Ashbel P. Fitch: Champion of Old New York

10. Reformers in Charge, 1895

170 10 Reformers in Charge, 1895 New York is a stepchild whose existence would be gladly forgotten by the gentlemen in charge of legislation in this House. —Ashbel P. Fitch in Congress, 1890 Election day brought victory to the reformers. Strong’s 60 percent of the popular vote1 was a remarkable showing for a New York Republican, notwithstanding his reform candidacy. Jubilant headlines trumpeted, “Tammany Crushed,” “Turn the Rascals Out,” “Richard Croker Is Blamed,” and “Tammany Men to Be Driven from Public Crib.” Croker, ever the canny philosopher, said “One trip into any Tammany ward would have told you that Tammany voters were going to vote against us this year. Our people could not stand the rotten police corruption. They’ll be back at the next election. They can’t stand reform either.”2 The election marked other significant New York City milestones. Voters approved two monumental referenda, consolidation3 and rapid transit, as well as a new constitution that promised home rule for New York City.4 Democrats nationwide and Tammany in New York were in full retreat. Cleveland’s popularity, at its peak in 1892, plummeted with the economy two years later, and Croker, severely criticized, left the country. Straus won Fitch’s seat in Congress by a third of Fitch’s prior margin, while Fellows’s seat was lost to a Republican, only the third Republican to win a seat in Congress from the city since 1878.5 Although Fitch must have been disappointed by the election, there was a silver lining. The new state constitution added a year to his term of office. While reformers awakened slowly to the fact that the “Tammany” controller’s term would run as long as the reform mayor’s, which was also extended, the controller was matterof -fact as he described how the old law provided that his original term expired on January 1, 1897, and the new constitution provided that when such office expires in an odd-numbered year, the term shall be extended to the end of that year.6 The reformers toppled Tammany on the strength of Lexow testimony that uncovered deep-seated police corruption. While Strong’s victory captured city hall, it remained to be seen what would come of it. Some thought it was the end of Reformers in Charge, 1895 | 171 Tammany and Tammanyism, but others, possibly anxious about the Tammany controller, were not so sure. The Republican New York Commercial Advertiser placed the burden on the controller to bend to reform, without mentioning the larger responsibilities of the reformers. Fitch brought to his job the unconditional belief that New York’s finances were exceptionally well managed by the Finance Department; that the auditing, bookkeeping , and budgeting systems that had been established twenty-five years before by Tilden and Green were the reason; that they were inviolate; and that their continuance served New York well. Whether he anticipated that those views would come under attack we cannot know, but in time it became clear that they did. Pundits turned quickly to the uncertain impact of Strong’s victory. Newspaper articles appeared, such as one headlined “What Strong Can Do.”7 Attention centered on the Board of Estimate, where “unless the legislature passes a Power of Removal Bill for his [Strong’s] benefit, his party will be in the minority during his entire term of office.”8 The board was made up of the mayor and the president of the Department of Taxes and Assessments, a mayoral appointee, and the controller , corporation counsel, and president of the Board of Aldermen, all of whom were affiliated with Tammany. The same was true of the Sinking Fund Commission and the Board of Street Opening and Improvement. Several members of these commissions were beyond the mayor’s power to remove. Even with their removal, however, the elected Tammany controller “would have the power alone to negative by his veto.”9 There was intense citywide interest in the binding rapid transit referendum, which had passed easily, and in the nonbinding Greater New York referendum, which had passed handily in New York, gained a narrow victory in Brooklyn, but passed nevertheless. As the stunning impact of the comprehensive election results were sinking in, there began a brief period of adjustment, reflection, and waiting, a momentary calm before a storm, a cease-fire, before reformers took hold of the reins of city government at the turn of the year. In mid-November, the city brought an issue of 3 percent bonds to...