# The New York Times/1895/7/13/Gen. Schurz's Words of Warning

From The New York Times of July 13, 1895. A letter of Carl Schurz to the New-Yorker Staats-Zeitung is included below along with commentary by the Staats-Zeitung, both presumably translated from German by an unknown hand. Two succeeding related article from the facsimile are also included. Related material preceding Schurz's letter in the facsimile has been omitted.
GEN. SCHURZ'S WORDS OF WARNING
He Defends President Roosevelt and Upholds Respect for the Law.
The following letter from Gen. Carl Schurz to the editor of The Staats-Zeitung was published in that newspaper yesterday. Gen. Schurz defends the action which President Roosevelt of the Police Board has taken in regard to the Sunday enforcement of the excise law, and endeavors to show that any desertion of the reform administration by the German element of this city would lead to the return to power of Tammany Hall:
   To the Editor of The New-Yorker Staats-Zeitung.
   Dear Sir: The Sunday question, as it presents itself at this moment to the citizens of New-York, is of such many-sided interest to the public in general, and to the German-Americans in particular, that it should be discussed in an entirely calm, unprejudiced, and dispassionate spirit, and I beg you to give me room in your columns for an expression of my views.
   First, permit me to correct some misconceptions of a personal nature. The paper concerning this subject, signed by Messrs. von Briesen, Schwab, Schiff, Knauth, Cillis, Pannes, and myself, was introduced in The Staats-Zeitung with the following remark:
      The signers are among our most respected business men, they count themselves among the Germans of this city and among the reformers, and they are mostly members of the G. O. P., who, when working for reform, cannot forget their party.
   The fact is that among the signers there is, as far as I know, only one who at the last Presidential election did not vote for Cleveland. And this one is by no means a zealous party man, but a faithful and zealous friend of reform. The allegation that party spirit had anything whatever to do with that paper is, therefore, absolutely unfounded.
   In the Staats-Zeitung of July 1 I found the following:
      Messrs. Strong and Roosevelt do not act in good faith as to their official duty, but put this forward only to screen a malicious chicanery directed against a part of the population of New-York, whom they hate, and these citizens will reckon with them eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. They may depend upon it. Under the flag of reform, nativism has invaded the city administration, and the nativists will be ejected therefrom heels over head.
   It is not my purpose to justify all the official acts of Mr. Strong or to reconcile what discrepancies there may be between the wording of Mr. Strong's promises and his own understanding of them. But so far as I know the man I believe it is wrong to charge him with hatred of foreigners, especially of the Germans, and with narrow-minded nativism.
   As to Mr. Roosevelt, I have known him long and well, and can speak of him with confidence. There are political questions on which I do not agree with him by any means. But I may assure you, whoever calls Mr. Roosevelt a narrow-minded nativist, or an intolerant Puritan, or a haughty aristocrat, or a supercilious dandy, does not know him at all. He is, on the contrary, a well-educated gentleman of very liberal views. He is a Republican partisan, but I have never known a public officer who permitted himself to be less biased by party interest or influence in the performance of his official duties. As a Civil Service Commissioner he enforced the law with rare energy and intrepidity, and in doing so he spared the politicians of his own party perhaps even less than those of the Democratic faith. And when he tells you that his administration of the Police Department will be entirely free from party spirit, you may depend upon his word. To ascribe his present action to any nativistic, or religious, or partisan motives is, therefore, a gross injustice.
   Permit me now a word about the point of view from which I personally look at the matter in question. That for various reasons a more liberal Sunday legislation and generally greater liberty of reasonable enjoyment are desirable I believe as firmly as you do. But I have never regarded that liberty of enjoyment as the only or as the highest good for which we should strive. I do not mean merely that questions of National union or independence, or of peace or war and the like, are of superior consequence; but it seems to me that honest municipal government, with reliable protection of person and property, with intelligent and impartial administration of justice, with an efficient and incorruptible police, with enlightened care for popular education and sanitary measures, &c., is of greater general importance to the people. Certainly good municipal government, with reasonable Sunday liberty, is preferable, and should be worked for.
   But I believe the population of New-York can, after all, get along better without the opening of saloons on Sundays than without clean streets, a plentiful supply of good water, good schools, public security, effective sanitary arrangements, and the like, all the days of the week. In saying this I do not underestimate the value of the desired Sunday liberty, and I recognize the importance of all the questions of principle involved therein. But what I wish to emphasize is that, while we strive with all proper means for the attainment of that reasonable Sunday liberty, we should not, as good citizens, overlook the relative importance of this and other public interests, and especially we should not make interests of more general importance dependent upon this one thing. We should endeavor to accomplish as much as possible all good ends together.
   Above all, we should never give room to the thought that any disappointment concerning Sunday liberty would justify us in doing anything calculated to restore Tammany Hall to power. We must never forget what Tammany rule really was; that under it all branches of the Municipal Government were honey-combed with corruption and wickedness; that our filthy streets were a general scandal, and that especially in those parts of the city inhabited by poor people they poisoned the air so as to breed disease and death; that all classes of the population were subjected to a system of blackmail and robbery, from which the poor and the helpless suffered most; that this system of blackmail was in great part sustained by the toll levied upon saloon keepers for the privilege of breaking the Sunday law with impunity; that in consequence of such iniquitous practices, the police fell into an extremely demoralized condition, and served more to spread lawlessness and crime than to give protection to person and property; that, in fact, our City Government became a disgrace to the American name. What honorable citizen will not wish, at any price, to prevent the return of such calamities?
   The reorganization of the police is evidently the most difficult as well as the most
   pressing problem before the present municipal administration. Not only is the corrupt element to be expelled from the police force — a task rendered especially perplexing by the failure of the Legislature to give the required legislative aid — but the force is also to be inspired anew with that respect for the law which under the Tammany régime had entirely disappeared. And this requires especially rigorous measures, as the force could not otherwise be sufficiently cleansed of its vicious material. But without the revival of the respect for the law the police would soon become as corrupt and profligate as before.
   Now, you may say that the police force can be inspired with proper respect for the law even if the head of the police ordains that a certain law, impunity for the violation of which had formerly been one of the main sources of police corruption, shall be enforced only apparently, or a little, or not at all. But you will admit that there may be two opinions about this. The thought lies near, that when the head of the police makes a difference with regard to the enforcement of such law, or permits the members of the force to make such a difference at their pleasure, the effect upon the force will be most demoralizing, and very soon the “Pantatas,” or the patrolmen, will have themselves handsomely paid again for favors granted. And thus the old corrupt state of things will presently be in full bloom again.
   No doubt there are here, as well as elsewhere, laws or ordinances which in the course of time have become “dead letters,” and which thus have fallen into disuse and oblivion. But the argument that the Sunday law might be ignored likewise fails for the reason that the Sunday law has never been a “dead letter,” but has by the arbitrary manner of its enforcement been one of the principal fountains of that very corruption against which we have recently fought. Let us hear Mr. Roosevelt himself on this point. A few days ago he said to a reporter for The New-York World:
      In the first place, this excise law wasn't in the least a dead law. It was alive in reference to some people and not in reference to others. Under the old Tammany board about 5,000 arrests were made every year for violation of the Sunday excise law. The very month before I came into office 500 arrests were made. In other words, the law has always been enforced against some saloon keepers. But it never was enforced against the man with a pull. The only difference in my method of enforcing it has been that I have enforced it against every man, whether he had a pull or whether he hadn't. I started with no theory whatever about the excise law. But Sunday after Sunday complaints were brought to me that certain saloon keepers were forced to close when men right across the way from them, or even next door, were allowed to be open. I made investigation after investigation, personally and by my agents, and I found this was true. There were then two alternative courses to follow. Either I could tell the police to inform the saloon keepers who were not violating the law that they could violate it, or else insist that the men who were violating it should observe it. Of course, as an officer who wishes to observe his oath of office, the latter was the only possible course to take. I am an executive, not a legislative, officer. What my views may be as to the ethical effects of a given law cannot alter my duty in enforcing it. Moreover, there is no use in telling me that it is the State which makes laws for the city, and that, therefore, the city is at liberty to disregard them. Such a doctrine would result in mere anarchy.
   You will not deny that this utterance is entitled to respectful consideration. I am far from saying that Mr. Roosevelt should under no circumstances be criticised. Whenever he transgresses his power, or neglects his duties, or misbehaves in any other way, let him be criticised as sharply and also as justly as other official would be. But when, simply because he thinks it his duty to enforce a law without regard to “pull,” and thus to stop a prolific source of police corruption, he is publicly denounced as a pasha, a despot, a nativist, an aristocrat, and so on, and when the members of the police force, who simply carry out their instruction, as in duty bound, are pilloried as a tyrant's henchmen, janizaries, pandours, and what not, such denunciations, it seems to me, are not only most unjust, but, considering their inflaming character, not altogether harmless as to their possible effect.
   I have formerly expressed the opinion that, in the long run, the Sunday law could not be successfully enforced in New-York City. It is possible that Mr. Roosevelt's energetic attempt may furnish a new and especially impressive proof of this; for, if he fails, people will say, “What this man could not do, others will try in vain.” But if the enforcement should now succeed, the vexations resulting from that success would only put the desirability of a change of the law into a still stronger light, and oblige the Legislature to give earnest attention to the subject. The influence of Mr. Roosevelt may, then, in consequence of his present dutiful effort, have especial weight in favor of a more liberal policy.
