# Massachusetts Reform Club Speech (1885-04-24; Schurz)

United States: The Civil Service Record, pages 96–97. The Boston Daily Advertiser of April 25, 1885, gives the date for this speech as April 24.
SPEECH OF CARL SCHURZ.
At a dinner given to the Hon. Carl Schurz by the Massachusetts Reform Club on the evening of April 24, Mr. Schurz clearly set forth his views as to the ground the Independents ought to take toward the administration.
As these views cannot fail to be of interest to all civil service reformers, we print his speech in full:—
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Massachusetts Reform Club,—When I came to Boston, I expected to meet a few friends around a small table; but, behold, I see here this grand dinner. It has taken me somewhat unawares. Permit me to thank you for the honor conferred upon me. I cannot help saying that, standing here among you, I do not feel exactly as one of your guests, but rather as if I were at home. Seeing so many well-known faces before me, remembering the many oceasions upon which we have met, it seems to me that I may not only speak to you, but speak as one of you. I even feel somewhat tempted to introduce you to our distinguished friend, Mr. Phelps, who honors us by his presence tonight. He probably does not know yet as well as I do what interesting, lively, and perhaps dangerous, company he is in. These young men—for we are all young men, and intend to remain so to our last days—are accustomed to do their own thinking and their own talking, and sometimes a little regardless of consequences, and certainly without consideration of what effect their talking may have upon their chances to get into office. It must have struck my distinguished friend with what cordiality I have been received. I am sure he will be received with the same. It will be entirely honest and sincere. But I warn him that these gentlemen are somewhat irreverent and no respecters of persons. If ever he or I should do anything appearing wrong to them, they would hold us over tho coals with equal honesty and sincerity. We had better remember that. It will serve to keep us straight.
Gentlemen of the Club, when men interested in the cause of reform meet nowadays, they do so with the satisfactory feeling that they can report progress, and a good deal of it, too. I say a good deal of it, too, but not enough to permit you to rest upon your oars. How much watchfulness, how much work, how many efforts to enlighten public opinion upon this great theme may still be required was recently illustrated by very curious and characteristic occurrence. The President of the United States took it into his head to appoint a postmaster who had proved to be an exceedingly efficient public servant, but was not of his own party. This occurrence created an immense excitement all over the United States. The politicians in every part of the land were in a commotion hot to the boiling point. And let me say, by the way, this is probably the only civilized country on the face of the globe where the reappointment of a very efficient, capable public officer, regardless of political opinion, would be looked upon as anything extraordinary. In any other civilized land, I am sure it would be taken not only as a proper, but as a natural thing. In this respect, this great republic enjoys an exclusive and by no means very creditable distinction. Here, the excitement over that occurrence was immense. The old-fashioned partisan mind, Republican as well as Demooratic, could not grasp it at all. It could not be that a Democratic President could appoint a Republican postmaster for no other reason than that that postmaster had shown himself an uncommonly good officer, most éfficient in serving the public interest. The old-fashioned partisan spirit could not conceive of it! So, then, it cast about for an explanation; and it found one. It was this: There is a class of persons in the United States called the Independents, or, more euphoniously, the Mugwumps. They were reported to have done some respectable service to the successful candidate in the last campaign. The partisan mind thought that for that service they were entitled to some reward in the shape of spoils, entitled to what is commonly called recognition. And it was said, inasmuch as they asked for nothing else in the shape of recognition but the reappointment of that postmaster, let them have it: it is payment in full for all that they have done in the late campaign. Now, this was an idea which the old-fashioned partisan mind could understand. Of course, some of the papers said that their share of the spoils was rather too much; for it was doubtful, after all, whether the Independents or the Rev. Mr. Burchard, with his “rum, Romanism, and rebellion,” had done the business. Nevertheless, the partisan mind was satisfied. It saw at least, the principle of spoils, and that was in keeping with its ideas. I regret to say, in the interest of truth, I have to dispel that pleasing view. The fact is not only that there was no bargain between President Cleveland and the Independents, either before or after the election, and no idea of recognition, but that even when the idea of recognition was suggested, as far as I know,—and I may be supposed to know something about it,—the idea was distinctly repudiated. The understanding between President Cleveland and the Independents was perfectly simple. It was that the service they had done in the campaign was free of charge; if they venture upon giving him a piece of advice occasionally now, it is free of charge again; that they did not deny, as to the appointment of that postmaster, that they liked him, and they had a right to, but that Mr. Cleveland appointed that postmaster, not in recognition of a debt he owed to the Independents, but in recognition of a duty he owed to the country. Possibly, it may even be discovered that President Cleveland himself thought of that reappointment before anybody suggested it to him.
