Year: 1875

| criticise the conduct OF individual members


Of Tammany Such an organization is an
anomaly in our politics, and now that the
election is over the occasion seems opportune
J for dispassionate consideration of the
grounds on which sucha society is defended.
We prefer in this inquiry to drop or lay out Of
view the question whether Tammany has
been well or i'll administered under its pres
ent chiefs, and to direct attention to the
nature Of the organization itself If this is
bad no honesty of intention on the part of
those who administer it should save it from
public condemnation.


The subject would lead us into a wide
field if we had space to discuss it in its
larger bearings 1t is connected with one Of
the most difficult problems in American pol
itics-the government Of great cities under
our system Of universal suffrage. 1t is
problem which is not presented in any other
of the great cities Of the world. London is
governed in the main by the Home Secre-
tary, amember of the Ministry; Paris, Berlin,
Vienna and ST. Petersburg by officers APP
pointed by the national authority. That
small part Of London which forms the old
corporate city has indeed an elective Lord
Mayor and Board of Aldermen; but the Lord
Mcyor is chosen by the Aldermen from their
own number and the Aldermen practically
hold Office for life, as they are constantly re-
elected by small constituency consisting of
the members of various limited guilds. The
corporate authorities have no control over
the police, the local courts, the streets or the
water supply which are the most important
subjects of municipal administration. In
our American cities the whole range of NUM-
cipal affairs is given to local officers chosen
either directly or indirectly by universal
suffrage In view of the corruption which
has grown up in SO many Of our cities the
safety of this system is fairly open to ques-
ton, and there is no reason for surprise that
there is a considerable number of intelligent
citizens who look with distrust on the sys-
TEN and think it must sooner or later be
abandoned. 1t is better to meet such doubt
ers with argument than to try to silence
them by denunciation.


1t is only among the wealthier portion of
the property-holding class that this view has
as yet made much progress, and even they
seldom venture to express it except in quiet
conversations with one another. But Mr..
Abram S. Hewitt, a member of Congress from
this city and one of the Tammany chiefs, put
it forth in his speech at Tammany Hall on
Thursday evening" and made it the basis of
his defence of that organization. On that
occasion Mr Hewitt made this remarkable
statement ct me the only possible
choice seems to be between the regular dem
ocratic organization, a vigilance committee,
or central government SO strong as to be
| totally at variance with our ideas of
| free government, and to which l trust
we shall not be driven before the Re
| public is century older" This is the
boldest public declaration we have ever
seen-probably the boldest ever made by an
American citizen clothed with public trust
of the moral incapacity Of the people to gov
ern themselves 1t is an assertion that Tam
many is the only alternative to vigilance
! committee 50 long retain our free pop
ular Institutions. We have nothing to say as
to the discretion of such an avowal; but


considering how many motives there were
for its suppression, we cannot doubt
| its sincerity. We thank Mr. Hewitt
for the instructive comparison he sug-
gests between Tammany and a vigilance
committee Like o vigilance committee
| it is self-elected; like o vigilance committee,
it arranges its plans in secret con-
sultations; like a vigilance committee, it
undertakes 70 govern city by methods out
side Of and unknown to the law. Vigilance
committees can be justified only when
popular government has failed, and O self
constituted authority interposes to save the
community, as happened in San Francisco
many years ago. BY "the regular demo-
cratic organization" Mr.. Hewitt means
! Tammany, and he thinks the people
| of this city are SO incompetent to
| govern themselves that nothing short of
! Tammany or a vigilance committee can rem
| der property secure or existence tolerable in
4 New York SO long as we do not establish "a
central government 50 strong as to be totally
at variance with our ideas of free govern
ment" He has some hope that, by accept
ing Tammany as q substitute for vigilance
committee, we may retain the empty form of
free institutions for quite o period. But of
what value is the form if we have lost the
substance? Why should we not submit at
once to vigorous central power if the mass
of our people are really SO ignorant or SO
corrupt that their free political action is no
longer compatible with the public safety?


We accept Mr.. Hewitts opinion that an
organization like Tammany can be defended


only as makeshift when popular institu-
tions have failed, and that it is q less harsh
and odious expedient than q vigilance COM
mittee for rescuing society from dissolu-
ton. But as a means Of bridging over the
interval between the failure Of free popular
government and the establishment Of a