 49th Cong., lst Sess., pp. 7086-87.

391219;

4oCong. Record, 49th Cong., lst Sess., p. 7086. i
41$§£§° %
42 i

E. W. Cottrell to Palmer, July 26, 1886; James H.
Seymour to Palmer, July 22, 1886. Palmer Papers. Detroit
:Evening News, August 3, 1886.

 

43Detroit Evening News, July 20, 1886.

 

44F. Moreland, Secretary and Treasurer of the
Imperican Agricultural and Dairy Association, to Palmer,
September 26, 1886, Palmer Papers.

45Detroit Free Press, April 23, 1886.

 

46Cong. Record, 49th Cong., lst Sess., p. 6730.

 

47Cong. Record, 49th Cong., lst Sess., p. 6731.

 

48Cong. Record, 49th Cong., lst Sess., p. 6917.

 

49Cong. Record, 49th Cong., lst Sess., pp. 690,
7036-37, 7493, 7979, 8027.

 

soSenate Reports, 49th Cong., lst Sess., No. 1512;
49th Cong., 2d Sess.

 

51New York Times, January 30, 1886, April 6, May
18 , May 21, 22, September 25, October 11, 1886; Robert
raig Brown, Canada's National Policy, 1883—1900 (Prince-
<311: Princeton University Press,'1964), p. 29; Capt. W.
whales to Palmer, March 22, 1886, Palmer Papers.

 

 

204

52Detroit Evening News, June 13, 1886.

53Detroit Tribune, January 27, 1886.

 

54Detroit Eveninngews, April 3, October 26,
1886; Detroit Free Press, December 14, 1885.

 

 

55Palmer wrote President Cleveland at least three
times, April 22, May 22, November 9, 1885. Cleveland
Papers, Library of Congress; Detroit Evening News, October
26, 1886.

56Detroit Evening News, August 5, 1886; Detroit
Free Press, May 7, June 18, 1886; Lansing State Republican,
May 7, 1886.

 

 

57New York Times, July 17, 1886; Nation, XLIII
(July 15, 1886), 48.

 

58Detroit Free Press, April 23, 1886; September
17, 1887. (If either type of criticism bothered Palmer,
he did not make it known to his close correspondents.)

59James Stone to Palmer, March 2, 1886; E. W.
.Midden to Palmer, May 12, 1886. Palmer Papers.

60F. Fogg to Palmer, May 1, 1886, Palmer Papers.
In a letter dated July 26, 1886, James Stone gave Senator
Palmer a detailed outline of the activities of the Republi-
can State Central Committee in preparing for the fall
elections. Other correspondents made similar reports.

6:I'J. A. Whittier to Palmer, July 12, 1886; Palmer
to Ford Starring, July 14, 1886. Palmer Papers.

62J. A. Whittier to Palmer, January 12, 1887.
Palmer Papers .

63New York Times, October 10, 1886.

 

64Detroit Evening News, November 3, 1886.

65Michigan Manual, 1887—88, pp. 457, 520.

66Lansing State Republican, January 4, 1887.

 

205

67Detroit Free Press, November 16, 1886; New York
Times, January 8, 1887; LansingpState Republican, January

7, 1887.

68Detroit Free Press, December 7, 1886; Detroit
Evening News, December 7, 1886.

69Detroit Evening News, January 5, 6, 1887. Since
the Republicans had an overwhelming majority in the legis-
1ature, Republican caucus approval virtually assured

election.

70Detroit Evening News, January 7, 1887; New York
Times, January 7, 1887.

 

71Lansing State Republican, January 7, 1887.

72J. M. Smith to Palmer, January 23, 1887; Ford
Starring to Palmer, January 20, 1887. Palmer Papers.

73Detroit Eveninngews, December 31, 1886.

74Detroit Free Press, January 12, 1887; Con .
Record, 49th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 38, 1002; LanaingpState
Republican, January 27, 1887.

75Cong. Record, 49th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 1482,

*;

1576, 2150, 2169.

 

77U.S._'Statutes-at-Larg_e, XXIV, p. 468; Cong.
JRecord, 49th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 2512.

78A. L. Dodge, Assistant Secretary of the American
lPercheron Horsebreeders Association, to Palmer, February 4,
.1887; I. H. Butterfield, Secretary of the Michigan Short
laorn Cattle Breeders Association to Palmer, February 4,
£1887. Palmer Papers. Cong. Record, 49th Cong., 2d Sess.,

1?. 2386.

79Cullom, Fiftnyears of Public Service, p. 113;
Chang. Record, 49th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 254, 666, 1435,

80Cong. Record, 49th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 2473-75;
ILew York Times, March 5, 1887.

 

CHAPTER VI

POLITICAL DECLINE

In its issue Of December 1, 1887, the New York
Tyme§_predicted the course of the 50th Congress--a fore-
cast that proved to be accurate. It commented that the
new Congress would be "like most sessions held on the eve
of a presidential campaign, fruitful in talk and barren
of any substantial results." The paper also predicted
that the tariff, foreign commerce, and the reduction of
taxation would be the foremost tOpics of interest to the
national legislature. The Time§_concluded its political
forecast with the following remarks:

It may be added with a profound sense Of relief to
those who had been forced to follow the Congressional
Record for any considerable time, that there will not
be any great amount Of time wasted at this session on
the southern question.

As predicted by the Timee, the issue Of tariff
:reform became one of the chief topics of debate. In his
annual message to Congress in December, President Cleve-

lland devoted his entire speech to this issue. Citing the

need to reduce the treasury surplus and to remove the in—

equities in the tariff laws, Cleveland called for a

206

q

207

general union of tariff reformers in a cooperative effort
to reduce import duties. The President was careful, how-
ever, not to endorse any theories Of "free trade" or to
propose any specific plan for Congress to consider. In-
stead he restricted himself to suggesting tariff re-
ductions on raw materials and endorsing an expansion Of
the free trade list as a general approach to tariff reform.

The President's address was a clear challenge to the

 

Republican party that the election of 1888 would be
fought specifically on the issue of tariff reform--a
principle that might not only insure Cleveland's re-
election but also provide a rallying point upon which the
divided elements of the Democratic party might unite.2
The search for a campaign issue was not limited

to President Cleveland. Many Republican leaders, includ-
ing Senator Palmer, had eagerly cast about for a "safe"
issue upon which to base their campaign. On November 25,
1887, some eleven days prior to the President's tariff
Inessage, the Detroit Evening News reported a speech by
Palmer in which he called upon the Republican party to
take a stand for prohibition, a topic that he believed
‘was closer to the public's emotions than the matter of
‘tariff reform. The essence of his address is contained
in the following excerpt:

Whenever the Republican party has been radical it has

been triumphant. Whenever the Republican party has

asserted a great principle, it has always won, and
the question now is whether we shall take the lead

208

in the prohibition movement or come in at the tail

of the procession later. It is absolutely imperative
that we have some great moral or sentimental issue to
hold the party together. . . . The tariff alone will
not do. I know Of no other question that appeals to
the hearts and homes of people like the temperance
question. You have to fire them with some purpose

or they will scatter.3

Palmer's speech did not result in an immediate “
thronging of Republicans to the banners of prohibition.
Michigan Republicans had been hurt too many times by the 1

third party efforts of the state's prohibitionists to

 

greet such a pronouncement with any great enthusiasm.
Palmer emphatically denied that he was a third
party man and asserted that he was merely anxious that
the "Republican party should keep pace with the liquor
question." Although the Detroit Evening News was doubt-
ful that he had chosen the proper course of action, it
did concede that he might be right. "It is by no means
certain," it said, that the Senator has not stolen a
march upon his rivals. . . . But we shall see what we
shall see."4
Palmer's closest political adviser, William
Livingstone, was mildly upset by the senator's prohibition
views but urged him to stick by them lest his political
enemies make “political hay" out Of his failure to do so.
Livingstone further advised him that the temperance people
had a reputation of not standing by their friends. He
also suggested that the senator not publicly declare his

intentions in regard to another term. Livingstone argued

209

that even if Palmer did not want to run again, he should
be in a position to name his successor. He said that
Russell Alger and James McMillan had joined forces in
Opposition to Palmer. Since McMillan was the chairman
of the Republican State Central Committee and was noted
for his generous donations to the Republican campaign
coffers, this formidable alliance would be hard to beat.
Livingstone was not pessimistic, however, since he be-

lieved that a careful summer campaign spent in "quietly

I Mm w.‘-'~h ‘IM/bt" 707“?
. ,

cultivating“ state legislators would result in Palmer's
re-election.6

Despite President Cleveland's dramatic stand on
the tariff, the new Congress Opened in a quiet vein.
House Speaker Carlisle assigned Roger Mills of Texas the
task of drafting a tariff bill. Since the formulation of
such a complex bill necessitated a careful evanulation of
rates, schedules, and prices, it was not expected that
any tariff measure would emerge from the Committee of Ways
and Means for several months. It was also doubtful that
any tariff reform legislation would be approved by a
Republican Senate.

In the Senate, committee assignments were made as
usual on the Opening day Of Congress. Palmer received
the chairmanship of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee.
He was also named as a member of the following committees:

(l) commerce, (2) education and labor, (3) transportation

210

routes to the seaboard. As a lumberman and a representa-
tive Of a Great Lakes state, his appointment to the
Commerce Committee and his chairmanship of the Agriculture
and Forestry Committee meant that he was in a position to
reflect the interests of Michigan farmers, lumbermen, and
lake navigators--a political combination, which, if
satisfied, would be an invaluable asset to a senator
seeking re-election.7

One of Senator Palmer's first acts was the intro-
duction of a bill designed to reduce the number of immi-
grants allowed into the United States. Probably the most
immediate reason for his action was the Chicago Haymarket
Square riot in 1886, during which a bomb allegedly thrown
by immigrant anarchists killed seven people, including a
policeman. Eight militant anarchists were arrested,
tried, and sentenced to death. Four were eventually
hanged and one committed suicide in his cell. Since most
Of the eight were foreign born and since the bombing
came at the end of nearly six years of labor-management
unrest marked by violent strikes, lockouts, and threats,
it was not surprising that the general public and the
nation's newspapers firmly fixed the blame for labor
disputes and violence on immigrants with an anarchist
background. Although the Knights of Labor--which had
been agitating for an eight-hour working day--attempted

to disclaim any responsibility for the Haymarket affair,

 

211

it was held accountable by many people for the violence
because the union welcomed all types Of working men,
including unskilled immigrant laborers. Subsequently
after 1886 the Knights suffered a permanent decline in
membership and prestige.8

On November 25, 1887, delegates from Republican

clubs throughout the state of Michigan had gathered in

 

Detroit to select delegates to the national convention

of Republican clubs to be held in New York during the
second week of December. Most prominent Michigan Re-
publicans attended the meeting. Included among the
Republican notables were senators Francis B. Stockbridge
and Thomas W. Palmer, W. R. Bates Of the State Central
Committee, S. S. Olds, Russell A. Alger, Hazen S. Pingree,
George H. Hopkins, James H. Stone, E. W. Cottrell, and

G. B. Stebbins. With an eye toward the 1888 presidential
elections, the Republican representatives discussed the
position that they should take on the important political
questions of the day. On one topic they were unanimous

in their opinion--that of restricting immigration. It

was the consensus of the delegates that no foreigner should
.be welcomed to American shores who lacked a certificate
attesting to his good character and who would not promise
(obedience to the American constitution and form of govern-
Inent. The Detroit Tribune lauded the Republicans for

their stand and asserted that such laws probably would

212

have prevented the Haymarket tragedy. The paper also
made this comment:

It is time that this gross abuse of American kindness
and liberty was stopped. They ought to be prevented
from landing on our shores. We demand a clean bill

of health when immigrants come from infected districts
abroad. Let these jail birds and professional agitators
bring proofs of their previous gOOd behavior and in
default be shipped back without ceremony. That pre-
scription for a great and growing evil we feel sure
will meet with the hearty endorsement of the American
people.

 

This stand on immigration taken by these prominent Michi-
gan Republicans and one of the leading Republican news-
papers in the state helps explain Palmer's own position.9
Other factors no doubt also influenced Palmer to
favor restrictions on immigration. American nativism
similar to the type that had flourished in the 1840's
and 1850's was reborn in the 1880's as a result of the
impact Of Social Darwinism, which fostered emphasis on
America's Anglo-Saxon background and the superiority Of
the Anglo-Saxon race in general. In the minds of many
American nativists--who formed such anti—immigrant
organizations as the American Protective Association-—
the hordes Of unskilled immigrants pouring in from Central
and Eastern Europe posed a clear threat to American ideals

and government. (The American, an anti-immigrant weekly,

 

strongly supported Palmer's immigrant stand.) Supporters
of reform crusades for women's rights and prohibition
(Palmer supported both) Opposed the immigrants' "sub-

‘versive, European attitude's on these questions.“ From

213

a political standpoint, the immigrant leaven posed a
threat to the Republican party since much of the immi-
grant vote was controlled by Democratic city bosses. A
curtailment of immigration would also simultaneously

serve as a restraint on the growing power of the Demo-
10

cratic party.
Palmer's bill was aimed at halting an influx of
what he termed the ”defective, dependent and delinquent"

classes. According to the senator, the 1880 census re-

: Iww‘nww‘rk- M'fi.‘ *-
- :

vealed that the foreign born made up the following
percentage of population of these institutions: (1)

28 1/2 per cent of the insane asylums, (2) 22 per cent

Of prisons, (3) 34 per cent of almshouses, and (4) 44 per
cent of workhouses. TO prevent such undesirables from
entry he proposed that inspection and investigation of
the prospective immigrants take place in their home
country. Each immigrant would be required to register
with the nearest United States consul, who would check
his character and references. If the consul found that
the applicant had not been convicted of any political
Offenses and was not a "lunatic, idiot, nhilist, an-
archist, or person unable to take care of himself with-
out becoming a public charge and not hostile to the
Constitution or the American form of government," then a
certificate of immigration would be issued to him. With-
lout this certificate, no immigrant would be allowed to

enter the United States.ll

214

On January 24, 1888, Palmer gave a major address
in defense Of his bill. He prefaced his speech with a
declaration that he would not prevent "any capable, honest,
industrious, law-abiding person from seeking a home on
American soil." He acknowledged the contributions that
immigrants had made to the country, both materially and
morally. Asserting that his Opposition to immigration
was not racially motivated, he stated that “my affili-

ations, social, secular and religious have never been

 

determined by any test of country or creed." Instead he
maintained that his legislation had been prompted by the
"fierce competition for work wherein the inferior members,
by reason of fewer wants and lower aspirations enabling
them to accept lower wages, will if no check be inter-
posed, come out the victors in the battle for bread." He
described why his legislation was necessary in the
following words:
It will be in that case, not the survival of the
fittest but the degradation of the best. If we
desire that the American workingman shall retain
his superiority over the underpaid laborer of Europe,
we must from time to time interpose such Obstacles as
will deter the influx of those who will degrade his
labor by undue competition-—a competition which joy-
fully accepts lower wages than the American laborer
now receives, because it is an improvement on wages
hitherto received by the newcomer and because his
wants have been repressed by his environment.12
Palmer referred to the efforts Of Americans to
build a "new civilization“ and warned that "to acquit our-

selves of our trust to work out the problem of the future

215

of America, it is absolutely essential that we scrutinize
with care not only the factors we now have, but also those
which are being constantly injected into our national
life." Pointing out that legislation had been passed to
exclude a non-homogeneous race such as the Chinese, he
concluded that it was only reasonable and "advisable to
select the most desirable from our own race, instead Of

welcoming the dregs with the wine."13 K

 

He went on to argue that it was time for America
to "go out of the 'asylum' business” and "to deny the use
of its shore as a dumping ground for the vicious and de—
linquent human product of other nations." Only those
immigrants who desired to "become American citizens in
the highest and broadest sense, and whose physical, mental
and moral qualifications are such as to render their
coming profitable to the republic should be allowed to
enter American ports."14

To support his statements, Palmer cited immi—
gration statistics provided by the United States Bureau
of Statistics. They indicated that 48 per cent of the
immigrants admitted to the United States since 1872 had
lacked an occupation. Included among the more recent
immigrants were the "lower grades of Slavonians, Hun—
garians, Russians, Jews, Servians, Italians and other

races singularly unwholesome in kind if not degree . . .

and the fanatical followers of Bakunin, social wolves,

216

honoring no flag, revering nothing as sacred, defying and
despising all laws and rights of persons or property."

He argued that if this flow of foreigners continued un-
checked, the effect upon native American labor would be
to "degrade its character" and lower its standard Of
living.15

Palmer concluded by acknowledging that his bill

 

was not the perfect solution but only a step in "the I

right direction." He believed, however, that it would F

aid in the enforcement of present laws and provide a r

response for the peOple's demand of a "moral quarantine."

Despite his eloquence and his statistical documentation,

Palmer's bill did not emerge from the Committee on Foreign

Relations.16
The public response to the senator's address was

generally favorable. His personal correspondence re-

flected much support for his views. Some correspondents

even advocated sterner measures--one writer proposed that

every immigrant must "have a sound mind, body, and un-

questionable moral character and must be in the country

twenty-one years before he is entitled to vote." The

New York Times was generally in favor of Palmer's attempt

 

to limit immigration but doubted whether it was feasible
to have the consuls conduct the investigation since they
were not prepared to make "quasi-judicial investigations"

and since it was difficult to determine from a cursory

217

examination whether a person was a radical anarchist or
not. The only major dissenting correspondent was the
Hungaria Publishing CO., which published foreign language
newspapers. The company objected to Palmer's speech be-
cause it believed that he had been unfair to the great
number of immigrants who had adapted themselves to Ameri-
can laws and customs. Although it wrote several letters
to the senator, the company received no response from
him.17
Palmer spent much of his legislative time deal-
ing with matters related to the Committee on Agriculture
and Forestry. He took particular interest in two mea—
sures that came before that committee. The first bill
called for a reorganization of the Bureau of Animal In-
dustry to enable it to fight more effectively the spread
of pleuro—pneumonia and other contagious animal diseases.
This was not only a domestic problem but involved foreign
relations also since many foreign countries, including
Britain, France, and Germany had at times closed their
ports to American livestock because the United States
lacked any procedures for examining and verifying the
health of animals to be exported. The act creating the
bureau in 1884 sought to remedy this situation by appoint-
int a veterinary surgeon as chief of the new bureau to
investigate and examine animals intended for export. The

bureau chief lacked autonomy as the Commissioner of

rrljnnbff‘iif '.fi - T

m ~n——nan .mrmnnlu

218

Agriculture was authorized to organize and supervise the
bureau's Operations. Also the commissioner and not the

bureau chief was given the responsibility of hiring per-
sonnel for the bureau. In addition the commissioner was
directed to develOp rules and procedures for eliminating

pluero—pneumonia and other infectious animal diseases;

 

to institute investigations for the purpose of searching
out and destroying diseased animals; and to act in coordi-
nation with the secretary of the treasury to develop regu—
lations for the transport of livestock, both domestically
and abroad. The duties of the chief and his agents were
primarily to investigate and collect information on
animal diseases.18
Palmer declared that the bureau needed to be
reorganized so that it could effectively perform its
principle function--that of discovering and eliminating
animal disease. Citing the limited authority vested in
the bureau chief and the small staff and their lack of
expertise--all complaints that had been repeatedly made
by livestock men--he reported favorably out of his Com-
mittee on Agriculture and Forestry a bill calling for
expanded powers for the Bureau of Animal Industry. The
proposal called for the dissolution of the existing
bureau and the creation of a new one with the same title
but with enlarged powers and improved organization. A

three-man commission was to be appointed with two Of

219

the members to be cattle growers of "known executive
experience" and the other a veterinary surgeon. The com-
missioners and their agents were to be authorized to
enter livestock areas and to make searches for diseased
animals, to declare quarantines, and to destroy and pay
for infected animals. Palmer believed that creating a
commission dedicated solely to the eradication of animal
diseases would produce better results than adding to the
powers of the Commissioner of Agriculture, who had many
other tasks to perform. It meant, according to him, that
more men would be in the field rather than in offices in
Washington.19
Several senators Opposed the bill on the grounds
that it disregarded the regulatory rights of the states.
Palmer asserted that "no extraordinary powers" were
granted to the prOposed commission and that no "rights
of states" would be encroached upon by the passage of the
bill. He further argued that "a commission with limited
and well defined powers" was necessary to insure proper
enforcement of animal disease laws because the present
bureau's powers were mainly investigative. After his
remarks debate on the bill continued, with Senators Cullom
and Vest leading the Opposition. Finally Palmer allowed
the bill to be removed temporarily from consideration
because he saw that with such strong Opposition there

was little chance of its being passed.20

220

The second important bill before the Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry to be championed by Palmer was a
House bill to elevate the Department of Agriculture to
cabinet status. In 1862 Congress provided for the organi—
zation of a Department of Agriculture with a commissioner
at its head; thus the department lacked cabinet rank. The
Morrill Act and the Homestead Act were also enacted in
1862. These three acts constituted the framework of the
federal government's agricultural program well into the
twentieth century. These laws had been advocated by
farmers and farm organizations for many years. Southern
Opposition to these agrarian bills, ostensibly on the
grounds that they were violations of states' rights, had
prevented their passage for a number Of years. With the
secession of the South from the Union in 1861, the Re-
publican party was quick to consolidate its position with
the farmers by swiftly passing the desired legislation.21

Many farmers felt aggrieved that their department
was not of cabinet rank and agitated for such a change.
The National Agricultural Congress and the National Grange
at their annual meetings in 1876 passed resolutions in
support of cabinet status for the Department of Agricul—
ture. As the Grange declined in power and influence in
the 1880's the National Farmer's Alliance replaced it as
the chief agrarian spokesman for elevation of the depart-

ment. Palmer, as chairman of the Senate Committee on

‘ M‘ “4'1

 

221

Agriculture and Forestry, received letters from the
Farmers' Alliance in favor of a new department. The
Alliance argued that the powers of the Commissioner of
Agriculture were too weak and that Congressmen regarded
the present department only as a means Of placating
constituents by distributing positions and free seeds.22
Palmer's committee did not approve the House bill
until it had amended it because it objected to section
five, which authorized the transfer of the Army Signal
Corps to the prOposed new department. When the United
States Weather Service was founded in 1870, the Army
Signal Service was authorized to administer the weather
service's programs because it was believed that army
discipline would ensure the dedication needed for accur-
ate readings at lonely weather stations. The Signal
Corps also serviced more than 6,000 miles of military
telegraph lines over which weather readings could be
speedily sent to Washington for analysis. As the mili—
tary telegraph system declined in importance and as the
role Of trained civilians in meteorology expanded, the
role of the Army Signal Corps in the weather service was
severely questioned. Many Congressmen in the 1880's
sought to divorce it from the weather service. This
struggle for civilian control was concurrent with the
effort to place the Department of Agriculture on a cabinet

level. Some members of Congress thought that both

-u‘-

1 win.

222

Objectives might be reached by incorporating in the bill

upgrading the Department of Agriculture a provision for

transferring the weather service to the department.23
Palmer defended the committee's action against

Opposition led by Senator Morgan (Ala.) and Senator Platt F“

(Conn.), who desired to reinsert the deleted section. He 1

said that he "had been educated to suppose that the

Signal Service Bureau appertained mostly to commercial

wants and exigencies." He added:

I nun A ‘- MIR-Dim.\flm.‘r
;

Upon the shores Of the Great Lakes, where it is much
more essential to know the correct weather than it is
upon the Atlantic Coast, the bureau is regarded with
great favor. That immense commerce is in a great
measure affected by the predictions of the bureau.
The bureau has been very successful and its success
might not be impaired by attaching it to the Agri-
culture Department but it would be an experiment.
He acknowledged that the Signal Corps might need reorgani-
zation but suggested that this might best be accomplished
by a separate bill. Since he was "very anxious" to have
a Department Of Agriculture given cabinet rank, he did
not want an extraneous issue to prevent its creation.24
Despite the Michigan senator's arguments, support
for the transfer of the Signal Corps continued, spear-
headed by Senator Plumb Of Kansas. Although there were
amendments to the first four sections of the House bill,
these were mainly minor alterations in wording; the con~
troversy centered on section five. Palmer continued to

stress that the first four sections Of the bill were the

pertinent portions of the measure and that section five

223

was irrelevant and that it was unnecessary to "engraft the
bureau upon the new department.” Palmer was able to defeat
the transfer by a vote of 33-9 and to secure the passage Of
the bill. When the House refused to concur, conference
committees were appointed to work out a compromise. Time
ran out and consideration of the measure was carried over
to the second session.25

As in the preceding two Congresses an attempt was

made to pass a general land grant railroad forfeiture bill.

 

Once again Senator Palmer attempted to amend the bill so
that the conflict over forfeited land titles of the
Ontonagon and Brule Railroad could be resolved. He
wanted to make sure that those homesteaders and settlers
who had settled on the railroad lands by such legitimate
means as pre-emption were not diSplaced from their homes.26
Palmer's position placed him in direct Opposition
to the stand taken by the junior senator from Michigan.
Senator Stockbridge wanted all of the Upper Peninsula
railroad lands to be forfeited, thus making the stock-
holders Of the Portage Lake Canal-~who had been granted
land by the state Of Michigan previous to the railroad
grant--recipients of the land titles held by the Ontonagon
and Brule Railroad. Palmer maintained that the Canal
company had previously forfeited its rights to those lands

because it had never completed the canal according to its

contract specifications. He then cited House Report No.

224

684 of the 48th Congress to support his position and
declared that it was the report's conclusion that the
canal had never been completed according to the specifi-
cations Of the granting act.27

Stockbridge, along with Senator Hoar (Mass.),

continued to defend the legitimacy of the canal company's

Ia)-~nlii&

claim. Palmer, exasperated by his Opponents, exploded in
a verbal outburst that caused the Senate chamber to ring

with laughter. He made this comment:

Inna-hr : I” 1.3- ‘14.|l_\

This is the most intangible, impalpable, illusory,
misleading, nebulous fight that I ever was in. Part
of the time it is the equities, part of the time it
is the equivalent, part of the time it is the law,
but all the time on general principles we want the
land.28
In spite of Palmer's eloquent and tenacious
defense of the homesteaders, the Hoar-Stockbridge coali-
tion proved to be too strong and their amendment favoring
the Portage Lake Canal interests was attached to the
general forfeiture bill. The version of the bill returned
by the House, however, declared that settlers on for-
feited lands would be entitled to 160 acres Of land, thus
Offering the protection for the homesteaders that Palmer
had been attempting to provide. A conference committee
failing to reach an agreement, the problem was carried
over to the second session.29
This confrontation with his colleague from

Michigan earned for Senator Palmer the gratitude of the

settlers. A spokesman for the Upper Peninsula settlers,

225

interviewed by the Detroit Free Press, summed up the

 

settlers' attitude toward Palmer in the following words:
But I can assure you the settlers would be badly left
if it were not for Senator Palmer. He is the best
friend they ever had. He has insisted from the start
that nothing should go into this bill that would by
any possibility interfere with the right of any bona
fide settler and he has not only insisted, but has
had his way about it. If their rights are saved,
they owe it to the unyielding stand he has taken in
their behalf. He has done it too, without acting
unfairly to either the railroad company or the cash
entrymen. He has simply insisted on fair dealing
with all the interests involved.30

At the same time Palmer had made enemies of the
Portage Canal interests and strained the relations be-
tween himself and Senator Stockbridge. Since Stockbridge
was already a member of the Alger and McMillan clique
that Opposed Palmer, this incident could only serve to
increase the hostility between the two rival political
camps.

Palmer, as usual, kept informed of Michigan
Republican politics. He was particularly interested in
the efforts of Alger and his supporters to boost the
"general" for the Republican presidential nomination. He
had been fearful that this talk about the presidency was
a smokescreen to cover up Alger's candidacy for senator.
His Michigan friends, however, assured him that Alger's
professed intentions were genuine.31

In April, the sudden and unexpected resignation

of James McMillan as chairman of the Republican State

Central Committee, "on account of domestic affairs,"

 

226

clouded an already murky Republican situation. Since
McMillan was being touted as Palmer's successor in the
Senate, his withdrawal from his party position raised
doubts about his political future. Some of Palmer's
friends were certain that McMillan's political career was
over while others did not believe that his resignation
meant complete withdrawal from politics. Whatever their
Opinions concerning McMillan's resignation, his friends

were unanimous in the advice that the senator should

 

attempt to have himself named as McMillan's successor. L
This Palmer declined tO do.32
Palmer's most difficult political problem was to
decide on a proper reaction to Alger's presidential
ambitions since any public Opposition to Alger would
widen the split in the Republican party and incur the
wrath of the party leaders who were busy preparing for
the important fall election campaign. Any action that
would seriously hamper party unity and threaten Republi-
can majorities could prematurely end the career Of a
politician unwise enough to embark on such a course.

As usual the senator relied on his political
correspondents to report on the prevailing political
situation in Michigan. They advised him to attend the
state Republican convention and to avoid Open opposition

to Alger, even, if necessary, attending the national

convention as an Alger delegate. Any Opposition to

227

Alger's candidacy, they warned, would only "sour" his
chances for re-election. They cited the events of 1880
when Palmer was forced to show his strength prematurely
in the state convention, and as a consequence, had his
gubernatorial hopes dashed. James Shepard, Palmer's
personal secretary, predicted that Alger would control
the state convention and suggested that Palmer's strategy
should be to support Alger as a favorite son presidential

candidate and James McMillan for governor, thus opening
33 [

 

the way for his own unopposed re-election.

Palmer followed the advice of his friends and
refrained from publicly Opposing Alger's candidacy. To
Alger he wrote declaring his neutrality. As a result,
Fred Farnsworth, Secretary of the Michigan Republican
State Central Committee, could write Palmer that the
"white winged dove of peace hovers over all" in the
Republican camp.34

At the Republican State Convention, which began
on May 9, Alger won his party's endorsement for the
presidential nomination. Even though Palmer and his
friends made no attempt to block Alger's candidacy, un—
expected Opposition did develop from western Michigan
delegates who were Blaine supporters. The Blaine bloc
was not strong enough to jeopardize Alger's endorsement
although it had been largely unanticipated by the Alger
camp, and it cast some doubts on how firmly Michigan

would stand behind Alger at the national convention.35

228

The Republican state platform reaffirmed the high
protective tariff policies that had been a cornerstone of
Republican politics since the Civil War. Alger reflected
the Michigan Republican concern for the tariff when he
commented on the relationship between workingmen and the
tariff in the following words:

If it is necessary to thoroughly protect home in-
dustries upon any article or articles, I would in-

crease the duty to the point that would absolutely
protect them against such a reduction of wages.36

 

Meanwhile in Congress the Mills Bill had finally
emerged from the House Committee on Ways and Means. In-
cluded on the bill's prOposed free list were such items
as wool, salt, lumber, and metal products——a11 important
staple products Of the Midwest and Michigan. Southern
products such as sugar, rice, and low grade cotton goods
suffered only slight reductions in the tariff duties that
protected them. Duties were reduced by an average of
about 7 per cent. Since the bill had been prepared by
Southern and Western Democrats, it was not an attempt at
true tariff reform but more of a political measure that
favored the South and had little appeal to the North and
the Midwest. In Michigan, Republican newspapers and in—
dustries affected by the proposed lower duties denounced
the bill and Senator Palmer was deluged with mail from
businessmen irately demanding the defeat Of the measure.

The Lansing State Republican accused the Democrats of

 

develOping for purely political purposes a tariff that

229

was seriously detrimental to Michigan industry. The
Detroit Evening News succinctly summarized the initial
effect Of the Mills Bill in these words: "The general
feeling is that of satisfaction among Democrats and com-
plaints among Republicans."37

As the House began a long debate on the merits Of

the Mills prOposal, the attention of the Senate was

 

focused on the coming Republican National Convention.
A number of Republican senators considered themselves h
presidential timber. Included among this group were 5
John Sherman of Ohio, Benjamin Harrison of Indiana,

William Allison of Iowa and Chauncey DePew Of New York.

Non-senate aspirants included Russel Alger of Michigan

and Judge Walter Gresham of Indiana. Over the heads of

these presidential hopefuls hung the Spectre of James

Blaine. Although Blaine had declined to be a candidate

and had attempted to avoid a draft by traveling in Europe,

his friends, according to Republican newspapers, were

determined to make him a candidate. Thus he was still

viewed as the leading contender for the nomination. On

that basis the other Republican hopefuls planned their

campaign strategy. Sherman's plan was to block Blaine's

nomination for the first two or three ballots; he felt

that only then would he have a chance for victory. So

strongly did Blaine's shadow hang over the impending

Republican convention that daily reports of his health

230

were reviewed by his potential rivals. One of Alger's
supporters wrote him disgustedly that he "never did see
anything so hard to find out as the state of Blaine's
health."38
The Democrats held their convention in St. Louis
during the first week of June. As expected, Cleveland
was renominated and old, infirm Allan G. Thurman of Ohio

was named as his running mate. In contrast to his earlier

address to Congress, Cleveland in his nomination speech

 

cautioned against any sweeping tariff reforms and the
Democratic platform reflected these moderate views.39
The Republican National Convention Opened in
Chicago on June 19. Temporary chairman John M. Thurston
Of Nebraska began the meeting by lavishing praise upon
Blaine for his contributions tO the party in a speech
that made many Of the presidential hopefuls and their
supporters uneasy. Then Representative R. G. Horr of
Michigan presented Chairman Thurston with a gavel made
of Michigan products to emphasize the state's position
in regard to a protective tariff. Horr spoke thus:
This gavel has upon it copper, wool, iron, salt and
wood, the five industries that the party now in power
would ruin and abolish from the face Of the country.
We thought it was meet that this convention should
commence early to pound the daylights out of that
party, consequently we beg the permission Of the
convention to present this for the use of our
temporary chairman.40

Horr and the rest of the protection-minded dele-

gation of Michigan Republicans did not have to worry about

231

the party's stand on the tariff. The platform that
emerged from committee strongly endorsed the protection

of home industries. The Chicago Inter Ocean interpreted

 

the Republican platform in the following words:

The Republican party pledges itself to correct the

irregularities Of the tariff and to reduce surpluses,

not by the vicious and indiscriminating process Of

horizontal reduction but by such methods as will

relieve the tax payer without injuring the laborer

or the great productive interests of the country.

. . . That means protection and nothing but pro-

tection-—not moderate protection but absolute

protection.41

With the preliminaries over, the convention
turned itself to the main business of the concention, the
selection Of a presidential candidate. The favorite son
candidates had firm control of their delegations. John
Sherman warned his Ohio followers that he wanted "no
defection or treachery within the delegation" and that
any break toward Blaine must be resisted to the end be—
cause "it is not honorable and will be resented as I
believe by an overwhelming defeat at the polls." Russell
Alger of Michigan had his state delegation firmly behind
him but was campaigning desperately to broaden the base
Of his support.42
The results of the first balloting reflected the

lack of a Republican consensus. A total of 416 votes was
needed for the nomination. Sherman led with 229. He was

followed by Gresham with 107, DePew 99, Alger 84, Harrison

85, Allison 72, and Blaine 35. A second and third ballot

name‘s-r. M“?

232

failed to reveal any candidate coming to the forefront
although Alger's vote had increased to 122. The Michigan
delegation, Palmer included, steadfastly cast their votes
for Alger and attempted to whip up enthusiasm for their
favorite son.43
The following day, Saturday, June 23, two more
ballots were taken. Benjamin Harrison of Indiana gained
the second spot behind Sherman, gathering 216 and 213
votes to the Ohioan's 235 and 224. Exhausted after two
days Of fruitless balloting the convention was adjourned
until Monday.44
During the Sunday interim many attempts were made
to work out deals by the supporters of the various candi-
dates. Alger, for example, received a telegram on Satur-
day from a DePew supporter who made the following sug-
gestion:
The Blaine managers do not intend that you nor anyone
but Blaine shall be nominated but hope to swallow you
up in the Vice-Presidency. Now if you and Sherman and
Harrison will combine upon DePew, he will be elected
and you three may have the government to yourselves.
California is willing to go for him under these cir—
cumstances.4
Despite the clever maneuverings and schemings of
the various campaign managers, the event that was to
break the deadlock had its origins outside convention
headquarters. On Sunday the Maine delegation received a

telegram that Blaine would refuse a nomination. This

cleared the way for his supporters to go over to Harrison.

 

I ‘m' I“ .‘.
s

233

They believed that he was the most logical candidate
since much of his support came from doubtful states where
it was hOped that his pOpularity and the tariff issue

would be the combination which would assure Republican

 

. 46
Victory.
w“

Desperate attempts were made to forge a combi- I
nation of Alger, Sherman, Allison, and Gresham forces to E
put forth a compromise candidate. A number of states, E
- . . . E
including Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Wis- [

consin, Iowa, Illinois, California, and Missouri decided
to support Allison, but this effort fell through when
DePew withdrew his support--stating that he had with-
drawn his Own candidacy because of agrarian hostility to
the railroads and therefore was not about to turn around
and help nominate the candidate of the agrarians.47
By the seventh ballot on Monday Harrison had
vaulted into the lead over Sherman with 279 votes to the
Ohioan's 230. On the eighth ballot he clenched the nomi-
nation with 544 votes to Sherman's 118. Alger received
all of Michigan's 26 votes even on the final tally. To
placate the East and to reunite the Republican factions
there, Levi Morton of New York was added to the ticket
as the Vice-Presidential nominee.48
Michigan accepted Alger's defeat gracefully as

R. G. Horr read the following statement to the con—

vention after the nomination of Harrison:

234

I came here hoping that this convention would nomi-
nate one of Michigan's sons for the Presidency. It
has failed to do so. If you want to know how we in
Michigan will stand by Gen. Harrison, just think how
we have stood by General Alger. . . . We came here
hOping to place a soldier at the head of the ticket.
We have done it. Now let us go home and ratify the
action of this convention.49

After the Republican National Convention, the y-«
Michigan Republican State Central Committee met to name ,
a permanent chairman. The man selected was George H.
HOpkins, a crony of Russell Alger. Palmer was informed

by a member of the committee that Alger had bought the

 

position for his friend--"a clear case of bOOdle."
According to Palmer's informant, Alger had promised to
raise $50,000 for the campaign and give from $5,000 to
$10,000 if one of four men was selected as chairman.
With the success of his venture, Alger now had virtually
complete control of the Michigan Republican organization.50
After learning Of Alger's action, Palmer dropped
a bombshell among his friends and supporters when he
announced that he would not be a candidate for re—
election. Maintaining that he had made up his mind
several months previously, the senator denied that he
had been pressured to withdraw. He said that he was
confident of re—election but was tired of his Office.
He assured them that he still retained his interest in
Michigan politics and would participate vigorously in

the fall campaign.Sl

235

After making this announcement, Palmer turned his
attention from the Michigan political scene to his sena-
torial tasks. The Mills Tariff Bill had finally emerged
from the House, coming before the Senate in the third week
of July. Michigan interests whose products had been
placed on the free list anxiously implored their repre-
sentatives in Washington to kill the measure. Not only
Palmer but most Republican senators from midwestern and

northeastern states were under pressure from their con-

 

stituents. It was also important from the standpoint of
campaign politics that the Mills Bill fail since its
success would mean a publicity coup for the Democrats.52
Several days after the appearance of the Mills
Bill before the Senate a caucus of Republican senators
was called to discuss the party strategy in regard to the
measure. At the meeting it was decided that the Senate
Finance Committee should "undertake the work Of revising
the tariff, in harmony with protective principles."
Senator Spooner of Wisconsin put the matter thus:
It may take us until the middle Of September or
first of October, but the spectacle of the Republican
party, held in the Senate during the dog days in an
earnest effort to promote the public interest ought
to do as much good on the campaign if not a great
deal more than we could do during these days in
speeches on the stump.53
As the Senate became more involved with the

tariff, much other legislation was ignored. This was

particularly true of the general land forfeiture bill,

236

which had become hopelessly bogged down in conference
and had little chance of success. To rescue his amend—
ment to this bill, Palmer sought to have it passed as a
separate measure. This action was almost successful but
Opposition by Senator Hoar of Massachusetts frustrated
his efforts.54
Not until the first week of October did the

Senate Finance Committee report its version of the

tariff bill to the Senate for consideration. The measure

 

did not call for any major changes in existing tariff *
rates. With the retention of lumber, salt, and wool on
the duty list, most Michigan businessmen expressed satis—
faction with the Senate bill although one disgruntled
cigar manufacturer complained tO Palmer because tobacco
had been placed on the free list. Palmer approved the
Senate bill and made the following remarks in support of
it:
The Senate bill provides for a reduction of the sur-
plus without interfering with protected industries.
The Mills bill was fixed up to suit the solid South
with just enough deference to the interest Of certain
industries in the North to enable the Democrats to
make an issue and not strike the protection sentiment
Of the North too harshly.55
By this time however, most Republicans had
decided that if any tariff bill passed, including the
Senate's measure, the Democrats would profit in the fall

campaign from the publicity that the bill's passage would

receive. With reference to the Republican senators'

237

position, Senator Spooner wrote the following to Governor
Rusk Of Wisconsin:

The Republican senators have agreed, between you and
me, to leave here. It is utterly impractical to
debate at any great length the tariff bill or to vote
upon it at this session. We don't mean to pass it
now and thus lose jurisdiction of the subject. It
has taken too long to get it and when that bill %
leaves the Senate it will be nearly as perfect a
bill as can be made on the subject.55

The Republicans prolonged the debate on the tariff

for several weeks. Finally, on October 21 one of the

 

longest Congressional sessions in history was adjourned
as its members were eager to spend the few days left before
the election on the campaign trail. During its life over
ten thousand bills had been introduced. At least one
Michigan newspaper was not impressed by numbers, declar-
ing that the adjournment Of Congress ended "one Of the
longest and least useful sessions in American history."57
Since the time between the end of the Congressional
session and the November elections was so short, Palmer's
participation in the campaign was limited to donations to
the Republican campaign fund and to several personal
appearances on behalf of Cyrus Luce, the Republican
candidate for governor. The campaign in Michigan was
bitterly fought as both parties attempted to woo the
workingmen to their banners. Since the tariff was the
principle election issue, each party sought to convince

the laboring classes Of the righteousness of its economic

stand. The Republicans possessed an advantage because

238

they also argued that they Opposed the importation of
foreign labor and thus were the protectors Of American
labor--an argument that the Democratic party, whose ranks
were filled with naturalized Americans, could not readily
answer.58

The Republicans were hard pressed in Michigan as
the Democratic free trade position and the appearance of

another strong prohibition candidate threatened to over—

turn the slim pluralities Of 1886. The Republicans

 

 

lavishly distributed their funds in an effort to halt the
Democratic gains. Some Of this money was given to county
campaign chairmen to fill local party coffers.59

The election results were as close as anticipated
but once again the well financed Republican organization
managed to win. Harrison received a plurality of nearly

23,000 votes over Cleveland while Cyrus Luce won the

gubernatorial battle with a 17,000 vote plurality. Vote

 

 

totals are as follows:60
President Governor
Harrison---236,387 Luce ————————— 233,595
Cleveland—-213,945 Burt --------- 216,450
Fish -------- 20,945 Cheyney ------- 20,342
Streeter ----- 4,555 Mills ---------- 4,388

According tO one of Palmer's correspondents the
election "was the most desperate battle in the history
of politics." He also remarked that if the Republicans
had not managed the liquor issue properly the prohibition

vote could have been as high as 25,000. (The Republicans

239

had sought to combat the prohibition influence by select-
ing candidates who were "dry" and by inserting a plank in
their platform calling for local Option in regard to
liquor and stricter enforcement of the existing liquor
tax.) Governor Luce, on the other hand, wrote Palmer
that the Republicans had been victorious because Of the
farm vote and the party's emphasis Of the tariff issue.61

The results Of the Republican triumph at the polls

had little immediate impact upon Palmer's own political

 

life. Since he had withdrawn as a candidate for re- *
election to the Senate, his political future was quite
uncertain. Although some of his supporters still hoped
to nominate him for governor, he remained reticent as
usual about his political plans.62

During the second session of the 50th Congress,
Palmer devoted most of his time to two measures that had
been carried over from the first session--the Agriculture
Department Bill and the Senate's tariff bill. The Agri—
culture Department Bill had passed the Senate in the
previous session and had been sent to the House for con—
sideration. The House under the leadership of William H.
Hatch of Missouri still desired to transfer the weather
service to the Agriculture Department, a provision that
had been struck out by the Senate. A conference com—
mittee met to effect an agreement. Palmer headed the

Senate conference representatives, who manifested such

240

adamant hostility to any suggestion of change in the
Senate's version that the House conferees finally yielded.
Hatch gave the following report to the House:

The managers on the part of the House endeavored most
zealously to induce the managers on the part of the
Senate to recede from the Senate amendment, striking
out the fifth section Of the bill, transferring the 1
Weather Bureau to the Department of Agriculture. In 1
this we were unsuccessful, the decisive vote in the

Senate on this proposition being interpreted by the

managers on the part of the Senate as peremptory

instructions which they felt compelled to respect.63

The House then accepted the report Of the conference

 

committee.

That the bill passed in the form it did was
largely the result of Palmer's work. He had diligently
fought attempts Of the House to complicate the measure
by adding the Weather Bureau and other agencies to the
Department of Agriculture, since he felt that they were
irrelevant to its basic purpose. Even the Democratic

Detroit Free Press praised his efforts in these words:

 

"Senator Palmer has labored with a great deal of patient
skill to bring about the result that has been reached and
the agreement is very largely due to his efforts."64
Palmer closely followed the progress of the Tariff
Bill. He voted against any attempts to reduce duties on
or to place on the free list important Michigan staples.
When Senator Vest of Missouri attempted to place lumber

on the free list. Palmer rose up indignantly and verbally

attacked Vest. He accused the Missouri senator of talking

241

as if he were in the Canadian Parliament and declared that
since Canada subsidized her lumbermen, allowing Canadian
timber in duty free would be an act of discrimination
against American lumbermen. He then went on to defend

the principle of a protective tariff by declaring that

the solution for economic equality was to distribute the
benefits of the tariff to the public. He asserted that
since the fortunes of the wealthy were gained “by exchange,

by transportation or by the selling of goods" and not by

! man-v: 3.2.1." as r... . acousw "mi T F '6?”- was”?
I

manufacturing, it was only reasonable to cure economic
inequities by using the protective tariff to spread the
"benefits Of protection and manufactures.“ By such argu—
ments Palmer helped to defeat Vest's amendment by a vote
of 28-19.65
The tariff measure that emerged from the Senate
clearly reflected the views of the protectionist element.
The House returned the bill to the Senate, noting that
the Senate bill appeared to be in conflict with Article 1
of the Constitution because "said section vests in the
House of Representatives the sole power to originate

66
such a measure."

NO further progress towards an agree-

ment on a tariff measure was possible during the session.
While Palmer was busy with his legislative tasks,

events were taking place that were to have an important

bearing on his future. Back in Michigan, James McMillan

was nominated by the Republicans to replace Palmer in the

242

Senate and was subsequently elected by the legislature.
This meant that the Alger—McMillan forces were in com-
plete control of the party in the state.67

Palmer's efforts on behalf of the Department Of
Agriculture Bill had won for him considerable support for
the new cabinet post of Secretary of Agriculture. Russell
Alger, however, also desired a cabinet position, presumably
as Secretary of War. Since Harrison, from a point of
practical politics, could include in his cabinet only one
Michigan Republican, it meant that Palmer would once again
face Opposition from his state organization in his quest
for political Office. Because Alger and his supporters
controlled the party machinery in Michigan, it was not
likely that Harrison would do anything to alienate that
faction.

The President-elect did not help the situation by
delaying his selection of a cabinet. He did not announce
his first appointment-—James Blaine as Secretary of
State--until January 17, 1889. Meanwhile the Alger—
McMillan faction attempted to dissuade him from select-
ing Palmer and at the same time to persuade him to
choose Alger. Alger had emissaries visiting Harrison
on his behalf as early as November 24, 1888. He himself
wrote to the President-elect that he could not raise any
objection to the appointment of Jeramiah Rusk (Governor

Of Wisconsin) as Secretary of Agriculture; Rusk was

243

Palmer's chief rival for the position. Yet Alger denied
in a letter to Palmer, that he Opposed Palmer's appoint-
ment and was attempting to influence Harrison against him.
Senator Stockbridge also publicly denied that there was

a “ring, syndicate or combination between Senator McMillan,
General Alger and myself against Palmer.“ Meanwhile

Palmer also maintained the facade of friendly relations

 

by declaring that “if General Alger goes into the cabi-

net, I Of course, shall be glad as a Michigan man that it
is so."68

Despite the efforts Of the Alger coalition, his
name was eliminated from the slate of candidates when
Redfield Proctor Of Vermont was named Secretary of War.
One of the chief reasons for Alger's defeat was the
adamant opposition of John Sherman, who was still em—
bittered by what he felt was Alger's treachery at the
national convention.69

With Alger eliminated as a cabinet possibility,
his supporters redoubled their efforts to prevent the
success of Palmer. Stockbridge reversed his public
position and Openly declared himself in favor of Governor
Rusk. McMillan and Stockbridge also sent a letter to
Harrison listing suggested Michigan candidates for federal
appointments. Palmer's name headed the proposed list but
as minister to Italy. Meanwhile Palmer's friends, includ—
ing Governor Luce, deluged Harrison with letters Of

support for Palmer.7o

244

Finally, on March 3, news came that Rusk had been
selected as Secretary of Agriculture. Palmer's friends
were bitter over the Opposition Of Alger, McMillan, and

Stockbridge. The Detroit EveningpNews reported that

 

Harrison had wanted Palmer but that Alger had told him

Palmer's appointment ”would be bitterly resented as a

7‘7"“. - .

reflection upon himself and upon the Republicans of
Michigan." Palmer's secretary, James Shepard, was quoted
as saying that "Palmer's friends have sore hearts, but

they will not have clenched hands until after the Spring

election but after that they will try to punish traitors."71

Palmer accepted his fate calmly and said that "they

were shooting at my hat but my head was not in it . . .

72

now I can retire to my log cabin." He also comforted

one Of his close friends with these words:

Do not weep for me. I am very happy at the outcome
of the whole thing. It is hard on Harrison but can—
not be helped. TO all my friends who showed their
regard for me in the matter I owe my unbounded thanks
. . . it is of more importance to me to have the good
will of my friends and neighbors than to be Czar Of
all the Russians.

He wrote in a similar vein to his longtime friend and
partner, Joseph Whittier:
The matter of the call to the Cabinet was none of
my seeking. It was the President's desire if it
could be compassed without a fight. I am very glad
that it turned out as it did because I hope now to
give twenty years to social life and religion.74
On March 4, 1889, the 50th Congress came to its

end. The senator from Detroit had acquitted himself well

245

during its two years of life. His championship Of the
Upper Peninsula homesteaders and his sucCessful guidance
of the Agriculture Department Bill through Congress high-
lighted his legislative work. Yet, ironically at the peak
of his political career, the combination of the hostility
of his Republican enemies and his own unwillingness to
challenge them for the supremacy of his state's party
organization, appeared to have destined him to an early
political grave.75
Palmer's lackluster political performance in the
waning stages of the 50th Congress was a disappointing
finale to the senatorial career that had begun in 1883
after the long senatorial struggle from which he emerged
the victor. Yet this prolonged battle, in a sense, marked
not only the beginning but the end Of Palmer's political
aspirations. The strategy, the maneuverings, the back-
room meetings responsible for his victory, afterwards
seemed to be distasteful to him and as a senator he re-
peatedly stressed that he wished to avoid future political
controversy in his career. Many Of his supporters had
hOped that he would emulate the Zach Chandler and become
political boss of the Michigan Republican party. Palmer,
however, had been sensitive to the anti-Chandler critics
and had repeatedly refused to become chairman of the
Republican State Central Committee or to take any other

action that would strengthen his position in the party.

246

Much to the disappointment Of his most avid supporters,
as his term neared its end, he appeared to have grown

increasingly introspective and apolitical as he looked
forward to giving, as he himself stated, “twenty years

to social life and religion."76

J ‘ vl"..0 I

.'. 5“

id!

FOOTNOTES-~CHAPTER VI

1New York Times, December 1, 1887.

 

2James D. Richardson, Messages and Papegsgf the
Presidents, Vol. VII (10 vols.; Washington: U.S. Govern—
ment Printing Office, 1896-98), pp. 575-76.

 

 

3LansingState Republican, November 11, 1887;
Detroit Evening News, November 25, December 1, 1887.

 

 

4Detroit Evening News, January 6, 1887; December
29, 1887. One of the greatest fears Of Michigan Republi-
cans was that a strong stand on prohibition would alienate
the powerful German-American vote that was vital for a
Republican victory in Michigan. See Charles S. May to
Palmer, December 1, 1887, Palmer Papers.

 

SWilliam Livingstone to Palmer, December 26,
1887, Palmer Papers.

6Ibid.

7Cong. Record, 50th Cong., lst Sess., p. 16.

 

8Cong. Record, 50th Cong., lst Sess., p. 33;
Garrity, The New Commonwealth, pp. 167-68; Norman J. Ware,
The Labor Movement in the United States, 1860-1890 (New
York: Vintage Books, 1964, originalIy published in 1929
by D. Appleton and Co.), pp. 315-17; John Higham, Strangers
in the Land (New York: Atheneum, 1971), p. 55.

 

 

 

 

9Detroit Tribune, November 26, December 4, 1887;
Detroit Eveninngews, November 26, 1887.

 

 

10Maurice R. Davie, World Immigration (New York:
Macmillan CO., 1936), p. 183; Higham, Strangers in the Land,
pp. 32, 41; American Publishing CO., to Palmer, February 3,
1888, Palmer Papers; Sydney Glazier, "Labor and Agrarian

 

247

248

Movements in Michigan 1876-1896" (unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Michigan, 1932), p. 100.

 

 

llCong. Record, 50th Cong., lst Sess., pp. 654-55.
12

Cong. Record, 50th Cong., lst Sess., p. 653.
13Ibid.
14

Cong. Record, 50th Cong., lst Sess., p. 654.

 

15Cong. Record, 50th Cong., lst Sess., p. 655;
Palmer was supplied with immigration statistics compiled
by the Bureau of Statistics especially for him. See
letter of the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics tO
Palmer, January 10, 1888. Palmer Papers.

 

16Cong. Record, 50th Cong., lst Sess., p. 657.

 

17LansingState Republican, January 7, 30, 1888;
New York Daily Tribune, January 27, 1888. American Pub-
lishing CO., to Palmer, February 3, 11, 1888; A. S.
Kessel to Palmer, January 28, 1888; Hungaria Publishing
Co. to Palmer, February 6, 23, 1888. Palmer Papers.
New York Times, December 8, 10, 1887; August 23, 31, 1888.

 

 

 

18Alfred C. True, A Historypof Agricultural
Experimentation and Research in the_gnited States, 1607—
1925 TWashington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1937),
pp. 59-60; Fred W. Powell, The Bureau of Animal Industry
(Baltimore: The Johns HOpkins Press, 1927), pp. 8—10;
Leonard D. White, The Republican Era, p. 246.

 

l9Cong. Record, 50th Cong., lst Sess., pp. 1329,
2397, 2739-46, 3276; Western Michigan Agricultural and
Industrial Society to Palmer, January 22, 1887; A. L.
Dodge, Assistant Secretary, American Percheron Horse
Breekers Association, to Palmer, February 4, 1887; J. H.
Butterfield, Secretary of Michigan Short Horn Cattle
Breeders Association, to Palmer, February 4, 1887; Alvin
H. Sander, Secretary of the Consolidated Cattle Growers
Association, to Palmer, May 25, 1888; Thomas C. Anderson
(Kentucky cattle breeder) to Palmer, August 17, 1888.
Palmer Papers.

 

2OQQng. Record, 50th Cong., lst Sess., pp. 4497,
4672, 4874-77.

 

249

21White, The Republican Era, pp. 232-34.

 

22A. C. True, A History of Agricultural Experi-
mentation and Research in the United States, 1607-1925,
pp. 39, 172-76; Charles H. Greathouse, Historical Sketch
of the United States Department of Agriculture (Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1898), pp. 9, 21-21;
F. Burrow, President of the National Farmers Alliance, to
Palmer, April 23, 1888, Palmer Papers.

 

23Donald R. Whitnah, A History Of the United

States Weather Bureau (Urbana: University of Illinois
Press, 1961), pp. 19, 22-23, 48, 53, 55, 58. Although
the Agriculture Department Bill passed in the second
session of the 50th Congress with the Weather Bureau
omitted, the Slst Congress made the weather service a
civilian agency and placed it under the Department of
Agriculture.

 

 

24Cong. Record, 50th Cong., lst Sess., pp. 2769,

3036, 3229, 3274-77, 3779, 3783, 4150, 8607, 8650; Palmer
had been in correspondence with the chief signal Officer
of the Signal Corps (see his letters to Palmer May 23,
24, 1888),who wanted the Corps to remain a military unit.
The Officer pointed out that if the Corps was transferred
to a civilian agency, the maintenance of military tele-
graph lines "would be left high and dry." The officer
admitted that reorganization was needed but not by
attaching the Corps to the Agriculture Department.

25Cong. Record, 50th Cong., lst Sess., pp. 8608,

8650, 8805, 8807-09, 8892.

 

26Cong. Record, 50th Cong., lst Sess., pp. 2392,
3033-36.

 

27Cong. Record, 50th Cong., lst Sess.. PP. 3076,

3324, 3385-88; Detroit Free Press, February 10, ll, 13,
1888.

 

 

28Cong. Record, 50th Cong., lst Sess., pp. 3818-19.

 

29Cong. Record, 50th Cong., lst Sess., pp. 3877-78,
5939, 6013.

 

30Detroit Free Press, April 13, 1888.

 

250

31William Gavett to Palmer, January 12, 1887;
Fred Farnsworth to Palmer, April 19, 1888; Harry Conant
to Palmer, March 6, 1888. Palmer Papers.

32LansingState Republican, April 26, 1888; H. C.
Tillman, Assistant Secretary of the Republican State
Central Committee, to Palmer, April 24, 26, 1888; Harry
Conant to Palmer, April 25, 1888. Palmer Papers.

 

33E. Rust to Palmer, March 23, 24, 1888; C. D.
Josleyn to Palmer, March 23, 1888; Fred Farnsworth to
Palmer, March 25, 1888; James Shepard to Palmer, April 25,
1888. Palmer Papers.

34Fred Farnsworth to Palmer, May 16, 1888, Palmer
Papers; Detroit Free Press, May 9, 1888.

 

35Ibid.; Detroit Evening News, May 8, 1888;
Detroit Free Press, May 9, 1888.

 

 

 

36LansingState Republican, May 10, 1888.

 

37Detroit Evening News, March 1, 1888; Garrity,
The New Commonwealth, p. 294; F. W. Taussig, The Tariff
History of the United States (New York: G. P. Putnam's
Sons, 1931), pp. 254-55; Miller, The States Of_the Old
Northwest and the Tariff, pp. 169, 172; H. M. Laud and
Sons Lumber CO., to Palmer, November 14, 1888; Gratwick
Smith and Fryer Lumber CO., to Palmer March 7, 1888;
D. Jarves, President of the Michigan Carbon Works, to
Palmer, April 5, 1888; petition from West Coast lumber
companies to Palmer declaring against placing lumber on
the free list, December 6, 1887. Palmer Papers. Detroit
Tribune, January 4, 10, 1888; Lansing State Republican,
July 25, 1888.

 

 

 

 

 

38John Sherman to Richard Smith, John Sherman
Letterbooks, Sherman Papers; A. L. Conger to John Sherman,
May 20, 1888, Sherman Papers; W. P. Phelps to Alger, May
17, 1888, Alger Papers.

39Chicago Inter-Ocean, June 6, 8, 1888.

 

40Proceediggs of the 9th Republican National
Convention, 1888 (Chicago: Lakely Printing CO., 1888),
p. 15. Hereinafter cited as G.O.P. Proc., 1888.

 

 

251

41Chicago Inter-Ocean, June 22, 1888.

 

42John Sherman to Henry C. Hedge, June 12, 1888,
John Sherman Letterbooks, Sherman Papers; W. P. Phelps to
Alger, May 29, 1888, Alger Papers.

43G.O.P. Proc., 1888, pp. 15, 166-67; Detroit
Evening News, June 16, 1888.

 

 

44G.O.P. Proc., 1888, pp. 177-80.

 

45Elliot F. Shepard to Alger, June 23, 1888,
Alger Papers.

6Sievers, Benjamin Harrison——Hoosier Statesman,
p. 348.

47George Hoar, Autobiography Of Seventy Years
(New York: Charles Scribner and Sons, 1903), pp. 411-12.

48G.O.P. Proc., 1888, pp. 195-205.

 

49lbid., p. 206.

50Fred Farnsworth to Palmer, July 4, 1888, Palmer

Papers.

51Burton Parker to Palmer, July 28, 1888; E. W.
Cottrell to Palmer, July 29, 1888. Palmer Papers. Detroit
Evening News, July 29, 1888; Lansing State Republican,

July 25, 1888.

 

52Detroit Evening News, July 21, 1888; Arthur
Hile to Palmer, September 6, 1888, Palmer Papers. (John
Sherman was under heavy pressure from the Ohio Wool
Growers Association to have wool rates maintained or in—
creased. See John Sherman to John A. Bingham, July 27,
1888, John Sherman Letterbooks, Sherman Papers.)

 

S3John Sherman to John A. Bingham, July 27, 1888,
John Sherman Letterbooks, Sherman Papers. John Coit
Spooner to H. C. Payne, July 31, 1888, copy; Spooner to
nn., July 27, 1888, copy. Spooner Papers.

252

54Detroit Free Press, September 15, 1888; Cong.
Record, lst Sess., 50th Cong., pp. 8610, 8642.

 

55Lansing State Republican, October 5, 1888;
Detroit Free Press, September 25, 1888, October 4, 1888;
Walter E. Barnett, a cigar manufacturer, to Palmer,
September 27, 1888, Palmer Papers.

 

 

 

S6M. Halstead to John Sherman, August 18, 1888,
Sherman Papers; John Coit Spooner to Hon. J. M. Rusk,
Governor of Wisconsin, copy, Spooner Papers.

57Detroit Free Press, October 21, 1888; Lansing
State Republican, October 20, 1888.

 

 

58Russell Alger to Palmer; Chas. Wright to Palmer,
September 14, 1888; Cyrus Luce to Palmer, October 22,
1888. Palmer Papers. James McMillan, an open letter to
Michigan Republicans, October 6, 1888, McMillan Papers.
New York Times, October 8, 10, 1888.

 

59W. P. Healy to Hugh McMillan, November 4, 1888;
J. W. Selden to Hugh McMillan, November 10, 1888; D. C.
Lockwood to James McMillan, October 31, 1888, James

McMillan Papers.

60Michigan Manual, 1889, pp. 348, 370, 424, 427.

 

61George Melingh(?) to Palmer, November 1, 1888,
Palmer Papers; Detroit Free Press, November 8, 12, 1888;
Cyrus Luce to PalmerTTFebruary 25, 1889, Palmer Papers.
New York Times, July 28, August 27, 1888.

 

 

62William Gavett to Palmer, December 6, 1888;
James Shepard to Palmer, January 14, 1888. Palmer Papers.

63Cong. Record, 50th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 192,

 

1399.

64Detroit Free Press, February 1, 1889.

 

65Detroit Free Press, January 12, 13, 1889; Con .
Record, 50th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 113—15, 663, 669, ,
834, 1080, 1085.

 

253

66Cong. Record, 50th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 1103-05,
1216, 1936.

 

67Detroit Free Press, January 3, 17, 1889; William
Livingstone to Palmer, January 19, 1889, Palmer Papers.

 

68LansingState Republican, November 20, 1888;
Detroit Free Press, November 18, 1888; Alger to Harrison,
November 24, 1888; February 4, 1889, Harrison Papers;
Detroit Free Press, February 11, 15, 1889.

 

 

 

69Detroit Free Press, February 2, December 15,

 

1889.

70Detroit Free Press, March 1, 1889; Cyrus Luce

to Palmer, February 25, 1889, Palmer Papers. A confidant
Of Alger, W. P. Phelps, wrote to Alger on December 18,
1888, that Sherman was "vindicatively hostile as ever and
has made up his mind boldly to Oppose you in any way that
comes into his power. In case of a nomination to Office
he would Openly make the fight against confirmation."
Alger Papers.

 

71Detroit Evening News, March 5, 1889; Detroit
Free Press, March 3, 1889.

 

 

72Detroit Evening News, March 5, 1889.

 

73Palmer to E. W. Cottrell, March 9, 1889, T. W.
Palmer Letterbooks, Palmer Papers.

74Palmer to J. A. Whittier, March 9, 1889, T. W.
Palmer Letterbooks, Palmer Papers.

75Detroit Free Press, March 4, 1889.

 

76T. W. Palmer to J. A. Whittier, March 9, 1889,
T. W. Palmer Letterbooks, Palmer Papers.

CHAPTER VII

MINISTER TO SPAIN

The failure of the new Republican administration
to appoint Palmer to a cabinet post deeply disappointed
his Michigan supporters. Many of them wrote to him ex-
pressing their regrest. One supporter, Obviously dis-
gruntled with the Republican element that had opposed
Palmer's appointment, wrote that the "men who seem to be
responsible for the relation that the state Of Michigan
sustains to the general government have blundered in
relation to the cabinet question." Another wrote in
anger of the "treachery of Michigan men" that had de—
prived Palmer Of the cabinet seat. Even Governor Luce
sent his condolences and expressed his surprise and grief
over the "strange blunder of the President Of the United
States."1

In Spite of the feelings of his supporters, Palmer
continued to maintain the composure with which he had
first met the news that he was not to receive a cabinet

post. He confided to one friend in regard to the cabinet

position that he "preferred not to have it if there was to

254

255

be a fight.” TO another he expressed his hope that the
conclusion of his Senate term would mean the end of his
political activities. Having resigned himself to the end
Of his career in national politics, he began his prepa—
rations for his departure from Washington.2

Before Palmer could complete his preparations to
return to Detroit, rumors began to circulate that he was
to be offered a diplomatic post. These rumors proved to
be accurate for on March 11 he was nominated by the Presi—
dent and confirmed by the Senate on March 12 as Minister

to Spain. The Detroit Tribune reacted favorably to the

 

news and predicted that the senator's "many friends and
admirers in Michigan" would also be pleased by the appoint-
ment. The paper concluded its comments by attesting to
Palmer's qualifications, calling him a "gentleman of high
culture, of large experience in foreign affairs, intelli-
gently informed On all matters Of international concern."3

The New York Times and the Detroit Free Press

 

 

reported that Palmer was completely surprised by the news
Of his appointment. The Times quoted him on the subject
thus:
The appointment was a complete surprise to me. I
had never asked the President about any appointment.
I was lying in bed at my house in Washington when I
was informed by Senator Manderson through the tele-
phone that my name had just been sent to the Senate.
It was positively the first time that I knew it.4
(Palmer's surprise was probably not as complete as he

had indicated to the press. Rumors Of a diplomatic

256

appointment for him, possibly to Spain, had been reported
by the Detroit newspapers.)

Palmer did not make an immediate decision in
regard to the appointment. AS he confided to one of his
political cronies, he wanted "to go home and talk to the
boys about it." He further intimated that no matter what
he decided, he would have "no griefs, no tears, no heart
burnings and No-vember [gig] in 1890."5

Privately, he wrote to a friend that he was aware
that the nomination as Minister to Spain was an effort by
his political foes to placate him by allowing him "to be
let in on the 'Sweet.'" He confessed that he did not
know how to react to the appointment. To another corres—
pondent he made this comment:

I am somewhat at a loss to know what to do with it
and propose to consult with my friends before deter—
mining. If I go to Spain it will be for a short
stay as I mean to be envisioned in the Log House in
1890 devoting myself to the cultivation of my
friends. [The Log House was Palmer's farmhouse
located on the outskirts of Detroit.]6

Palmer's political advisors at first expressed
the Opinion that the position was too insignificant for
a man of his dignity. Their advice to him was "to go
home and go in training for a general knockout and the
next governorship." On reconsideration, however, they
thought that perhaps a short absence would be healthy for
him since it would allow some of the factional strife in

the party to subside, to his "advantage" and "comfort."

All agreed that his trip abroad should be a "short exile."7

257

Following the counsel tendered him by his politi—
cal supporters, Palmer accepted the appointment. The

Detroit Evening News predicted that he would be returning

 

from Spain soon "to punish his enemies." The paper also
predicted that he would be working to prevent Stock—
bridge's re-election to the Senate and Alger's presi-
dential ambitions from coming to fruition.8

Palmer's acceptance of the foreign post was met
with warm praise from his friends both in Washington and
in Michigan. The Michigan legislature sent President
Harrison congratulations on his appointment. The Demo-

cratic Detroit Free Press complimented Palmer on his new

 

position and commented that it was an appropriate appoint-
ment because he could speak Spanish fluently. The Detroit
Tribune offered the Opinion that if Palmer was successful
in his post--particularly if he was able to negotiate a
reciprocal trade agreement for northern wheat and Cuban
sugar--he would be destined for an even higher diplomatic
post.9

As Palmer prepared for his departure, he heard
that Russell Alger was in Washington seeking the post Of
Solicitor-General for an Old crony-—Henry Duffield. Not
wishing to pass up the opportunity to gain a little
revenge against Alger, he wrote Senator Sherman, asking

him to Oppose Alger's nominee. (Sherman still blamed

Alger for his defeat at the Republican National

258

Convention in 1888.) In reporting his action to a friend,
Palmer asked with reference to Duffield, "Why make him a
major General when he would make a very poor private."

The Detroit Free Press edition of March 15, 1889, reported

 

that Palmer had "squelched" Duffield's bid to be Solicitor-
General.10
Palmer arrived in Washington in the middle of
April and immediately began a ten-day period Of training
and briefing on his diplomatic duties. During this time
he asked and received permission to have Captain Frank
Hamilton appointed as his military attache. Hamilton was
married to Palmer's niece, the former Mollie Roby. With
the departure date only weeks away, he still did not know
whether or not his wife would accompany him to Spain. At
the last moment Lizzie decided to make the overseas
voyage.11
The new diplomat was given a farewell dinner by
his friends. He expressed his deep regrest at leaving
them and made the following comment:
It shall be my mission as well as I can do to uphold
the dignity of my country, and if my life is spared,
to return to you. I shall come back rejuvenated and
reinspired with the expectation of spending an Old
age with you that shall be pleasant. I am certain,
more pleasant than it would be in any other part of
the world.12
Palmer learned from his briefing by State Depart—

ment Officials that the bulk of his work would be handling

complaints against Spain's Cuban policy. These complaints

a .e—_. «a- ap‘n—a—g-n— _—’—-nfi—NM-'
c

259

would be two-fold in nature. First, many Cuban exiles
who had participated in the Ten Years War, a rebellion
by Cubans against Spanish control that lasted from 1868-78,
had taken refuge in the United States and had become Ameri-
can citizens. In some cases the Spanish Officials had
confiscated their prOperties in Cuba. After the end of
the war, these exiles attempted to bring legal action
against the Spanish government to gain compensation for
their losses. Secondly, the Spanish government had
sought to reduce the volume of trade between the United
States and Cuba. It hOped to achieve this trade reduction
by levying exorbitantly high import duties on American
goods and shippers. At times American ships and cargoes
were seized by the Spanish Officials in Cuba, bringing
appeals to the State Department from the aggrieved Ameri-
can merchants and ship captains. "It was no surprise,
then, that the volume of complaints cabled to Madrid from
Washington centered on Spanish commercial and economic
policy in Cuba."13
The Spain that awaited Palmer was only a shadow
of the sixteenth century world power that had led the
European invasion of the Western Hemisphere. The nine-
teenth century brought a series of internal disturbances
and rebellions that coincided with the Cuban rebellion
and were largely responsible for Spain's inability to

quell the Cuban insurgency until a decade of war had

260

passed. SO serious were Spain's political problems that
in l873--in the middle of the Ten Years War--the monarch
was overthrown and a republic established that lasted
less than two years. In 1875 a parliamentary monarchy
replaced the republic, with Alfonso XII, the son of the
deposed former Queen, Isabella II, as king. With his
death in 1885, the Queen Regent, Maria Christian, suc-
ceeded to the throne. The government was in reality an
oligarchy rather than a constitutional monarchy. The
leaders of the liberal and conservative parties, con-
trolling both Queen and Cortes, manipulated elections
and changed Offices to present a facade of representative
government.14

Relations between the United States and Spain
between 1880 and 1894 were more amicable than in earlier
years. Before 1880 they were Often conducted in a hos-
tile atmosphere. Spain's Cuban policy and American inter-
est in it were responsible for the diplomatic difficul—
ties. As early as the 1850's, Southern Democrats had
sought to annex Cuba and President Buchanan had repeatedly
urged its purchase from Spain. With the secession of the
South and Lincoln's election, the movement to acquire
Cuba was abandoned since the Republicans believed that
the Cuban annexation movement had been a Southern plot
to preserve the institution of slavery. American inter-

est in Cuba was rekindled by the Ten Years War, during

261

which American aid was given to the Cuban insurgents.
Matters came to a head in 1873 when an American vessel,

the Virginius, was seized in Cuban waters and fifty-

 

three persons aboard were executed by Cuban authorities
for aiding the revolutionaries. American public Opinion
became inflamed and the United States Minister in Madrid,
Daniel Sickles, did nothing to calm relations by urging
the United States government to revenge the deaths.
Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, a cooler and more
accomplished diplomatist, succeeded in placating the
Spanish and removed Sickles from his post. In the en-
suing years Of relative tranquility, trade between the
United States and Cuba had increased to such an extent
that it represented one-fourth of the world trade Of the
United States. The United States consumed at that time
75 per cent of the Cuban sugar crOp. Because of the
volume of Cuban trade, the diplomatic post in Madrid
remained one of the most important in Europe as the
United States sought to keep a close check on Spanish
authorities in the New World.15

The Department of State was most eager to settle
what was known as the Mora claim because it represented
what the department termed a "type" case; it was the most
important of the Cuban exiles' compensation cases origi—
nating from the Ten Years War. Palmer's immediate

predecessor, Perry Belmont, had attempted to negotiate

262

a settlement but he had been warned by the Spanish Minister

of Foreign Affairs that the Spanish House of Deputies re-

garded Mora as a "declared enemy of Spain" and would not

initiate any settlement. To acquaint Palmer with the

case, Secretary of State Blaine sent him a long letter

giving the details and instructions on proceeding with

the matter. According to Blaine, Mora was a naturalized

citizen and one of the refugees of the Cuban rebellion

who were seeking compensation for property seized by

Spanish authorities. After hostilities had ended, Mora

filed a claim to recover his financial losses. In 1873

the Spanish government issued decrees ordering the resti-

tution of his property but they had never been carried

out. In 1886 a Spanish offer to pay a full indemnity of

$1,500,000 was accepted by the United States and by Mora.

The Spanish House of Deputies, however, refused to approve

the agreement because it wanted the United States to

settle first Spanish claims resulting from the cession

Of the Floridas and alleged injuries suffered by Spanish

subjects during the American Civil War.16
The State Department, therefore, directed Palmer

to inform the Spanish government that the United States

government did not recognize any Spanish claims that had

not received prior consideration and to continue to press

for a settlement Of the Mora claim. If Spain refused to

settle the issue, then he was to tender the President's

263

regret and disappointment at the Spanish decision and
immediately cable the State Department the “unfortunate
results." He was to discontinue discussion and to await
further instruction from the State Department. With such
instructions as a foretaste, Palmer embarked for his new
post.17

The Palmers sailed on May 15, 1889. They stopped
in Paris and were forced to remain there an extra week
because the Spanish Queen Regent was not in Madrid and the
new minister's arrival would have caused her some incon-
venience. Upon his arrival in Spain Palmer had an inter-
view with the Spanish Secretary of State, the Marquis de
la Vega de Armijio, the courtesies were exchanged. On
June 17, he was received by the Queen Regent in a Simple
ceremony since the Queen wanted "no formal address.“ The
new minister merely presented his letters of credence and
the letters of recall of his predecessor. He described
his reception as "cordial, appreciative and all that the
most fastidious could wish."18

One of Palmer's first duties was to recommend
that the secretary of the United States mission to Spain,
Edward Strobel, be retained, even though Strobel had
handed in his letter of resignation. Such resignations
were usual and expected when an administration changed.

Palmer argued that since the problems the United States

delegation faced were "economic and not of a political

264

character,“ Strobel should not be relieved "until such
time as his retiring would not imperil negotiations with
which he is conversant and which he can assist in pro-
moting better than a new appointee." Palmer's request
was granted.19

Both Palmers found their new environment less
than satisfactory. Madrid in the spring was extremely
cold and the minister required a coke fire. July, how-
ever, he found to be "hot as hell." His health was not
good as he suffered from a Skin rash attributed to the
heat and complained of "heart trouble," which he thought
was caused by his excessive smoking. His wife was not
enjoying her stay because of the street noise at night
in Madrid. According to Lizzie, "the people sleep all
day and prowl about all night." Despite these discom-
forts, the Palmers entertained extensively as might be
expected of a foreign diplomat, and the United States
legation in Madrid was often the "center for social
events in the diplomatic corps" stationed in the Spanish
capital.20

Luckily, Palmer's immediate duties were not overly
strenuous. He was asked to check on several claims of
individuals and companies against the Spanish government
for matters ranging from ”illegal imprisonment" to ex-

cessive steamship duties. He was also asked to gather

information on Spanish Shipping, communication, and

265

ports, both in Spain and Central and South America. The

State Department expected that his information "would

be found very useful."21
At the end of July Palmer sent a resumé of recent

developments in the Spanish legislature that he thought

would be of interest to the Secretary Of State. Accord-

ing to his account, on May 22 the conservative leader of f

the legislature for the purpose Of (1) increasing dis- :

sension in the liberal party, and (2) postponing dis-

 

cussion on a universal suffrage bill, directed debate
toward the issue of Spanish protective tariffs. The
liberal leader, however, presented a series of economic
reforms that he desired to be acted upon immediately. No
decision could be reached and the session was suspended
when attempts tO instill order were met with "yells and
hisses." The legislature resumed its Sitting on June 14,
but was again suspended by the Queen when order could not
be maintained. Palmer was Of the Opinion that new
elections might be necessary before the legislature
once again convened. His report revealed that during his
first two months on the job he had made some effort to
understand Spanish politics.22
On July 30, Palmer received this message from
the State Department: "Have you no action as to Mora

case for us?" In return he sent a long explanatory

letter to Blaine. He said that he had refrained from

266

communicating Blaine's instructions of May 20 to the
Spanish Minister of State because it meant bringing the
matter before the House of Deputies, which had displayed
previous hostility to the Mora claim. In Palmer's Opinion,
such action would serve more to "retard than expedite"
further negotiations. He said that the United States was
in error in believing that the Spanish ministry could pass
on the Mora claim because it had avoided a censure vote

by a large margin. He pointed out that censure had been
avoided only because the government had promised to ask
for no settlement Of the claim. He further reported that
the Mora property had been sold and that most of the
money realized from the sale had been absorbed by Mora's
creditors. If the prOperty had not been disposed of, an
executive order could have released it, but the government
could not raise any money without resorting to the legis-
lature. Palmer suggested that the United States should
reply favorably to the proposal of the Marquis de la Vega
that claims on both sides be examined jointly by the
Spanish Minister in Washington and representatives of the
State Department. These would include Spanish claims

that had been pending for years. In such a manner, he
suggested, a compromise agreeable to both sides might

be worked out, thus amking general redress by the Spanish
government unnecessary. Palmer concluded his appraisal

with the following words:

 

267

Again with a peOple of the peculiar temper of the
Spanish nation, the presentation Of the instruction,
connected as it is, with the subject Of Cuban re-
lations-~on which their sensibilities are extreme--
may be followed by grave complications in which case
it would be highly desirable that our position should
be unassailable and our deductions uncontrovertible.23

Palmer had shown some courage in disobeying his
instructions in order to present a more realistic picture
of the problem to the State Department. A less astute

man might have carried out his instructions without re-

gard to the consequences. Evidently his advice was heeded,

as he was not ordered to proceed according to his original
instructions.

August found both the Minister and his wife "not
feeling well." Mrs. Palmer wrote to a friend that she
was "longing" for the end of their tour abroad.24

In September Palmer received congratulations from
the State Department for his success in persuading the
Spanish government to remit excessive duties exacted by
Havana customs authorities on an American steamer's cargo.
On certain other American claims, he was not SO successful
since the Spanish were generally Opposed to approving any
American claims.25

In October Palmer Obtained a leave Of absence
that lasted almost three months; he did not resume his
embassy duties until January 24, 1890. He spent much Of

his leave in London. In the interim, Edward Strobel

had retired as secretary of the legation and had been

0.: u “Lu-‘3. I..-’ 32“.:7 I . T ‘4
.
I

.. .JM ' n" l

268

replaced by Harrie R. Newberry, a Michigander, much to
the surprise of Palmer, who had not been notified of the
appointment.26
Although Palmer had always yearned for a family,
up to this point he had been childless. While in Spain
he and his wife adopted a small Spanish boy whose parents
were an impoverished Spanish army Officer and his wife.
The boy's Spanish name was Murillo, but the Palmers
christened him Harold Palmer and nicknamed him "Monkey
Cheeks." Mrs. Palmer was particularly delighted with the
addition to the family and thought that the day Murillo
was adOpted was "one of great fortune." He returned to
the United States with the Palmers and later attended law
school at Cornell and upon Palmer's death inherited
$200,000.27
Upon his return from vacation, Palmer was asked
by the Secretary of State to perform a number of tasks.
One was to make a report on the number of military
veterans and dependents receiving pensions in Spain.
His findings were to be part Of a comparative study by
the United States government of foreign pension programs.
He was also asked to be the United States representative
at the Convention for Protection of Industrial Property
held in Madrid in April because there were no funds avail-
able tO defray the expenses Of a patent Office representa-
tive. The duties of a diplomat, judging from Palmer's

O O O 28
experience, were often Wide-ranging.

J‘ A.” R-H-‘blk --;|fi'—Q

Aux- a

269

One of Palmer's last duties was the presentation
to the Spanish Minister of State of a United States Navy
request for permission to conduct a hydrographic survey
of the south coast of Cuba. Before presenting the re-
quest, he discussed the proposal with the Spanish Foreign
Minister, who informed him that he thought that the E”
Spanish government would be hostile to such a request '
because the government feared the reaction of the Spanish

peOple, who were wary of American designs on Cuba. The i

 

Foreign Minister declared that the presence of American
ships in Cuban waters could only raise questions "of
grave international importance." Palmer submitted the
Navy's prOposal as directed but told Secretary of State
Blaine to anticipate a negative reaction to it.29
On February 14, 1890, Palmer requested the State
Department for permission to visit the United States. By
this time Lizzie had left Madrid for Paris, ostensibly
suffering from exhaustion. On March 7 he received the
desired permission. Although the State Department did not
know it, Palmer did not plan to return to his duties in
Madrid. He had confided to the new secretary of the
legation that he was leaving permanently. Having com-
pleted almost a year abroad, he was leaving Spain, ex—
pecting to run for governor in Michigan.30

Palmer left for the United States on April 19 in

high spirits, looking forward to the gubernatorial

270

campaign. On his homeward voyage he received the news
of the death of his niece, Mrs. Hamilton, which grieved
him deeply since her death marked the end of the direct
line of the Palmer family. William Livingstone, a long
time Palmer adviser and friend, in a letter to James
McMillan made the following comment regarding the impact
Of Mrs. Hamilton's death on Palmer's political future:
Nothing but death would make the Senator withdraw
from the race . . . and I should not be at all sur-
prised knowing as I do the strong affection which
the Senator had for his niece, and she being also
the last link as it were on his Side of the house,
if he should withdraw from the canvas entirely.31
Livingstone was correct in his prediction of
Palmer's reaction to his niece's death. He sent a cable
to Livingstone telling him to withdraw his name as a

candidate. He said that his decision was final and

irrevocable. According to the Detroit Tribune, on his

 

arrival in the United States Palmer would Spend a few
days in New York before traveling to Washington to
seclude himself for some time at the home Of his friend
and former colleague, Senator Charles Manderson of
Nebraska. On June 2, 1890, he officially tendered his
resignation as minister. With this action he formally
ended his political career.32
Thus unexpectedly and prematurely, Thomas W.
Palmer retired from the political arena. His performance

as minister to Spain was characterized by his usual

dedication to his duties. Since he had planned to spend

 

271

only a year at his post, it might have been anticipated
that he would give only cursory attention to his position.
Instead, he had in several instances gone beyond the
requirements Of the State Department to provide assess-
ments Of Spanish politics and policies. It is difficult
to say how he would have performed in a crisis. His stay
in Spain was too brief and too uneventful to enable him

to have significant influence as a diplomat.

 

FOOTNOTES-"CHAPTER VII

1Ronald Kelley to Palmer, March 12, 1889; George
A. Farr to Palmer, March 4, 1889; Governor Luce to
Palmer, March 21, 1889. Palmer Papers.

2Palmer to William Gavett, March 16, 1889; Palmer

to D. H. Richardson, March 16, 1889. T. W. Palmer Letter-

books, Palmer Papers.

3Detroit Tribune, March 11-12, 1889; Detroit

Evening News, March 11, 1889; Senate Executive Journal,
18 -18 9’ pp. 4’ 80

 

4Detroit Free Press, March 12, 1889; New York
Times, March 30, 1889.

 

 

SDetrgit Tribune, March 12, 1889; New York Times,
March 30, 1889.

 

6Palmer to William Gavett, March 16, 1889; Palmer
to Burton Parker, March 16, 1889. T. W. Palmer Letter-
books, Palmer Papers.

7Detroit Tribupe, March 20, 1889; Joseph Greusel
to Palmer, March 18, 1889; E. W. Cottrell to Palmer,
March 15, 1889, Palmer Papers; James Shepard to William
Livingstone. T. W. Palmer Letterbooks, Palmer Papers.

 

8Detroit Evening News, March 17, 1889.

 

9Detroit Free Press, March 18, 31, 1889; Detroit
Tribune, March 20, 1889.

 

10Palmer to John Sherman, April 5, 1889; Palmer
to William Curtis, April 5, 1889. T. W. Palmer Letter—

Books, Palmer Papers. Detroit Free Press, March 15, 1889.

 

272

 

. ‘Lnfm. ‘.L' w

273

11New York Times, March 30, 1889; Detroit Free

Press, March 22, 1889:

 

 

12Detroit Free Press, April 26, 1889.

l3Leland H. Jenks, Our Cuban_§olony (New York:
Vanguard Press, 1928). p. 16; Lester D. Langley, The
Cuban Policy of tpe United States (New York: John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., 1968), pp. 42, 53¥54, 61, 70-71, 80, 83,
85.

 

E

14French Ensor Chadwick, The Relations of the

United States and Spain--DiplomacyTNew York: Russell
and Russell, l968-Reissued), p. 405; Raymond Carr, Oxford
History of Modern Europe, Spein--1808-1939 (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1966), p. 355; Ernest R. May, Imperial
Democrepy-—The Emergence Of America as a Great Power

(New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Wofld, Inc., 1961),

p. 97.

 

J mat-m {or a nuafi‘g'mwas

15Sec. Bayard to J. L. M. Curry, January 19, 1887,

NO. 306; Sec. Bayard to Perry Belmont, December 18, 1888,
NO. 475; Sec. Bayard to Perry Belmont, March 1, 1889, NO.
513. Diplomatic instructions to the United States Le-
gation, Madrid, XX, Records Of the Department of State
(National Archives, Record Group 59). Hereinafter cited
as U.S., Instructions, Spain. New York Times, March 30,
1889; Langley, The Cuban Policy of the Uniped States, p.
85; Chadwick, The Relations of the United States and
Spain--Diplomacy, pp. 411, 42:25:

 

 

16Sec. Bayard to J. L. M. Curry, August 18, 1886,
No. 255; Sec. Bayard to Edward H. Strobel, September 17,
1888, No. 449. U.S., Instructions, Spain. Perry Belmont
to Sec. Blaine, February 16, 18, 1889, U.S., Dispatches
from the United States Legation, Madrid, CXIX, Records
of the Department of State (National Archives, Record
Group 59). Hereinafter cited as U.S., Dispatches, Spain.
Sec. Blaine to Palmer (copy 3), May 20, 1889, Palmer
Papers.

17Sec. Blaine to Palmer (copy 3), May 20, 1889,
Palmer Papers.

18Palmer to Sec. Blaine, June 18, 1889, U.S.,
Dispatches, Spain.

274

19Sec. Blaine to Perry Belmont, April 29, 1889,
No. 520, U.S., Instructions, Spain; Palmer to Blaine,
June 18, 1889, U.S., Dispatches, Spain.

20Palmer to Friend Palmer, June 11, 1889; Frank
B. Hamilton to Ford Starring, Palmer Papers. Detroit News,
June 2, 1913.

 

21Sec. Blaine to Palmer, May 23, 25, July 1, 5'
1889, Nos. 551, 553, 559; William Wharton to Palmer, j
July 28, 1889, NO. 565. U.S., Instructions, Spain. P

Palmer to Sec. Blaine, June 21, 22, July 11, 1889, U.S., j
Dispatches, Spain. F

22Palmer to Sec. Blaine, July 29, 1889, U.S.,
Dispatches, Spain; J. B. Moore to Palmer, August 13, 1889,
NO. 567, U.S., Instructions, Spain.

 

23William Wharton to Palmer, July 30, 1889, NO.
566, U.S., Instructions, Spain. Palmer to Sec. Blaine,
July 31, 1889, Palmer Papers.

24Mrs. Lizzie Palmer to wm. Griffiths, August 15,
1889; Mrs. Lizzie Palmer to Mrs. Griffiths, August 5,
1889. Palmer Papers.

25Alvey A. Adee to Palmer, September 4, 1889,
Nos. 568-569, U.S., Instructions, Spain; Palmer to Sec.
Blaine, September 25, 1889, U.S., Dispatches, Spain.

26Palmer to Sec. Blaine, October 18, 1889, U.S.,
Dispatches, Spain; Sec. Blaine to Palmer, February 11,
1890, NO. 588, U.S., Instructions, Spain.

27Palmer to Mrs. Alice G. Gulick, April 19,
1890; Palmer to Mrs. Houghton, December 29, 1890. T. W.
Palmer Letterbooks, Palmer Papers. Detroit News, June 12,
1913; Detroit Free Press, June 12, 1913.

 

 

ZBSec. Blaine to Palmer, February ll, 14, 18,
1890, Nos. 588, 590, 593, U.S., Instructions, Spain.

29Palmer to Sec. Blaine, April 10, 1890, U.S.,
Dispatches, Spain.

CHAPTER VIII

THE LAST YEARS

Palmer's withdrawal from the Michigan gubernatorial

 

race only signified the end of his political career and
not the termination of his service to the public. Despite
suffering from an inflammatory skin disease, he accepted
in June, 1890, an appointment from President Harrison as
one of the commissioners of the World's Fair to be held in
Chicago in 1893. Palmer spent the next three years de-
voting his time and efforts to making the Chicago World's
Fair solvent and successful. In March of 1891, he was
incapacitated by an illness for several weeks. That same
year, the death of Captain Hamilton, his deceased niece's
husband, served only to strengthen his determination to
remain in political retirement.1

During 1892 Palmer supported President Harrison
for re-election. Although Cleveland's victory in November
disappointed him, he maintained his usual equanimity. He
sent his condolences to Harrison and philosophically re-

marked that he had "come to the conclusion that no one

could have carried the Republican party to success."2

276

277

Palmer repeatedly turned down requests to become
politically active again from both friends and the
state party organization. According to his secretary
he was enjoying his little boy too much and "other
things that give him pleasure and enjoyment" to run for
Office again.3

In 1893 Palmer favored Detroit's reform mayor,
Hazen Pingree, in his bid for re—election. He did not
actively campaign for Pingree as his duties with the
World's Fair had exhausted him and he had been confined
to his bed for some time after returning home. This time
there was to be no disappointment for Pingree won re-
election by a healthy electoral margin.4

The years 1894—1895 found Palmer still recuper—
ating from his illness. In 1895 a fire destroyed his
residence on Woodward but many of his valuable possessions
were saved. He then moved permanently to a brick house
built on his farm on the outskirts of Detroit. The rest
of this land was deeded to the city for a public park,
which was later named after him.5

Palmer spent much of his time in philanthropic
and civic activities, donating money to his favorite
charities and making speeches at building decications
and annual meetings Of associations of which he was a

member. Albion College, the University of Michigan, the

YMCA, the American Humane Association, the Detroit Museum

I”. ’ I W
i

‘ p '.u ‘7‘:

 

278

of Art and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals were among his beneficiaries. Palmer, however,
was discriminating in his charity. On one occasion he
chided his wife for giving funds to one Mrs. Edie. He

requested that Lizzie turn over Mrs. Edie's "begging

A

letters" to him before she was "begged poor." Another
time he turned down the request of a youth for money for
college tuition. He advised the boy to “take a few years

in business before trying the higher schools." He

 

further said: "Of all the things, the first you should
learn is to keep out of debt and not get what you cannot
pay for."6

He spent much time during his last years riding
around the countryside in a chauffeur-driven automobile.
In 1910 his auto was involved in an accident with
another car. Palmer survived the crash but his injuries
left him in a weakened condition from which he never
fully recovered.7

Death finally came to Palmer on June 1, 1913.
In his will he left slightly over one million dollars
to his wife Lizzie, $200,000 to his adopted son, Harold
Palmer, and $250,000 to various charities. Two of the
largest bequests were $75,000 to Harper Hospital and
$50,000 to Albion College. The Woman's Hospital and
Children's Home, the Home Of the Friendless, St. Vincent's

Orphan Asylum, the House of the Good Shepherd, and the

279

Arnold Home for the Aged and Incurable each received
$2,000. The Protestant Orphan Asylum, the St. Francis
Home for Boys, and the National Woman's Suffrage Associ-
ation each received $5,000. The Society for the Pre-
vention of Cruelty to Animals, the Mary Palmer Methodist
Church, and the First Congregational Unitarian Church
each received $10,000. The rest of his estate was
divided among friends, employees, and distant relatives.
The funeral was a private affair with the

President emeritus Of the University of Michigan deliver—
ing the eulogy. The minister who presided at the final
service cited Palmer's contributions to society in the
following words:

. . . The Unitarian Church had lost its chief bene—

factor, Detroit its first citizen and the nation a

distinguished public servant. We remember him too

as one who lived up to his liberal principles broad

enough to include in his sympathies men of creeds

different from his own.9

Palmer's political career clearly demonstrated

that wealth did not guarantee political success. Many
men in his own party also possessed wealth and ambition
and presented abundant competition for the available
political Offices. This intra-party competition in
Michigan, particularly after the death of Zachariah
Chandler, so severely divided Michigan Republicans that
general elections were close affairs, with Democratic—

Greenback-Labor coalitions always a real threat to

Republican incumbents.

m l; UmMJMCfiL . «9.232711?» '!

5,-mifi“

280

The slender margins of electoral victory meant
that each party eagerly sought issues that appealed to
the electorate. Once the campaign issues had been
decided upon, candidates were expected to support the
party platform, neither criticizing the existint planks
or introducing new issues. Palmer, although ordinarily .
following the dicta Of the party strategists, several

times violated the unwritten rule when he supported such

 

reforms as women's suffrage and prohibition to the con-

fine-:1 Malt-1 aew A

sternation of his Republican colleagues.

Palmer's experience in state politics demonstrated
that a successful politician in the post—Civil War era
needed a coterie of dedicated supporters. It was this
group that sounded the political currents and paved the
way for his electoral success. Their advice and aid were
indispensable ingredients for political victory.

The quest for political Office usually indicates
that an individual is wholeheartedly dedicated to the
acquisition of power. Palmer was an exception. On only
one occasion, that being his campaign and subsequent
election to the United States Senate, did he reveal an
overwhelming desire to acquire political power. This
lack of sustained desire for political preferment
shortened his career in politics.

After his election to the Senate he refused to

become a political boss despite the incessant urging of

281

his friends and associates that he assume control of the
Michigan Republican party and thus fill the leadership
vacuum created by the death of Zachariah Chandler. He
resolutely ignored this advice and publicly declared
himself in Opposition to political bossism. Thus he
failed to fulfill the expectations of his friends and l
supporters, who hOped that he would "fill Chandler's
shoes" and perhaps even surpass "Old Zach's" career by i

occupying the White House.

 

In his legislative role--both in the state Senate
and in the United States Senate--Palmer addressed him-
self to his tasks with the same meticulous thoroughness
with which he carried out his business enterprises. He
introduced bills that reflected extensive and careful
research and worked with resolute tenacity to secure
their passage.

As a Republican senator, Palmer reflected the
traditional party positions on economic issues such as
the tariff, currency, and the treasury surplus. As a
wealthy lumberman he vehemently opposed reciprocal trade
agreements with Canada. As a Michigander, he vigorously
labored to represent the interests of his state in the
national legislature. On national issues he had favored
moderate federal controls as indicated by his positions
on the Interstate Commerce Bill and the Oleomargarine

Bill 0

282

Palmer never regained the enthusiasm for politi-
cal campaigning that he demonstrated in 1883 when he
engineered his spectacular victory. Thereafter his
desire for personal political success had waned so
greatly that he had little interest in the "grass roots“
preparations necessary for the continuance Of his politi-
cal career.

In summary, Palmer's political career demon-
Strated that he was neither a liberal reformer nor an
arch conservative but a man firmly ensconced somewhere
in the political center. He approached his work with
seriousness of purpose. Nowhere was there evidence that
he regarded his political offices as sinecures. Yet he
was a man of wit and humor, who at times enjoyed enter—
tainment, both cultural and social, more than his politi-
cal career. It was this gregarious nature that was his
major political weakness. The desire for good conver-
sation, the presence of his friends, and a retirement
spent enjoying the fruits of his work sapped his political
ambition. This attitude, combined with the animosity of
his Republican enemies in Detroit, hastened him to a pre-
mature political retirement. Although not a major
political figure, his public life is an excellent case
study of the post-Civil War period and Offers an insight

into the politics Of that era, both in state and nation.

«7 "m“ TWA-I‘M? 1’
‘4 u

FOOTNOTES--CHAPTER VIII

1Detreit Free Press, June 2, 1890; Otis Scott to
wm. Wharton, June 30, 1890, T. W. Palmer Letterbooks,
Palmer Papers. Otis Scott to W. R. Bates, September 13,
1892, T. W. Palmer Letterbooks, Palmer Papers. J. M.
Goodman to Palmer, June 4, 1891; R. D. Mussey to Palmer,
April 1, 1891, Palmer Papers. Palmer to Harrison, May
31, 1891, Harrison Papers.

 

2Palmer to Harrison, June 9, 1892, Harrison
Papers; John T. Rich, Scrapbook, 1892, p. 4, clipping
from Mar uette Mininngournal, John T. Rich Papers (Uni—
versity O Michigan Historical Collection, Ann Arbor,
Mich.). Palmer to Harrison, November 16, 1892; Harrison
to Palmer (c0py), November 19, 1892, Harrison Papers.
Palmer to his wife, November 11, 1893, T. W. Palmer
Letterbooks, Palmer Papers.

 

3Otis Scott to W. R. Bates, September 13, 1892;
Otis Scott to Col. Dickson, September 26, 1892, T. W.
Palmer Letterbooks, Palmer Papers.

4Ford Starring to Col. Dickson, March 4, 1891;
Palmer to the Secretary of the Michigan Mutual Life
Insurance CO., T. W. Palmer Letterbooks, Palmer Papers.

5W. E. Dodge to Palmer, November 13, 1895; James
Shepard to Palmer, November 13, 1895; wm. Livingstone to
Mrs. Palmer, July 17, 1895; M. P. Halbut, Secretary to
the Parks and Boulevards Commission, to Palmer. Palmer
Papers.

6H. F. Eberts to Palmer, November 5, 1900; H. C.
Loveridge to Palmer, May 6, 1901; George H. Barbour to
Palmer, May 30, 1901; A. J. Read to Palmer; Dr. wm. O.
Stillman to Palmer, October 1, 1901; Chamberlain and Guise,
Attorneys to Palmer, December 28, 1903; Wm. A. Moore to
Palmer, March 8, 1904; George N. Marston to Palmer, May 9,

283

than).
I.

IL”: 1" ‘.‘JYIinl

IMF—33.12!)

284

1909; Arthur Holmes to Palmer, June 1, 1908. Palmer
Papers. Palmer to C. A. Black, May 16, 1906; Palmer to
wife, November 11, 1893; Palmer to Louis Frost, September
26, 1891. T. W. Palmer Letterbooks. Palmer Papers.

79. E. Baker to Palmer, June 20, 1910; c. A.
Black to Palmer, July 20, 1910. Palmer Papers.

8Detroit Evening News, June 2, 4, 12, 1913;
Detroit Free Press, June 2, 4, 5, 12, 1913.

 

9Detroit News, June 4, 1913.

 

M h'.
n

a M". -mm A‘ .‘ “1“fih'm

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

There is no published biography of Thomas W.
Palmer. The fullest existing treatment of his life is
an unpublished M.A. thesis by Grace Swihart (Wayne State,
1940). Her presentation often lacks analysis, treats
Palmer's senatorial career in one chapter, and utilizes
only three months of the extensive Palmer family manu-
scripts. Two good biographical sketches of Palmer are

M. Agnes Burton, "Thomas Witherell Palmer,“ Michigan

 

Pioneer and Historical Collections, XXXIX (Lansing, 1915),

 

and Henry E. Bodman, "Thomas W. Palmer," Michigan Men in

 

the Cleveland Era, Earl D. Babst and Lewis G. Vander

 

Velde, eds. (Ann Arbor, 1948). Two brief biographical

sketches are found in History and Biography of Detroit

 

and Wayne County (Chicago, 1909) and Illustrated American

 

 

Biography(New York and Chicago, 1895).

 

Primary,Sources

 

Manuscripts
The most important collection of papers for this

study were the Palmer family papers deposited in the

285

l “a.“ .1: 31.1. vmr: alas -tfi'brnla inf-q
A
I

286

Burton Historical Collections of the Detroit Public
Library. The 35,000 manuscripts are divided into the
Thomas Palmer papers and the Thomas W. Palmer papers.
Also included are a large number of letterbooks that deal
primarily with business affairs but do contain some im-
portant political correspondence. Thirteen personal

scrapbooks Of Thomas W. Palmer complete the collection.

ran P’L‘.‘u- r!
I

 

Other manuscripts in the Burton Collection of
relevance to the dissertation were the James McMillan g
and Byron M. Cutcheon papers. Although there exist only 5
a small number of McMillan's political papers, they do
provide revealing information on McMillan's political
activities during 1888-89, when he was striving to
succeed Palmer as United States senator.

The Russell Alger papers at the William Clements
Library, University of Michigan, were few in number for
the purposes Of this study but did provide some inter-
esting information for the years 1888-90.

Several letters of Palmer to the governor's
office are found in the Executive Papers at the Michigan
State Historical Commission but are not particularly
informative.

At the University of Michigan Historical Col—
1ections, the papers of John J. Bagley, Oliver L. Spauld-
ing, and the Brackley Shaw family were the most useful

and rewarding. Shaw was a member Of the state

287

legislature that elected Palmer, and his personal Obser-
vations Of the political pressures exerted on the legis-
lators during the prolonged balloting are most revealing.

The Manuscript Division of the Library of Con-
gress, although containing few Palmer letters, was a
mine of useful information, particularly concerning the
tariff and the election campaigns of 1884 and 1888. The
extensive collections of John Sherman and John Coit
Spooner were the most valuable. Significant material
for this study was also found in the Nelson Gresham papers.
The presidential papers of Cleveland and Harrison, al-
though voluminous, were less helpful than I had antici-
pated.

Palmer's career as a diplomat is clearly outlined
in the records of the Department Of State, in the
National Archives (Record Group 59). The most reward—
ing of the State Department documents were found under

the general category of Foreign Relations of the United

 

States: Diplomatic Papers. These included: (1) Dip-

 

lomatic instructions, Spain; (2) Dispatches from U.S.
Ministers, Spain; (3) Notes to Foreign Legations in the
United States from the Department of State, Spain; and
(4) Notes from the Spanish Legation in the United States

to the Department of State.

Ti?-

.1314." mljsrua Thin! Kr-

: “‘.uL “:4

288

Printed Government Documents:
Federal and State

 

Federal
Indispensable were the volumes of the Congres-

sional Record containing the debates Of the 48th, 49th,

and 50th Congresses. Senate Report No. 46, 49th Cong.,

 

2d Sess., provided valuable insights into the complexi-
ties Of interstate commerce legislation. The United

States Statutes at Large and the Statistical Abstracts

 

1‘I‘Jn£.§o ‘.Kl *1. WA‘Ga‘mll mm!

were also invaluable research tools.

State

On the state level, the Michigan House Journal

 

and the Michigan Senate Journal for 1879 provided essen-
tial information on Palmer's activities in the Michigan
legislature. Both state legislative records provide
only basic information and do not carry a comprehensive

record of debate as does the Congressional Record. The

 

Michigan Manual was an important source particularly for

 

Michigan election statistics.

Other Printed Sources

 

James D. Richardson, ed., Messages and Pepers of

 

the Presidents (10 vols.; Washington: 1896-99) was a

 

useful source. Appleton's Annual Cyclopedia (New Series,

 

20 vols.; New York: 1876-95) provided a most useful

compilation of data, both nationally and on the state

289

level. The Proceedings of the Ninth Republican National

 

Convention, 1888 (Chicago, 1888) and Official Proceedings

 

of the Republican National Convention, 1888 (Minneapolis,

 

1903), supplied details of the Republican National Con-

vention of 1888.

Contemporary Accounts
and Memoirs

 

 

There are numerous memoirs written by national
political figures in the post-Civil War era. Most of
these works are unrewarding as they generally lack both
candor and perception. The most useful of these works
for this study were, Shelby M. Cullom, Fifty Years of

Public Service (Chicago, 1911); George F. Hoar, Auto-

 

biography of Seventy Years (2 vols.; New York, 1903):

 

O. O. Stealey, Twenty Years in the Press Gallery (New
York, 1906); and John Sherman, Recollections of Forty

Years in the House, Senate and Cabinet (2 vols.; Chicago,

 

NewsPapers and Journals

 

The most important source of information on
Palmer's local political activities were the Detroit

newspapers. The Detroit Free Press was the unyielding

 

defender of the Democratic party but also gave much
attention to Republican politics. The major Detroit

Republican newspaper underwent several changes of name

 

290

and political philosophies during its existence. In the

early 1870's it was known as the Advertiser and Tribune

 

until it was taken over by Zachariah Chandler, who changed
its name to the Post and Tribune. After Chandler's death

the paper was taken over by a group of anti-Chandler

i
I

Republicans who used the same name. In 1885 the paper
was called the Post and in 1886 was renamed the Tribune.
Despite these later name changes the paper still main-

tained its enmity toward former friends of Chandler.

II in“ ‘. :na Ann’s-us:- smnu'; ‘.‘ngu-if‘ fiq

The Detroit Evening News was founded by James Scripps in
1873 as an independent newspaper but frequently favored
Republican candidates and programs.

The most important Michigan Republican newspaper

outside of Detroit was the LansingState Republican,

 

later known as the Lansing Republican. It provided much

 

information on the state-wide activities of the Republi-
can party and shed much light on the Operations of the
state legislature and on state political issues in
general.

Other Michigan newspapers used were the Jackson
Patriot, the Marquette Mining Journal, and the Saginaw

Weekly Courier.

 

The most valuable out of state newspapers con-

sulted were the New York Times useful because of its

 

index and its interest in political affairs throughout

the nation, and the Chicago-Inter Ocean, a Republican

 

291

newspaper that was a favorite of Palmer's and that gives
a good coverage of the 1888 Republican convention in
Chicago.

The Forum, the Nation, and the North American

 

Review contain innumerable articles on the activities of
the Senate during the 1880's and thus provided a rich
background of information.

Histories of Michigan,
General and Political

 

 

A useful early secondary source on the history 3
of Michigan is Henry M. Utely and Byron M. Cutcheon,
Michigan as a Province, Territory, and State, Twentyr
Sixth Member of the Federal Union, Clarence Burton, ed.

(New York, 1906). Clarence M. Burton, ed., The City of

 

Detroit, 1701-1922 (5 vols.; Detroit, 1922) and Silas

 

Farmer, History of Detroit and Wayne County and Early
Michigan: A Chronological Cyclopedia of the Past and
Present (2 vols.; Detroit, 1890) are histories of Detroit
which present little analysis but contain a wealth of
information. The two most pOpular recent general his—

tories of Michigan are F. Clever Bald, Michigan in Four

 

Centuries (New York, 1959), and Willis F. Dunbar,

 

Michigan: A History of the Wolverine State (Grand

 

Rapids, 1965). Both works are deficient in their cover-
age of nineteenth century Michigan politics and their

political analysis is superficial at best.

292

There does not exist a single comprehensive
volume devoted to Michigan political history. Floyd
Streeter, Political Parties in Michigan, 1837-1860: An
Historical Study of Political Issues and Parties in
Michigan from the Admission of the State to the Civil
W§£_(Lansing, 1918) provides information on early Michigan Irh
history but a more modern work is desirable. Harriette M.

Dilla, Politics of Michigan, 1865-1878 (New York, 1912)

 

 

is an excellent work that has stood the test of time well.

It is well researched and offers a good insight into

Imt»m.u._
I

Michigan politics for the period covered. There is no
standard work covering Michigan politics from 1878-1890.

Arthur Chester Millspaugh, Party Organization and

 

Machinery Since 1890 (Baltimore, 1917) although covering
a later period does shed some light on political party
structure in Michigan before 1890. Stephen Beisman Sara-
sohn, The Regulation of Parties and Nominations in
Michigan: The Politics of Election Reform (New York,
1953) provides information on internal political party

practices in Michigan.

Secondary Works

 

General Studies
Of the older general works, Ellis P. Oberholtzer,

A History of the United States Since the Civil War (5

 

vols.; New York, 1937), and James F. Rhodes, History of

 

293

the United States from Hayes to McKinley, 1877-1896 (New
York, 1919), provide a great amount of factual data but
little analysis.

There have been a number of recent works that
have dealt with the politics of the "gilded age." Ray
Ginger, Age of Excess: The United States From 1877-1914
(New York, 1965), presents in chapters 6, 8, and 12 a
conventional political treatment of the era. John A.

Garraty, The New Commonwealth, 1877-1890 (New York, 1968),

i [.11 -. .._.. ' "cl-.13 «. h" ‘3' -’.""-.‘»'-‘. q
\

concisely sketches the story of national politics for a
thirteen-year period but the treatment is too brief and,
is based mainly on secondary sources. His general thesis
that "the safest generalization that can be made about
political alignments, aside from the obvious sectional
divison, is that party preferences were more influenced
by family tradition, religion, and local issues of the
moment than by the policies or pronouncements of states-
men and their organizations," is open to question. H.
Wayne Morgan, From Hayes to McKinley, National Party

Politics, 1877-1896 (Syracuse, 1969), is a significant

 

work and presents excellent coverage of important politi-
cal issues such as the tariff and federal spending. He
contends that during this period the Republicans became

a national political party because they were able to
anticipate accurately the public will in regard to

national concerns. He often overemphasizes personalities

294

when analyzing issues and often fails to examine ade-
quately state issues and the impact that they had on the
national scene. Fred A. Shannon, The Centennial Years:

A Political and Economic History of America from the

 

Late 1870's to the Early 1890's, Robert Huhn Jones, ed.

 

(Garden City, 1967), is a useful summary but is too epi-
sodic and thematically unintegrated to be truly described 1

as a synthesis.

Biography

 

There exist many biographies of political figures
in the post-Civil War era. The three most important works
of this nature for this study involved Democratic leaders.

James A. Barnes, John G. Carlisle: Financial Statesman

 

(New York, 1931), is a most useful source of information
on tariff legislation and Democratic strategy during the
1880's. Ben H. Procter, "Not Without Honor": The Life

of John H. Reagan (Austin, 1962), is a well—written

 

account of Reagan's involvement in the promotion and
passage of the Interstate Commerce Act. Herbert J. Bass,
"I Am a Democrat": The Political Career of David Bennett
Hill (Syracuse, 1961), is an important study of a powerful
New York state political figure and gives an interesting
account of the impact of Cleveland's tariff message of
1888.

Of the biographies dealing with Republican politi—

cal personalities, I found the following most useful:

295

Nathaniel W. Stephenson, Nelson W. Aldrich: A Leader in

American Politics (New York, 1930); Leland L. Sage,

 

William Boyd Allison: A Leader in Practical Politics
(Iowa City, 1956); David S. Muzzey, James G. Blaine:

A Political Idol of Other Days (New York, 1934); James

 

W. Nielson, Shelby M. Cullom: Prairie State Republican .
(Urbana, 1962); Leon Burr Richardson, William E. Chandler,

Republican (New York, 1940); Chester L. Barrows, William

 

Evarts, Lawyer, Deplomat, Statesman (Chapel Hill, 1941);

 

 

Dorothy Ganfield Fowler, John Coit Spooner: Defender of

Presidents (New York, 1961).

 

George F. Howe, Chester A. Arthur (New York, 1934)

 

is the standard biography of Arthur. Allan Nevins, Grover

Cleveland: A Study in Courage (New York, 1932) is the

 

major study of Cleveland but is largely uncritical of his
leadership role. Horace Samuel Merrill, Bourbon Leader:
Grover Cleveland and the Democratic Party (Boston, 1957)
is a briefer and more critical study. Harry J. Sievers
has written a three volume biography of Benjamin Harrison.
Volume II, Benjamin Harrison, Hoosier Statesman, 1865-1888
(New York, 1959) and Volume III, Benjamin Harrison,

ggosier President (Indianapolis, 1968) were useful for

 

this study. However, both volumes were disappointing as
Harrison's senatorial tasks were not as graphically de-
picted as his personal affairs and his cabinet appointment
policy is not given the thorough analysis necessary for a

full understanding of Harrison's appointment problems.

296

Sister Mary Karl George, Zachariah Chandler: A

Political Biography (East Lansing, 1969), gives an excel-

 

lent treatment of Chandler's federal career but it is
questionable whether a thorough understanding of Chandler‘s
public life can be obtained without a greater examination

of his role in Michigan state politics.

Special Studies

 

A dated account of political activity in this
period is Matthew Josephson, The Politicos: 1865-1896
(New York, 1938). The author dismisses the idea that
serious political issues concerned politicians and em—
phasizes the division of spoils as the key to understand—
ing politics of that era. David J. Rothman, Politics and
Power: The United States Senate, 1869-1901 (Cambridge,
Mass., 1966), argued that the post-Civil War years were a
period of maturation for the United States Senate, which
then "acquired the character and form it was to retain
through the twentieth century." He views the develop-
ment of the party discipline and organizational functions
in the Senate as positive political contributions.
Leonard D. White, The Republican Era: A Study in Ad—
ministrative History, 1869-1901 (New York, 1958), is an
invaluable guide to the structure of federal bureaucracy.

Studies devoted to election results and political
parties are often revealing and informative. Eugene

Holloway Roseboom, A History of Presidential Elections

' ‘-_ ‘- ; .‘Pfifi-W;Tw_::$-—i3' q
l
L

J).- v ‘

297

(New York, 1957), provides a useful general survey of

national election results. W. Dean Burnham, Presidential

 

Ballots: 1836-1892 (Baltimore, 1955), is an invaluable

 

compilation of election statistics based on official

county returns. Helpful for a study of the Republican
party but not very analytical are George H. Mayer, The F
Republican Party, 1854-1964 (New York, 1964), and Malcom

Moos, The Republicans (New York, 1956). William Living—

 

stone, Livingstone's History of the Republican Party

(Detroit, 1900), is important for the light it sheds on

 

Michigan Republicans and because the author was a close
associate of Palmer.
The best general account of economic affairs is

Edward C. Kirkland, Industry Comes of Age: BusinessL

 

Labor and Public Policy, 1860-1897 (New York, 1961). It
is a well researched and balanced account of industrial
activities and contributions which more than offsets
Matthew Josephson, The Robber Barons: The Great American

Capitalists, 1860-1901 (New York, 1934), a one-sided,

 

anti-business study. Samuel P. Hays, The ReSponse to

 

Industrialism: 1885-1914 (Chicago, 1957), analyzes the

 

impact of industrial development upon many aspects of
American life.

The best source of information on the development
of the movement for the regulation of industry is J. W.

Hurst, Law and the Condition of Freedom in the United

298

States (Madison, 1956). Lee Benson, Merchants, Farmers
and Railroads: Railroad Regulation and New York Politics,

1850-1887 (Cambridge, Mass., 1955), contends that eastern

 

interests were responsible for federal railroad regulation.
Gabriel Kolko, Railroads and RegulationL71877-l916 (Prince-
ton, 1965), argues that in many cases it was the railroad :J~
leaders who sought regulation for their own purposes. ,

Although ending its coverage in 1879, Irwin Unger,
The Greenback Era: A Social and Political History of

American Finance, 1865-1879 (Princeton, 1964), effectively

 

 

depicts the currency problems in the post-Civil War era
in a scholarly manner.

The tariff was probably the most important
political issue in the 1880's. No current work effec-
tively analyzes this issue's impact on the politics
of the day. Thus the most important secondary works on
the tOpic are of an older vintage. Edward Stanwood,
American Tariff Controversies in the Nineteenth Century
(2 vols.; Boston, 1903), is written from a protectionist
vieWpoint but contains much worthwhile information.
Frank W. Taussig, Tariff History of the United States
(5th ed.; New York, 1910), provides a scholarly analysis
of the issue. More important for this study was Clarence
Lee Miller, The States of the Old Northwest and the

Tariff, 1865-1888 (Emporia, Kansas, 1929), which effec—

 

tively portrays the impact of the issue on the Midwest

and on the Democratic party in particular.

299

An excellent aid in understanding the impact of
reformers upon the political system is John G. Sproat,

"The Best Men": Liberal Reformers in the Gilded Age

 

(New York, 1968).
The most valuable work on women's suffrage for
this period is Susan B. Anthony and Ida H. Harper, eds.,

The History of Woman Suffrage (Vol. IV, Indianapolis,

 

 

1902). Understandably it suffers from the personal

involvement of the editors and the tOpic needs scholarly

 

attention. D. Leigh Calvin, Prohibition in the United
States (New York, 1926) is a shallow work but accurately
depicts the political importance of John P. St. John.

A good general account of the foreign policy of
this era is Foster R. Dulles, Prelude to World Power:

American Diplomatic History, 1860—1900 (New York, 1965).

 

Charles Callan Tansill, The Foreign Policyof Thomas F.

Bayard, 1885-1897 (New York, 1940) is a comprehensive but

 

often unanalytical account of United States diplomacy.

The most stimulating recent study is John A. S. Grenville
and George Berkeley Young, Politics, Strategy, and American
Diplomacy: Studies in Foreign Policy, 1873-1919 (New
Haven, 1966). Walter La Feber, The New Empire: An
Interpretation of American Expansion, 1860—1896 (Ithaca,
1963), and Ernest R. May, Imperial Democracy: The Emer-
gence of America as a Great Power (New York, 1961), both

provide a general background for United States foreign

300

relations. La Feber believes, however, that American
diplomacy was dictated by a determined search for overseas
expansion while May sees no such determined predisposition.
H. Wayne Moran, America's Road to Empire: The War With

Spain and Overseas Expansion (New York, 1965), and Lester

 

D. Langley, The Cuban Policy of the United States: A y

Brief History (New York, 1968), shed some light on Palmer's

 

problems as Minister to Spain 1890-91. W. Stull Holt,

Treaties Defeated by the Senate (Baltimore, 1933), is

 

 

useful as a reference guide. Robert Craig Brown, Canada’s
National Poligyy 1883-1900-—A Study in Canadian-American

Relations (Princeton, 1964), is an excellent analysis of

 

Canadian-American problems.

Articles

 

Michigan Topics

The following articles were useful in providing
background information on early Michigan: Thomas W.
Palmer, "Detroit Sixty Years Ago," in Michigan Pioneer

and Historical Collections, XXXI (Lansing, 1901); Byron M.

 

Cutcheon, "Log Cabin and Log Cabin People," in Michigan
Pioneer and Historical Collections, XXIX (Lansing, 1899—
1900); C. M. Burton, "Detroit in the Year, 1832," in
Michigan Pioneer and Historical Collections, XXXVIII
(Lansing, 1897-98); Thomas W. Palmer, "Address at the

9th Annual Pioneer Picnic of Cass County," in Michigan

301

Pioneer and Historical Collections, XXIX (Lansing, 1899-

 

1900).
A good descriptive study of lumbering operations
in Michigan is Rollan H. Maybee, "Michigan's White Pine

Era, 1840-1900," Michigan History, XLIII (December, 1959).

 

Richard M. Doolen, "The National Greenback Party in

Michigan Politics, 1876-1888," Michigan History, XLVII

\' v- 3-2:8; .

(June, 1963), concisely analyzes the impact that this

third party movement had on Michigan politics. John W.

 

Lederle and Rita Feiler Aid, "Michigan State Party

Chairmen," Michigan History, XLI (June, 1957), accurately

 

depicts the roles of these important state political

leaders.

National Topics

The following articles were most helpful in under—
standing the major issues before the Senate during the
1880's. A. T. Volwiler, "Tariff Strategy and Propaganda
in the United States, 1887-1888,“ American Historical
Review, XXXVI (October, 1930), is an excellent analysis
of politics and the tariff during that crucial year.
Gerald D. Nash, "The Reformer Reformed: John H. Reagan
and Railroad Regulation," Business History Review, XXIX
(June, 1955), and "Origins of the Interstate Commerce

Act," Pennsylvania History, XXIV (July, 1957), shed

 

important light on the background of the Interstate

Commerce Act. In the former article he analyzes Reagan‘s

302

contributions and in the latter denotes the important
contributions of Pennsylvania oilmen to federal regulation.
David Maldwyn Ellis, "The Forfeiture of Railroad Land
Grants, 1867-1894," Mississippi ValleyHistorical Review,
XXXIII (June, 1946), and Donald L. McMurry, "The Political
Significance of the Pension Question, 1885-1897," 5

Mississippi ValleyiHistorical Review, IX (June, 1922),

 

are excellent articles on two topics that were constantly
before Congress in the 1880's. Howard R. Smith, "The

Farmer and the Tariff," The Southern Economic Journal,

 

XXI (October, 1954), attempts to penetrate the rhetoric
surrounding the farmer-tariff arguments and presents the
rural economic situation in the correct perspective.
Edward A. Purchell, Jr., "Ideas and Interests: Business-

man and the Interstate Commerce Act," Journal of American

 

History, LIV (December, 1967), is a significant article
on this controversial topic. Purcell argues that the
origins of the Interstate Commerce Act cannot be assigned
to a specific interest group and that credit must be
given to numerous groups who were simultaneously seeking

federal regulation of railroads.

Unpublished Dissertation

 

Only one unpublished dissertation was used in this
study. Sidney Glazier, "Labor and Agrarian Movements in

Michigan, 1876-1896 (Department of History, University

303

of Michigan, 1932), adequately describes the third party
efforts that characterized Michigan politics in the

years covered in the study.

 

It.

m
_ H .
V... iiiil'fl‘ «noise. FENCE. ‘ if, Pm