of Contents
The manner in which the selection of Mr. Gage for the Treasury Department has been received by different classes of people deserves attentive study. The business community throughout the land, as well as sincere friends of good government generally, applauded it with a satisfaction bordering on enthusiasm. It was universally recognized that Mr. Gage is a man of high character and eminent ability, peculiarly fitted by training and experience for the discharge of the duties of the Secretary of the Treasury, and that being an advocate of the merit system in the public service, he would manage the department solely with a view to the public interest. But a sullen growl arose from the ranks of the party politicians. To be sure, nobody questioned Mr. Gage's exceptional fitness for the place. But was he an active party man, or even a perfectly sound one? Had he not confessedly “bolted” the Republican nomination for the Presidency in 1884? Although he had usually voted the Republican ticket, had he not always been inclined to act independently in politics? Would he serve the interests of the party with sufficient zeal—that is, was he in sympathy with the “party workers,” and would he “take care” of them with the patronage of the Treasury? Was it not almost certain that he would not do so? In short, the practical party politicians were very much displeased, and their feelings occasionally found vent in explosive utterances of astonishment “that McKinley would do such a thing as that.” Indeed, there is hardly any doubt that, had Mr. McKinley submitted the selection of Mr. Gage for their assent to the “working” politicians of his party, members of Congress included, it would have been rejected by a large majority. The smouldering discontent might even have blazed out in open revolt, had not the approval of the country at large been so overwhelming.
In the same line was an occurrence 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