   You say you do not expect any remedy from the Legislature; I deem it by no means impossible under existing circumstances. You predict only that the Germans of New-York will at any price drive out the present municipal administration, and put in its place one favorable to Sunday liberty, of whatever elements it may otherwise be composed. I have a better opinion of the Germans of New-York. If your agitation, as at present conducted, were to be successful, it would inevitably lead to the restoration of Tammany rule. I assume, of course, that this is not your purpose, although your prediction might have had more the character of a warning than of an incitement. In any event, I am convinced that a large majority of the Germans of New-York will at no price consent to lend a helping hand to such a betrayal of the common weal as the restoration of Tammany rule would be.
   During nearly forty years I have been more or less active in public life, and I have always had the honor of the German name in America at heart. Often have I had to repel the aspersion that, good people as Germans may be, they are apt to forget everything else as soon as their beer is touched. I have always treated this as a revolting calumny. A comparatively small number of reckless and noisy shouters may sometimes have given color to this accusation, but the overwhelming majority of the Germans looked at the rights and duties of American citizenship from a much higher standpoint.
   The Germans of New-York are no exception to the rule. They will, in this emergency, surely do what is right and worthy of the German name. While ever as much in favor of a more liberal Sunday law, they will remember that this is neither the only nor the most valuable object of their endeavors. Although the recent struggle for good municipal government may not have yielded all the fruit they desired, yet, as good citizens, they recognize it as their duty to preserve and develop all the good results it did yield.
   The corruption of the police was the most dangerous evil afflicting the community. Whoever furnishes the city an efficient, incorruptible, and dutiful police will confer upon it an inestimable benefaction and deserve the gratitude of every decent citizen. The men now at the head of the department are honestly endeavoring to do this, and the Germans will not imperil the success of that endeavor by demanding that the old demoralizing business of selling permission for violating the Sunday law be continued. They wish to attain the desired Sunday liberty, not be a demoralizing circumvention of the law, but by an orderly change of the law.
   If this change does not come as quickly as they would have it, they will certainly not raise the alternative, “Either Sunday beer or Tammany.” They will not forget that the accomplishment of reforms in a democratic community usually requires patience, and that he who means to be a good citizen of a republic must cultivate that patience. They will remember that the liberal current which has given us of late years public Sunday concerts and open museums, promises soon to loosen other unreasonable restraints. They will, with calm perseverance and in a lawful manner, continue their efforts until the Sunday question is submitted in the spirit of home rule to the local option of the people of New-York City. And thus they will reach their aim, remaining true to the cause of good government and preserving the respect and confidence of their fellow-citizens. Very truly yours,
THE STAATS-ZEITUNG'S REPLY.
Finds Fault with Gen. Schurz's Logic on the Excise Question.
The Staats-Zeitung, in an editorial headed “The German Abettors of the Sunday-Baiting,” commented on Gen. Schurz's letter yesterday as follows:
   Mr. Schurz is generally accepted as a good logician and dialectician, but his logic has deserted him this time.
   The Sunday law remains unenforceable, despite all the endeavors to enforce it; the police well know this, and their chase in the impossible task has a far more demoralizing effect than the exercise of discretion of authority on the part of the police. As to the supposed stoppage of the source of corruption, Mr. Schurz knows, as well as every other person, that the decision in all cases depends upon the evidence of the police. The temptation for the policeman increases with the increase of arrests.
   Mr. Schurz falls into a much greater mistake; he confuses cause and effect. The German-Americans do not desert municipal reform because (to use Mr. Schurz's words) they desire to see the beerhouses open on Sunday; on the contrary, they complain of Strong's and Roosevelt's want of reason and want of judgment, through which reform is given a deathly stab, while the mass of the people cannot be kept together any longer in the reform movement.
   It is not a beer question, and we are astounded that Mr. Schurz has fallen into the narrow view of the native-born American. This is a question of class differences. While the citizen without wealth can only satisfy himself by violating the law, the wealthy citizen pleases himself with a freedom that is not circumscribed. This is the pith of the matter.
   And now, one word about more certain
   complaints which Mr. Schurz makes against The Staats-Zeitung. He speaks of an agitation that we are instigating and which must result in the restoration of Tammany Hall into power. The position of The Staats-Zeitung could not be worse distorted. We defined our position in the following words the day after the appearance of the pronunciamento of Schurz, Brieson, Schwab, and others:
      Accepted that it be true that this baiting is necessary for the purification of the police, and accepted that such purification will be accomplished thereby, could this weigh heavier than the prospect of a high flood for Tammany, which every one who wishes to see now sees?
   Mr. Schurz evidently did not understand us, for we cannot believe that he did not want to understand us. Because we recognize the inevitable results of this baiting of the saloon keepers, because we understand the impossibility of soothing the irritated feeling resulting from an utter disregard of the wishes of a sensitive class of citizens, or of quieting them with nice words, we oppose the Roosevelt policy; nor have we hesitated to speak bluntly and plainly, as is necessary in cases of want of sense and blindness, in order to produce an impression on Roosevelt and Strong, and to induce them to retreat from the wrong road.
A COMPROMISE FAVORED.
Views of the German-American Reform Union's Executive Committee.
The Executive Committee of the German-American Reform Union had a very lively meeting on the excise question in the New-York Maennerchor Hall, at 205 to 209 East Fifty-sixth Street, Thursday night. The committee was in session until after midnight. President Jean Weil presided.
The discussion was all on the following resolutions, which were introduced by Internal Revenue Collector Edward Grosse:
   Resolved, That the German-American Reform Union declares the rigorous enforcement of the Sunday law a moral, economic, and political mistake, which the Police Commission should redress as quickly as possible.
   The closing of the saloons on Sundays instead of preventing the abuse of alcoholic beverages must act as an incentive to intemperance, because the doling out of intoxicating drinks is thereby transferred from the saloons to the dwellings of the people, where women and children will participate in their consumption. Instead of increasing respect for law and authority, it will be diminished; and instead of suppressing the corruption of the police, it will be encouraged.
   The Sunday law not being enforced outside the limits of our city, thousands upon thousands of dollars are turned away from our community to the neighboring counties and the State of New-Jersey, thus inflicting a material injury upon our citizens and weakening their taxpaying power.
   The great triumph of the reform movement at the last election was principally due to the very elements of our population which are injured and oppressed by the strict enforcement of the Sunday law, and everything points to the conclusion that the said elements will at the next election give expression to their indignation in a manner which will be a serious blow to the cause of reform. The Police Commissioners and Mayor Strong have no right to destroy the great work accomplished last Fall for the purification of our municipal affairs by the narrow-minded construction and tyrannical enforcement of a single law.
   The assertion that the Sunday law must be strictly enforced because it stands upon our statute book is untenable. We have never had in this country ideal or absolute justice; on the contrary, the execution of our laws has rather been a matter of compromise.
   The object of the Sunday law is the maintenance of order and decency on Sundays, and this object can as well be accomplished by the closing of the front doors and windows of the saloons in such a manner that no passer-by can see or hear what is going on therein, and by holding the saloon keeper to a strict accountability for the observance of the public peace.
   The enforcement of the law in this manner would act as a surer preventive of police corruption than the methods at present employed by the department.
   The non-enforcement of the city ordinance against street stands is a technical violation of law by the Police Commissioners, which should render them amenable to immediate removal. According to their own views of their official duty their resignations should be promptly submitted. As the Commissioners have stayed the enforcement of the said ordinance until the interested parties can obtain a legal permit for the same, so they should similarly act in accordance with the sentiment of the great majority of the community by carrying out the provisions of the Sunday law in accordance with its true spirit, until the Legislature shall have had an opportunity to enact a far, just, and reasonable excise law.
   We admit that the Police Commission in rigorously enforcing the Sunday law is principally guided by the desire to suppress the corruption of the force, but we contend that its construction of the law is radically wrong, that its present methods will rather promote than prevent corruption, will bring the cause of reform into discredit with the great mass of our people, and will probably lead to a new triumph of the enemies of reform.
   We therefore request the Police Commission not to be guided by the strict letter of the law, but by its reasonable purport and intent, to consider the great and far reaching evils which will follow the course so far adopted, and then honestly to admit that the whole people will be better and more wisely served by an enforcement of the law which is consonant with a reasonable construction and agreeable to the cosmopolitan character of our great and beautiful city.
Tax Commissioner Theodore Sutro and a few others doubted the wisdom of adopting these resolutions and fought them. Mr. Grosse, however, was backed by a majority of those present, and the resolutions were adopted by a vote of 45 to 11. Commissioner Sutro did not like the criticism of the Mayor in the resolutions.
Good Government Clubs Approve.
President Roosevelt of the Police Board was informed yesterday that a delegation from the Council of Good Government Clubs proposed to call on him at 10 o'clock Monday next to express appreciation of the way the police are enforcing the excise law, and to ask the Commissioners to see to it that the law is still more rigidly obeyed.
Otto Kempner's Campaign.
Otto Kempner has been appointed by the United Societies for Liberal Sunday Laws to go through the State and organize associations in the interest of more liberal excise laws.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse