Harper's Weekly Editorials by Carl Schurz. Schurz Carl
recently reported by a St. Louis newspaper. A delegation of Republican politicians from Missouri appeared before Mr. McKinley to ask that their State be “recognized” in the make-up of the new administration. Mr. McKinley, in an inquiring way, mentioned the name of Mr. Henry Hitchcock, an eminent lawyer of St. Louis, well known as such all over the country, and a citizen of enlightened and constantly active public spirit. The delegation of Missourians were painfully shocked to hear from Mr. McKinley's lips the name of Mr. Hitchcock as that of a man by whose appointment to a cabinet place their State could possibly be “recognized.” No—that was not the sort of thing they had come for. To be sure, they had nothing to say against Mr. Hitchcock's eminent fitness for the duties of high office. He was, indeed, a very able and distinguished man, and all that. But he was, as they had it, a “dude”; altogether too high-toned. He was seldom politically active, so as to be seen as a delegate in convention. His appointment would therefore not be a “recognition” of the Republicans of Missouri at all. And when the delegation left Canton, its members, so the the report runs, congratulated themselves upon having “relieved Mr. McKinley's mind of any idea of selecting Mr. Hitchcock.”
These are casual illustrations of the dislike very generally entertained by the so-called working party politicians for men eminent by character and ability and of signal fitness for the discharge of the real duties of high office. This dislike springs from the apprehension that such men, with their conceptions of public duty, will be likely to act for the public interest upon motives with which the interests of the party have but little if anything at all to do—in other words, that being earnestly intent upon taking care of the public good, they will not make it their first business to “take care of the organization.” And to take care of the organization means mainly to distribute offices among its members. Feeling that they cannot, in this respect, count upon such men when in power, the ordinary party politician is averse to putting such men into power. It may therefore be said that the greater a part the patronage, the distribution of offices as party spoils, plays in the management of a political party, the stronger will be the tendency in it to exclude from places of power men eminent by character and ability, who are likely to take a high view of their public duty, and accordingly to treat the patronage business with neglect or even disdain.
By way of object-lesson, let the citizens of New York ask themselves this question: As our political parties are now organized, would George Washington have any chance of preferment in either of them? Not the slightest. The Republican machine as well as Tammany Hall would set him down as an intolerable “dude,” a pharisee. A man of such squeamishness in selecting persons for public places, and of such opinions as expressed in the Farewell Address about the “baneful effects of the spirit of party,” and about “the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it,” would be scorned as a mugwump, and an utterly unfit person for the confidence of a regular party organization—ay, as an enemy of democratic government. In the Republican caucus of the New York Legislature George Washington would, in the contest for the Senatorship, have been laughed at as a competitor of Thomas C. Platt; as he would, while the Legislature was controlled by the Democratic machine, have been an absolutely hopeless candidate as against David B. Hill or Edward Murphy. And in the city of New York it would require a successful revolt against both regular organizations to make George Washington Mayor.
This applies not to New York alone, but to Pennsylvania likewise, and to many other States in a greater or less degree. In fact, party organization in its recent development tends in the same direction almost all over the country. It is true, men of the first order of character and ability still get into high places now and then. But this is in most cases owing to one of four circumstances: either some man in authority is large-minded and courageous enough to appoint them to important positions, notwithstanding the displeasure of the party machine; or there is a public sentiment strong enough to force their nomination and election over the head of the regular organizations; or the the party organizations nominate them under circumstances making their defeat eminently probable, and they are elected in spite of this, owing to fortunate changes in the situation; or regular organizations put them forward, undervaluing their character by mistake. But generally it will hardly be denied that party organization, as it has gradually developed itself under the influence of the patronage system, tends more to suppress than to promote the employment in the public service of the best talent and character of the country. And this accounts to a great extent for the deterioration of our political life which is so much complained of.
To remedy this alarming evil the abolition of the demoralizing practice of using public offices as patronage or party spoil may not be the only thing required, but it is certainly the most indispensable. Without it nothing else will avail. Only when government departments, national, State, or municipal, cease to be patronage offices, will they be permitted to become thorough business offices. Only when public men in places of power, legislative or executive, cease to have offices to bestow by way of favor, will the efforts cease to fill those places of power with patronage-mongers instead of statesmen. Only when the distribution of spoils ceases to be a ruling influence in party management will political parties again feel it to be their first interest to seek out their ablest and most high-minded men for public position. Only when men of high self-respect can offer themselves for office without fear of having to sacrifice that self-respect will they be in large numbers at the service of the public. The abolition of the spoils system will, indeed, not bring on the millennium. But it will certainly clear the way for that general raising of standards in our political life of which the republic stands much in need.
Carl Schurz.
DELUSIONS OF BIMETALLISM.
Among the advocates of bimetallism there are sincere and earnest men, moved by a philanthropic impulse. To judge from their utterances many of them are haunted by a gloomy apprehension that the great mass of mankind is at present in a condition of exceptionally dreadful distress and mister, threatening to grow much worse. This calamitous state of things they ascribe to the paralyzing effect of the diminution of the world's money, which they think has been caused by the so-called demonetization of silver and the establishment of the gold standard. The only remedy they can see is the complete “rehabilitation” of silver as a money metal and the general establishment of the double standard of values. Having persuaded themselves of the necessity of this remedy, they readily assume the possibility of its application; and in this respect they encourage themselves with the belief that an overwhelming majority of civilized mankind is not only in favor of it, but positively yearning for it, and that only the malign influence of a conspiracy of powerful financiers within a square mile around the Bank of England or within hearing distance of Wall Street in New York stands in the way of the happy consummation.
Here we have a remarkable structure of false conclusions built upon a ground-work of false premises. It is an instructive instance of the imagination of otherwise sensible persons running away with their understanding. In the first place, the very evil which these philanthropists mean to remedy is not such as they assume. To be sure, there is much poverty, distress, and suffering in this world—more than enough to move a good heart to pity. All the more should we be careful to base our schemes of relief upon a correct diagnosis of the evil. While it is true that much misery exists, it is not true that it is at present of exceptional extent, or that of late years it has been growing worse. On the contrary, the general condition of mankind as to material well-being is not nearly as unsatisfactory as it was fifty or thirty years ago. It has decidedly improved, especially since the period which to the mind of the bimetallist marks the beginning of progressive calamity—the period of the establishment of the gold standard in Germany and in the United States. Not only has there been in the countries named, as well as in England—the leading gold-standard country of the world—a most remarkable industrial development during that period, but the condition of the great masses of the people has, temporary depressions and cases of local distress notwithstanding, on the whole, strikingly changed for the better.
This is so well known a fact that it hardly requires proof in detail. But by way of illustration certain figures may be quoted which