. . .Philadelphia's Political
People in Power . . .
Matthew S. Quay:
One of the most powerful men in Philadelphia's political history, Matthew Stanley Quay, was born in York County, Pennsylvania on September 30, 1833. He attended Beaver and Indiana Academies and graduated from Jefferson College in 1850. Quay also taught in a school, studied law, and was admitted to the bar in 1854 from which he then began practicing in Beaver, Pennsylvania. During the Civil War, Quay served in numerous positions then received the Medal of Honor in 1888 for voluntarily resuming duty. After that Quay served in the State house of representatives, owned and edited the Beaver Radical, was secretary of the Commonwealth, was recorder of the city of Philadelphia, was State Treasurer, then was elected as Republican to the United States Senate. He served this position from 1887 to 1899 then from 1901 until his death on May 28, 1904 where he was interned at Beaver Cemetery.
As State Senator and a member of the Republican party, Matthew S. Quay, along with his right hand man and eventual successor, Boies Penrose, ran a political machine in Philadelphia for over thirty years. Their favorite method of winning votes so that they would remain in power was to insert phony names into the polls and cast as many necessary votes in a given election. As Steffens explains in his chapter on Philadelphia, year after year, thousands of votes were cast in the names of deceased people, non-existent people, children, and even household pets. Quay and Penrose were the main ones responsible for the repeaters (those who voted more than once) and the arrests and brutalities by the police who were done towards those who objected the corrupted voting procedures. The control of the city's elected officials was only a way in which Quay and his supporters would gain personal benefits. By 1901, Quay and his group of supporters cornered the market on Philadelphia's utilities and had been taking in hundreds of thousands of dollars in dirty money a year. It in interesting to observe how one in such a high and respectable position of government can take on characteristics that are the complete opposite of what is expected; this is done all in the name of self profit.
Below, from left to right, are pictured Boies Penrose, Quay's Birthplace, and his home.
David Martin:
No Photo Found
Politician, David Martin, was born in Philadelphia County in 1854. He was a member of the Republican party, was Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from 1897 to 1899 and was also a member of the Pennsylvania state senate from 1899 to 1902 and from 1917 to 1920. During his service in the Pennsylvania senate, Martin died on May 31, 1920 and had his internment at North Cedar Hill Cemetery in Philadelphia.
Another interesting individual to examine, David Martin too, took part in corrupt dealings as found out by Lincoln Steffens. At one point Steffens remarks, "Many of Martin's deals and jobs were scandals, but they were safe; they were in the direction of public serves' and the great mass of business was done quietly. Moreover, the public was getting something for its money..." (145). It is also stated that the people of Philadelphia liked Martin, so does it make it right that he participated in scandals although they were directed to public service? According to a certain type of ethics, one should do what is right, no matter what the outcome might be. In Martin's situation, one can see how politics were conducted in the same manner as business is conducted--benefit yourself as much or more than you serve the customer. Regardless of whether or not Martin's dealings provided some public service to the people of Philadelphia, what he did was wrong. One of high standing in society should not take on risky and illegal business, although it is mentioned that Martin's dealings were "safe." Any illegal business is unsafe to a certain extent. Perhaps David Martin had more of a conscience, or perhaps a guilty one at that, since his scandals benefitted Philadelphia's everyday citizens.
Samuel H. Ashbridge:
No Photo Found
Nicknamed "Stars and Stripes Sam," Samuel Howell Ashbridge was mayor of Philadelphia from 1899 to 1903. As Steffens states in his chapter on Philadelphia, Ashbridge was widely known for his patriotic speeches, although much of what he said is not remembered today. However, his infamous statement in regards to his position as mayor of Philadelphia is in fact remembered by many. Hhe stated to the former Postmaster Thomas L. Hicks, "Tom, I have been elected mayor of Philadelphia. I have four years to serve. I have no further ambitions. I want no other office when I am out of this one, and I shall get out of this office all there is in it for Samuel H. Ashbridge." This statement cleary is an example of how Steffens exploits the selfish and corrupt ways and intentions of Philadelphia politicians during the early 1900s. Ashbridge clearly states that he is taking on the position of mayor, most of all, to benefit himself and he is determined to get all that he can within the four year time frame, since mayors at the time were not allowed to exceed their service of four years in the position. Although Ashbridge made the aforementioned statement, it is said that he was not the source or corruption, but merely an instrument of it. Even though the Bullitt Charter's aim was to decrease the intensity of corruption in Philadelphia, by giving more authority to the mayor, the mayors of Ashbridge's time did not have as much power as do those mayors of today. Despite the fact that the mayor had greater authority than before, the city's government structure remained dispersed with significant offices independent of the mayor who as already mentioned, only could serve one term of four years. On the contrary, the real power of Philadelphia lay in the hands of the Republican Party, led by Senator Matthew S. Quay.
John Weaver:
No Picture Found
A Republican, John Weaver of Philadelphia County was mayor from 1903 to 1907. Another of his political achievements includes being a delegate to the Republican National Convention from Pennsylvania in 1904. His burial location is also unknown.
Steffens ends his chapter on Philadelphia discussing the election of the Philadelphians' new mayor, John Weaver. Steffens describes this new mayor as being the new hope of the citizens of Philadelphia. The ring is said to have faith in him and so do the Philadelphians. He makes fair promises as did Ashbridge, but the difference is that Weaver has made a good start. He compromised with the machine on his appointments and stopped maces that appeared in the Legislature right before he took office as mayor. Steffens puts forth a good point in closing the chapter when he questions the loyalty of John Weaver to the people of Philadelphia or to the ring when it is the ring that can make or break him. He also states that there is no reason why the Philadelphians should trust an outsider, an Englishman by birth, to justly and honestly lead the city of Philadelphia as mayor. All in all, it seems that Steffens' point is, what makes John Weaver an exception to the corrupt political leaders of the city, especially when he is actually an Englishman, and more importantly why should his main concern be to service the people when they can do nothing for him (since the ring is the overpowering rule) and since he only has one term as mayor?
Read Philadelphia: Corrupt and Contented