Christopher C Hoitash

Judge from the Bully Pulpit: Alton B. Parker and the election of 1904 Christopher C. Hoitash Of all the contenders for the office of President of the United States of America, Judge Alton Brooks Parker is quite possibly the most obscure and least discussed. A Judge who found himself caught in the middle of infighting amongst the Democratic Party, Judge Parker’s obscurity is better understood when one considers his opponent. In the 1904 Presidential election, it was none other than Theodore Roosevelt. Boisterous, bombastic, and energetic, Roosevelt’s Presidency is considered by many a high point of the Progressive Era. Against such grandeur and personality, obscurity is not to be unexpected. This is however a disservice to American history, Judge Parker, and Roosevelt, for in elections we have as much to learn from the losers as the winners, if not more. Not very much has been written about Judge Parker, little of it recent, and most of it concerned with either his time as an appellate judge or his landslide loss to Roosevelt. This article will unfortunately join the former of those works, focusing on the 1904 Presidential election from the perspective of the Republican candidate’s less renowned opposition. Still, one must understand one’s contender to understand the election that follows. Born on a small farm outside of Courtland, New York, on May 14, 1852, young Parker developed a strong desire for learning and law at an early age.1 His entry into law began as a young boy, when he was invited by his father to sit in the courtroom while the elder Parker sat on the jury.2 This interest in law led to him to attend law school. After graduation, he eventually found himself as a partner in a law firm with a fellow graduate, and argued his first court case before the Court of Appeals in 1874.3 Though no Roosevelt, the two were not all that dissimilar. Like Roosevelt, Parker had a strong sense of justice and morality. Both were instilled in him by his devout and intelligent mother, and honest, hardworking father.4 When Parker was young, he had obtained a job for himself, only to learn later that day from his father that he had gained for him a better paying one. When young Parker said he would take the better job, his father told him, “No, my boy. Be careful in future not to make bargains until you have looked the field over thoughtfully. But when you make them, stand by, come what will.”5 His sense of justice was not limited to peace. When forced to, Parker was more than capable of busting heads and taking names. This he had to do early on in his career as a teacher, as he was often younger than his students.6 This same sense of justice, the one that got him into law in the first place and led to a successful career as an appellate judge, was also part of the reason he entered politics, and part of his own political undoing. Parker’s entry into politics was also a result of his career in law. The law firm he joined after teaching was run by Judge Augustus Schoonmaker, his future father-in-law.7 He had become a mentor for Parker, and in 1874 lost his bid for reelection as County Judge. Schoonmaker seriously considered retirement from politics, but Parker encouraged him to run for state Senator in 1875, as he felt the election had been unfair.8 Convinced, Schoonmaker let Parker run his campaign, bringing a stunning victory that helped propel the elder judge to the New York Attorney General’s office in 1877.9 Parker benefited from his mentor’s successful political career, becoming the youngest elected County Surrogate in Ulster County, in 1877, at age 25. He was also the only Democrat on the county ticket to win, and his victory was narrow.10 His bid for reelection six years later was also narrow, and he was once again the lone Democrat. The Republican nominees in the other elected positions won by large majorities.11 Though this would prove by and large the extent of his own elected positions, Parker ended up further involved in party politics than his limited resume would suggest. Parker entered party politics in 1882, as a state convention delegate and supporter of Grover Cleveland’s run for governor. Parker was also present at the national convention for Cleveland’s 1884 Presidential run, before which he campaigned hard for Cleveland’s ticket, over the objections of New York Democratic Party machine Tammany Hall.12 Parker’s campaigning success earned him the notice of 1885 gubernatorial candidate David B. Hill, who managed to get Parker appointed as the chairman of the State Democratic Committee.13 As a result of Parker’s success and his friendship with Cleveland, in 1885 the newly elected President offered him the post of First Assistant Postmaster General. Parker declined the position, preferring to stay into law. Hill would also offer him a government post while Governor, but again Parker declined.14 Due to this, a local Republican journal would christen him “the greatest American decliner.”15 Parker, however, preferred law to politics, it seemed. His strong sense of justice and fairness –and financial success- were driving parts of his personality, so he seemed reluctant to enter the political fray unless it was for a cause he felt was worth fighting, such as his mentor’s election loss or the support of a candidate he truly believed in, such as Cleveland. However, as Parker’s judicial acumen increased, the lines of law and politics crossed, and Parker found himself rising higher and faster than many who desired his position would have liked. Several years later, despite his youth, and at the urging of prominent judicial officials, Parker ran for, and was elected to –after a very close race- Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, in 1897.16 This post would prove to be the lone political office on his resume, yet following it was a long list of campaigning achievements, and a through if unremarkable career in law. Still, from such a low position to Presidential nominee is quite a leap. The reason for that leap, like his entry into politics as a campaigner years before, once again lies with that infamous hotbed of corruption, Tammany Hall. Ironically, this time they were on his side –or at least, against his competition. With the Progressive Era in full swing, the Democratic Party was fractured between its more conservative and Progressive members. Having run unsuccessfully for President twice, William Jennings Bryan was reluctantly convinced not to run again for the looming 1904 election.17 The vacuum left by Bryan was filled by several; potential candidates, including infamous yellow journalist William Randolph Hearst. Though touted by more radical branches of the party, both Tammany Hall and Bryan, who still had some pull left with the party, resisted the newspaper mogul’s efforts for the nomination.18 Meeting in St. Louis, Missouri, amidst the 1904 World’s Fair and Summer Olympics, Parker’s old political mentor, David B. Hill, led the call for Parker to become the nominee. Though he had earned a reputation as a Progressive and a conservative as a judge, Parker was consistently silent on matters of politics, as he felt it was not his place in the judicial branch of government to voice such opinions.19 In part because of this, the Democratic National Convention delegates felt he was the only candidate who could truly unify the party behind a single candidate. As a result, he was selected as the Democratic Presidential nominee on the first Convention vote. Henry G. Davis, a wealthy former Virginian Senator, was selected as the Vice Presidential candidate to help finance the campaign.20 Parker was very reluctant to accept the nomination. For one, his term as Chief Judge would not expire until 1911. If he accepted the nomination, he would have to resign his post. Parker considered himself a man of law, not a politician. However, the people’s and party’s support was strong, and, finally convinced that he was the best bet the Democrats had at the time, reluctantly accepted the nomination.21 His only condition to accepting appeared to be that a free silver plank not be included in the party platform, as he believed the gold standard was “firmly and irrevocably established.”22 Though Parker accepted the nomination, he refused to actively campaign, insisting it was inappropriate for a judge –even one who resigned to run for political office- to do so. His own words on the subject were as follows: “I am a judge of the Court of Appeals. I shall neither embarrass the court by my opinions nor use the dignity of the court to give weight to them. I shall do nothing and say nothing to advance my candidacy. If I should receive the nomination, I shall then resign from the Bench and state my views as a citizen.” Though such sentiment would have been perfectly acceptable for a candidate running in 1804, the American political system had become much more energetic in that time. Active campaigning of candidates, once considered beneath the dignity of the gentlemen who deemed themselves most qualified to run the federal republic, was now the norm. Theodore Roosevelt excelled at such activities. He was energetic, enthusiastic, and passionate. Even attempted assassination did not halt his campaigning efforts.23 William Jennings Bryan, the main contender for the nomination and previously unsuccessful Democratic candidate, was staunchly opposed to the gold standard, and the issue was in fact one of the most decisive of the nomination process. Though having run on the Democratic ticket twice and failed, Bryan was still an influential Democrat, and came to loathe Parker for his support of the gold standard.24 Though he would not support Parker’s selection for the nomination, he and other conservative Democrats balked at Hearst’s efforts to win the nomination, and so they rallied behind the relatively obscure, but conservative, Parker.25 Besides his support of the gold standard, Parker only spoke out on policy once during the election, this time in a speech directed against Roosevelt’s imperialist policies. Specifically, the speech criticized the incumbent President concerning independence of the Philippines and his meddling in foreign affairs in the Ottoman Empire and Morocco.26 The speech was poorly written and received, and afterward Parker avoided any active efforts in his campaign, with one lamentable exception late in the game. As previously stated, Parker did not actively campaign, not even to rally the standard Democratic voting blocs to the cause. Roosevelt’s campaign, however, involved committees designed to reach out to multiple demographics, ranging from African Americans to German-American immigrants.27 Towards the end of the campaign, Parker was moved to speak out against his rival for the Presidency. Having learned of the large donations Roosevelt’s campaign manager, George Cortelyou, had secured for the election, Parker charged that Roosevelt was accepting donations from the very trust companies he opposed.28 This charge was in fact true in part, at least in that Roosevelt had accepted campaign donations and had consulted people to secure the votes of New York.29 At the time, though, Roosevelt vehemently denied the charges, referring to them as slanderous.30 Such outcries proved too little too late, presuming Parker had much of a chance in the first place. He suffered the worse Presidential defeat at the time, with 5,084,442 votes to Roosevelt's 7,628,785, while 810,658 went to various third parties. The electoral vote was 336 to 140. 31 Parker and Roosevelt were not too far apart politically. Both opposed the trusts and had a history for Progressive Reform –Parker’s judicial stances on the bench favored such causes as the eight hour workday and support of union rights.32 He believed in the separation of powers in government, and was reasonably moderate fiscally.33 He was tall, rugged, and willing to bust heads and throw a punch when he had to. Still, his loss to Roosevelt is not at all surprising. For one thing, Roosevelt was the incumbent, and a popular one at that. He had given legitimacy to union rights, had fought for Progressive reforms, and was an avid imperialist when such sentiment had reach it’s trans-national fervor. Charismatic and energetic, Roosevelt was also a pragmatist; though a Progressive at the comparative height of their influence, he was savvy enough to know what he could and not do against Big Business and its power. Power that in many ways had the GOP in its pocket. The Democrats were not blameless, either. Bryan refused to support Parker for his support of the gold standard, and was furious that he had been rebuffed in favor of a more conservative Progressive Candidate.34 A relative unknown on the national stage, Parker was something of New York’s favored son, and won the nomination largely for the fact he was the only option all factions of the Democratic Party could tolerate.35 For his own part, Parker refused to campaign for his nomination, his limited efforts during the campaign were haphazard and lackluster, and he attacked a man with the political clout and energy to refute it and be believed. Likely unsurprised by his defeat, and maybe even glad for it, Parker returned to his law practice, although he would occasionally poke his head into party politics, delivering the keynote speech in the 1912 Democratic National Convention in Baltimore. Bryan, it is worth mentioning, opposed him delivering the speech.36 Parker’s loss in the 1904 election was not a surprise. The fact that an individual with such a limited political record could become a major political party’s chosen candidate, however, is rather shocking. Such sentiment speaks both to the character of the man chosen, and to the desperation of the party who elected him. Either way, Parker’s lack of grandeur and persona, though a fault in a Presidential candidate, were perfect for a local judge and lawyer.