Is there any doubt that such an announcement—made on the ground that the public good requires it, and that those at the head of the government are in duty bound to devote their time and strength to the real business of the people instead of wasting both in distributing patronage—would electrify the country, and that the good-citizenship of the republic would with enthusiasm rally around such a President to hold up his hands? If President McKinley made the experiment, this would be his experience. Indeed, it is said that no President can get along with Congress unless he makes friends in the Senate and the House by dispensing favors in the shape of offices. It was once said, in Walpole's time, that the British Constitution would not work without the practice of purchasing the votes of members of Parliament with money or patronage. The bribing of members of Parliament has long ceased, but the British Constitution is working better than ever. So with us the co-operation between the Executive and Congress would be more honest and harmonious than ever without the use of the patronage; and sensible members of Congress would even rejoice at being relieved of the burden it imposes upon them, provided that in being deprived of it they were all treated alike.
It is, indeed, probable that the country editors who wish to be village postmasters would scowl and bluster; that the incompetents in public life who need the patronage to prop up their influence and to hold together their following would raise a wail of despair, and that the party bosses and the machine workers and their henchmen who depend for sustenance upon the public crib would gloomily predict the downfall of republican government. But the enlightened and patriotic public opinion of the country would soon overrule and silence them all. Even that member of Congress from Ohio who recently at a public dinner in Brooklyn defiled Abraham Lincoln's memory by asserting that the martyr President, if he lived, would condemn civil service reform as an encroachment upon the rights of “the plain people,” would find better employment for his oratorical gifts than to misrepresent a great historic character. Abraham Lincoln had much experience of the use of patronage. But a few days after the fall of Richmond he pointed out to a friend the crowd of office-seekers besieging his door, and said: “Look at that. Now we have conquered the rebellion; but here you see something that may become more dangerous to this republic than the rebellion itself.” It was the spoils system that Abraham Lincoln meant in speaking this word of warning; and that spoils system will not cease to be a source of danger and disgrace until it is totally wiped out. Is it too much to hope that President McKinley, obeying his best impulses, will, for his own salvation and that of the republic, strike the decisive blow?
Carl Schurz.
THE CITIZENS' UNION.
The call for the formation of a Citizens' Union recently issued, to the end of procuring the nomination of suitable candidates for the municipal offices upon a non-partisan platform, has been heartily welcomed by all friends of good government in the city of New York who have the courage of their convictions. Nor can it fail tocommend itself to the good sense of every citizen who has a sound conception of his own interests in the community as well as of the requirements of the common welfare. This is the fundamental plank of the platform put forth by the signers of the call: “We demand that the affairs of the city of New York be administered independently of national and State politics, and that local officers be chosen solely with reference to their qualifications. We will nominate no candidate unless his character and record are such as to justify public confidence in his assurance that, if elected, he will not use his office, or permit it to be used, for the benefit of any political organization, but will administer it in all respects in accordance with the principles of this declaration.” This is supplemented by the following: “Without calling upon any citizen to surrender in any degree his allegiance to his party, we insist upon an entire separation of municipal government from national and State politics, and we appeal to all good citizens, of whatever party, to unite with us in an organized effort to accomplish the object of this union.”
It is hardly necessary to discuss the necessity of such a movement before intelligent and well-informed citizens. Nothing has been more clearly proved by repeated and almost uniform experience than that partisan rule has been the most prolific source of corruption and inefficiency in the governments of the great municipalities in this country, and that in this respect there is very little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. If it may be said that in the city of New York the abuses complained of fall mainly to the charge of the Democratic party, or rather of the ruling organization in the Democratic party, it may be said with equal truth that wherever in a large city the Republicans wield a heavy majority, as the Democrats do in New York, Republican rule is almost without exception as profligate, arbitrary, and inefficient as Democratic rule has been here. It is needless to point out examples. The two parties, therefore, as to their sins of omission and commission in municipal government, stand substantially on the same level. This is here all the more the case since the development of the Platt machine, as it grew more powerful, has been distinctly in the line of Tammany principles and practices. Of equal significance is the unquestionable fact that in our present city administration, which was to illustrate non-partisan municipal government, that part of the municipal service in which the non-partisan principle was most strictly adhered to has been conspicuously by far the most successful, while the failures that have occurred in others can be measured almost exactly by the degree in which the non-partisan principle has been disregarded. There could be no object-lesson more striking and conclusive.
But the movement, of which the call for the organization of the Citizens' Union forms the initial part, is confronted, among the very class of citizens who naturally sympathize with its aims, by that kind of timidity which is born of long subjection, and by that inane pessimism which discourages every effort for improvement with the cynical plea that all such endeavors are doomed to failure anyhow, and that it is useless to try. This pessimism, which is only a supercilious form of mental sloth or moral cowardice, has done more to frustrate reformatory efforts in public affairs than direct opposition. Many such efforts which failed would have succeeded had the crowd of pessimistic wiseacres, instead of turning up their noses at them as hopeless, aided them with the vigor and constancy of true men and dutiful citizens. So we hear now that the party machines are too strong to be dislodged; that they command a well-organized and perfectly drilled force, while their opponents have no organization, or at best a very loose one; and that if both the party machines make regular nominations, the non-partisans, acting independently, will have no chance of success on their side. Therefore why go to the useless trouble of fighting? Why not surrender at once?
Talk like this is peculiarly pusillanimous and reprehensible at this moment. Formerly we were told that while national and State elections were held at the same time with those for municipal offices, party spirit ran away with many citizens who otherwise would have been inclined to give their efforts to good municipal government for its own sake, and that