The old-fashioned partisan spirit must, after all, accept things as they are. The great calamity has actually happened. The country does stand afflicted with a Democratic President who has shown himself capable of reappointing a Republican postmaster, for the simple contemptible reason that it was in the public interest! It may be dreadful, but if is so. Now, the only consolation the old-fashioned partisan mind has is that, while the President may have done this thing once, he will certainly never do it again. But, as we disagreed upon the matter of recognition before, so I am afraid we must disagree upon the matter of repetition also. The reasoning of the Mugwumps is exceedingly simple. If the reappointment of a Republican postmaster by a Democratic President, for the purpose of serving the public interest, was not a good thing, then it ought not to have been done at all. But, if it was a good thing, then we cannot get too much of that good thing. Seriously speaking, the value of that reappointment would be very limited indeed,—in my opinion, at least,—if it remained an isolated occurrence. It would simply show what should be done, what could be done, but what is not done. The principal value of this action would consist in its being the beginning and an illustration of a general policy. I do not mean that the President should hunt up pretexts for keeping as many Republican officers in place as possible. No: I think it will be, in many respects, a good thing for the country if a good many changes are made. But what I do mean,—and I think here I am expressing the sentiment of almost every sincere friend of reform who tries to promote it for its own sake,—what I do mean is that the character of the public service would be vastly improved, and that the moral as well as the intellectual standards of our public life would be greatly raised, if the purely administrative, the non-political part of our governmental machinery were taken out of partisan politics.
See how the thing works. If President Cleveland permits every Republican office-holder to serve out his term, but upon the expiration of every Republican commission puts in a Democrat, then at the end of his Presidential term the whole civil service—with the exception of the comparatively few subordinate places covered by the civil service law, and a very few more exceptions—will be essentially a Democratic partisan service. If, then, the Republicans win, they need only follow the example set by President Cleveland to make it an essentially Republican partisan service again, and so on by terms. Is it not remarkable how the Republicans understand this thing? Every Republican spoils politician you will see raising his voice encouraging the Democratic administration to remove as many Republicans as possible to put Democrats in their places. Why does he do this? Not because ho prefers to see Democrats in the public offices, but because at the time when the Republican partisans may return to power they do not want to be fettered by a precedent set by President Cleveland. They see very clearly that this involves essentially a “new deal” every time tho party in power changes; and they see also that the prospect of a new deal will always keep our political contests, what in a large measure they have long been, scrambles for public plunder, and it will always preserve in our public service an almost irresistible tendency to develop into party machine business, with all its abuses. That is the reason why the Republican spoilsmen encourage it now.
What is to be done? If that branch of our service which is purely administrative and essentially non-political is to be taken out of partisan politics, then some President brought in by a change of party in power must make a beginning. He will have to make a beginning by leaving a certain number of officers belonging to the opposite party in place upon the single ground of superior merit. The first consequence will be that every officer in the service of the government will be taught that, if he preserves his integrity intact, if he gives his full mind and energy to his official duties so as to raise himself the standard of eminent efficiency, then he will have an excellent chance of remaining in office, even if the party in power changes. I put it to you whether anything can be done that will raise the character of the service to a higher point than that. But, secondly, the President doing this will set a precedent which no subsequent administration, to whatever party it may belong, will be permitted by public opinion to set aside. And thus he will have rendered a service to the republic that will not only be great and valuable for the time being, but will be a lasting benefit for all time to come. Now, we are told that nobody can blame President Cleveland for not doing this thing; for he has not promised it. That is true: he has not promised it; and, if he does not do it, no man can have a right to say that he has broken his word. But his not having promised it does not make that policy any the less good, important, and desirable. And, moreover, I remember that in Mr, Cleveland's ​public career there are several instances when he did things to which he was not pledged, simply because they were right and good; and I must confess I cannot bring myself to give up my belief in the possibility, in this case as well as in others, of his outdoing his promises by his performances. Here, I am reminded of an outcry, which now and then has been raised by the party press, that we Independents are so impudent and presumptuous as to pretend to dictate to the administration. My fellow-citizens, does any one of you think that any such attempt has been made? As far as I am aware, we have only claimed the privilege of American citizens to have an opinion and to express it. And, if the politicians accuse us of dictating, it is simply because the opinions we have and express do not always chime with their desires and their interests. If there is any dictating to the administration done, then I apprehend it is more done by the spoils politicians, who want things, than by the Mugwumps, who do not. The whole matter reminds me somewhat of Mr. Lincoln's celebrated saying, when he defined Douglas’ theory of non-interference. When A wants to make B a slave, then C has no right to interfere. When the spoils politicians try to drag down the government, and make President Cleveland break his promise and ruin his administration, then we are acoused of dictation for giving him a little modest advice not to do so. Our business, as I understand it, is to address ourselves to the patriotic impulses of the American people, the administration always included in the advocacy of sound notions of good government, thus trying to build up a healthy and a strong public opinion.
Now, in order to do this with good effect, I think there are certain mistakes which we must be careful to avoid. This is one. I have heard some friends of reform, good, honest men, say that we must not fix our aims too high, that we must not ask nor expect from anybody anything that is perfect, that we must not embarrass those in power by setting up standards too lofty, by recognizing their obligations to make sometimes material concessions to old abuses, prejudice, and exploded notions. Gentlemen of the Reform Club, that is not my opinion at all. When the friends and representatives of the reform movement talk thus, they will always be in great danger of demoralizing public sentiment. I think we should advance our standard to the highest notch. We should point out the best thing as the thing to be struggled for. We should never tell those in power that we do not expect them to struggle for the best, and that they may mix some badness with their efforts for the public good.
On the other hand, I think another mistake we ought to avoid is to be hasty, captious, and unfair in our criticisms. Whenever reproving an error of action, we should always be ready to give credit for honesty of purpose and intention, whenever we have good reason to believe that it really exists. And, of all things, we should never grow hysterical at a disappointment. Here a case in point. After having made a number of very good appointments, of which our honored and distinguished friend, Mr. Phelps, is one, President Cleveland has, it appears, made a few bad ones. We shall not deny that the shock was painful. At the same time, I do not think that anybody who knows the man or anybody who has the cause of good government at heart will be hasty in ascribing to him any design of turning his back upon his high purposes of conducting the government. What we may say in truth is that he has been imposed upon by very bad counsel. President Cleveland has to learn a good many things which other Presidents had to learn before him. He will have to learn among other things—and here I speak as one who has gone through the mill himself—that, of those who make recommendations or requests for appointments, the members of Congress, in nine cases out of ten, are the least to be trusted. And I will tell you the reason. It is one which is inherent in weak human nature. It is that in recommending appointments for their district in many cases,—let me say there are very honorable exceptions among them,—in most cases they have at heart much more the building up of the local machine than the welfare of the people of the United States or the honor of the administration. Gentlemen, you will all agree with me, when I say that it would be unreasonable to expect even the best man in power not to make any mistakes. But it will not be unreasonable to expect, when he has discovered a mistake, that he shall be prompt and earnest in correcting it. I do not mean to say that, whatsoever may happen, you should keep silent. By no means. On the contrary, I consider it the bounden duty of every friend of good government to inform those in power of whatever may go wrong. He should do so firmly, frankly, without malice, and without mincing matters. For, let me tell you, the atmosphere of Washington is sometimes so thick with flattery and with selfish advice that the sound waves of public opinion can scarcely penetrate it, unless they are propelled with a certain vigor. But one thing keep in mind. If you want your criticism to be effective, above all, see to it that it be just.
But, in any event, we gentlemen have reason to congratulate ourselves upon the tremendous progress made by the reform movement against what some time ago appeared almost overwhelming odds. Our successes have been fairly astonishing. Now, at last, the people begin to wake up to it, to understand its principles and to appreciate its aims and its benefits. We have only to go on in the way in which we have begun, and we shall accomplish it all. One thing is certain, and that is that the reform movement has come to stay and grow. We enjoy to-day a great advantage over former times, Years ago, every effort to improve the methods of government was overshadowed by a dark cloud of supposed danger looming up in the South, having been left behind by the Rebellion. Lately, I have traversed the South myself, seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears; and I can express to you my deliberate conviction that to-day the South is as loyal to the Union as is any part of it. And, when I hear the politicians continue to prate about rebels, I ask myself the question, Where in this country is the man that is in rebellion against his government today? The only shadow of an organized resistance to the Union appears down in Virginia among the readjusters, who are allied with the Republican party. No, my fellow-citizens: when I hear politicians who pretend to be statesmen speak about rebels and rebellion today, I must confess it appears to me not only a very pitiable demagogy, but it would appear in the highest degree as a wicked and unpatriotic demagogy, if they could do any mischief by it. Now, we have a right to feel that the field for reform is free. Gentlemen of the Reform Club, let us keep our eyes firmly fixed upon our high objects, and then go resolutely ahead.
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse