the people have made, and within the limits of a constitution which they have established. . . . We may, I think, reduce to quite simple elements the duty which public servants owe, by constantly bearing in mind that they are put in place to protect the rights of the people, to answer their needs as they arise, and to expend for their benefit the money drawn from them by taxation.”
In the canvass that followed, Cleveland had the advantage of a united democratic party, and in addition the support of the entire independent press of the state. The election in November was the most remarkable in the political annals of New York. Both gubernatorial candidates were men of character and of unimpeachable public record. Judge Folger had honorably filled high state and federal offices. But there was a wide-spread disaffection in the republican ranks largely due to the belief that the nomination of Folger (nowise obnoxious in itself) was accomplished by means of improper and fraudulent practices in the nominating convention and by the interference of the federal administration. What were called the “half-breeds” largely stayed away from the polls, and in a total vote of 918,894 Cleveland received a plurality of 192,854 over Folger, and a majority over all, including greenback, prohibition, and scattering, of 151,742. He entered upon his office 1 Jan., 1883, in the words of his inaugural address, “fully appreciating his relations to the people, and determined to serve them faithfully and well.” With very limited private means, Gov. Cleveland lived upon and within his official salary, simply and unostentatiously, keeping no carriage, and daily walking to and from his duties at the capitol.
Among the salient acts of his administration were his approval of a bill to submit to the people a proposition to abolish contract labor in the prisons, which they adopted by an overwhelming majority; his veto of a bill that permitted wide latitude in the investments of savings banks; and the veto of a similar bill allowing like latitude in the investment of securities of fire insurance companies. He vetoed a bill that was a bold effort to establish a monopoly by limiting the right to construct certain street railways to companies heretofore organized, to the exclusion of such as should hereafter obtain the consent of property-owners and local authorities. His much-criticised veto of the “five-cent-fare” bill, which proposed to reduce the rates of fare on the elevated roads in New York city from ten cents to five cents for all hours in the day, was simply and solely because he considered the enactment illegal and a breach of the plighted faith of the state. The general railroad law of 1850 provides for an examination by state officers into the earnings of railroads before the rates of fare can be reduced, and as this imperative condition had not been complied with previous to the passage of the bill, he vetoed it. He vetoed the Buffalo fire department bill because he believed its provisions would prevent the “economical and efficient administration of an important department in a large city,” and subject it to partisan and personal influences. In the second year of his administration he approved the bill enacting important reforms in the appointment and administration of certain local offices in New York city. His state administration was only an expansion of the fundamental principles that controlled his official action while mayor of Buffalo. Its integrity, ability, and success made him a prominent candidate for president.
The democratic national convention met at Chicago, 8 July, 1884. Three days were devoted to organization, platform, and speeches in favor of candidates. In the evening of 10 July a vote was taken, in which, out of 820 votes, Grover Cleveland received 392. A two-third vote (557) was necessary to a nomination. On the following morning, in the first ballot, Cleveland received 683 votes, and, on motion of Thomas A. Hendricks (subsequently nominated for the vice-presidency), the vote was made unanimous. He was officially notified of his nomination by the convention committee at Albany, 29 July, and made a modest response, promising soon to signify in a more formal manner his acceptance of the nomination, which he did by letter on 18 Aug., 1884. In it he said, among other things:
“When an election to office shall be the selection by the voters of one of their number to assume for a time a public trust, instead of his dedication to the profession of politics; when the holders of the ballot, quickened by a sense of duty, shall
avenge truth betrayed and pledges broken, and when the suffrage shall be altogether free and uncorrupted, the full realization of a government by the people will be at hand. And of the means to this end, not one would, in my judgment, be more effective than an amendment to the constitution disqualifying the president from re-election. . . .
“A true American sentiment recognizes the dignity of labor, and the fact that honor lies in honest toil. Contented labor is an element of national prosperity. Ability to work constitutes the capital and the wage of labor, the income of a vast number of our population, and this interest should be jealously protected. Our working-men are not asking unreasonable indulgence, but, as intelligent and manly citizens, they seek the same consideration which those demand who have other interests at stake. They should receive their full share of the care and attention of those who make and execute the laws, to the end that the wants and needs of the employers and the employed should alike be subserved, and the prosperity of the country, the common heritage of both, be advanced. As related to this subject, while we should not discourage the immigration of those who come to acknowledge allegiance to our government, and add to our citizen population, yet, as a means of protection to our working-men, a different rule should prevail concerning those who, if they come or are brought to our land, do not intend to become Americans, but will injuriously compete with those justly entitled to our field of labor. . . .
“In a free country the curtailment of the absolute rights of the individual should only be such as is essential to the peace and good order of the community. The limit between the proper subjects of governmental control, and those which can be more fittingly left to the moral sense and self-imposed restraint of the citizen, should be carefully kept in view. Thus, laws unnecessarily interfer-
