“THE STRANGER WITHIN THE GATES.”
“I was a stranger and ye took me in.” The familiar passage needs to be
interpreted in a different sense if it is to describe the treatment of the
stranger by the police of New York. In the evidence of the men who
practise the confidence trick, the curious fact came out that the police
expressly abandoned strangers to the tender mercies of the Bunco Steerer
and Green Goods dealer. These thieves were forbidden to practise their
arts upon the resident population of New York. But the “guy” was fair
game. The stranger from the country was abandoned to the plunderer, who
indeed could count upon the active co-operation of the police--in return
for a share of the loot. The stranger was taken in indeed. But not in the
sense of the Bible text.
The treatment of Americans who were strangers in the sense of not
possessing a fixed abode within the city limits, was bad. The treatment of
the stranger from over sea, the foreign immigrant, was infinitely worse.
It has been the glory of Columbia, as one of the poets declared, that her
latchkey was never drawn in to the poorest and weakest of Adam’s kin. The
boast is no longer true. Restrictions upon the pauper immigrants from the
Old World have been multiplied of late with ominous rapidity. But the
foreigner had already established himself by the million within the
Republic before the restrictive policy was begun.
In the Civil War, when the negroes were enrolled as soldiers in the
Federal ranks, their presence was excused by the cynical remark that
niggers were good enough food for powder. The foreign denizen of the New
York slums is regarded in much the same light by the police of the city.
Not as food for powder, but as material for plunder--squeezable folk who
have no rights, save that of being allowed to swell the registration list
of their oppressors. The police brigands levied blackmail boldly enough
even when dealing with the cute Yankee and the smart New Yorker. But when
they were let loose on the foreigner their rapacity knew no bounds. They
had the power of a Turkish pasha in an Armenian province, and they used it
almost as ruthlessly. They did not massacre, it is true. There was no
occasion for such extreme measures. Even the Turk would not slaughter his
taxable cattle if they were not guilty of indulging in aspirations after
freedom. No dream of revolt ever crosses the mind of the poor wretches in
the city slums to whom the policeman is the incarnate embodiment of the
whole American Constitution. Back of him stands the whole
Government--City, State, and Federal. What he says goes. So the
foreigner--poor, ignorant, friendless--can only obey.
A witness before the Lexow Committee testified to the existence of a gang
of criminals known as the Essex Market Gang, which had established a
regular reign of terror in the neighbourhood. This witness, whose name was
John Collins, said:--
Last night business people spoke to me; I live nineteen years in that
neighbourhood and begged of me to protect them; it is impossible to
live there with the gang; they can convict any man they want to, and
they can make free any man they want to, because they have got their
witnesses; the leading man is Martin Engel, he owns property over
200,000 dollars, got from ruining people.
Mr. Moss: You can see what power these men have when they have lots of
men swearing to anything, and police officers to make arrests, and
judges holding them and discharging them at will.
Chairman Lexow: If the situation is such as indicated, how is it there
has not been a revolt down there?
Mr. Moss: The class of people are largely those who have come from
foreign countries--countries where they have been used to that sort of
thing, and supposed this Government just about the same, and, perhaps,
a little worse than the place they came from; they are largely Polish
Jews and Russian Jews and foreigners of that class, who have small
understanding of the English language and no knowledge of our custom.
Those are the class of people that are terrorised by this gang.--Vol.
v., p. 4,896.
In small things as in great, the helplessness of the poor foreigner is
conspicuous. Here is an instance of the way in which an Italian shoeblack
was treated for daring to ask an officer, whose boots he had blacked on
credit for a month until the little bill had run up to 75 cents, to settle
up. The bootblack, whose name was Martini, stopped the officer, whose name
was Gwinnen, as he was passing their stand, and said:--
“Gwinnen, why don’t you pay what you owe me?” so he said, “The next
time you stop me on my way going across the street, I will smash you
on the jaw, you dirty Italian son-of-a-bitch;” at the same time my
partner got up and said, “Well, why don’t you pay us?” At the same
time he rushed up against my partner like a cyclone and struck him
right and left with his hand; and he had him all bleeding. I tried to
step in between the two of them to separate them, and this officer
Looney came along from behind me and he grabbed me by the back of the
neck and punched me between the eyes, and he said, “Let us pull the
guinea in.”
Q. Whom did he mean by the guinea?
A. Well, he meant us two; so we went to the station-house, and they
made a charge of disorderly conduct: they claimed that we were
fighting each other, me and my partner.
Q. And both of you were cut and bleeding at this time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were the officers in uniform?
A. All in uniform. When they went into the station-house they told
their story, and when I went to tell my story, they wouldn’t listen.
They heard the policeman’s story, but would not let us tell ours at
all. Another officer took me to the court, and Gwinnen took my partner
along; when we got to the other side of the station-house,
Sixty-seventh and Lexington Avenue, this Gwinnen took off his belt,
doubled it in two, and struck my partner in the face two or three
times.
Q. You were then under arrest?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And on your way to the police-court?
A. Yes, sir; I appealed to the officer that had me, and I said,
“Officer, tell him that he should not hit him any more;” so after he
turned around my partner was a sight.--Vol. iv., pp. 3576-7.
The sequel of this episode is interesting. The judge, apparently thinking
the poor wretches who were brought before him all bloody had had enough of
it, dismissed the case. Strange to say, the victims in this case
endeavoured to obtain redress. They appealed to the Superintendent, who
promised that the officers should be punished. Nothing was done. They then
made another effort, raised £5 to pay a lawyer, and began an action for
assault. One officer was held for the Grand Jury. But it was postponed
again and again. The lawyer insisted on more money, which was not
forthcoming, and so the Italians lost their £5, had their beating, and do
not even appear to have recovered their 75 cents.
The lesson thus taught, not to throw good money after bad, and the
impossibility of getting justice of a policeman, has been learned so well
that one marvels at the temerity of the brave bootblacks, whose courage
deserved a better fate.
The Lexow Committee in their Report put it on record as their deliberate
conclusion that--
The poor ignorant foreigner residing on the great east side of the
city has been especially subjected to a brutal and infamous rule by
the police, in conjunction with the administration of the local
inferior criminal courts, so that it is beyond a doubt that innocent
people who have refused to yield to criminal extortion, have been
clubbed and harassed and confined in gaol, and the extremes of
oppression have been applied to them in the separation of parent and
child, the blasting of reputation and consignment of innocent persons
to a convict’s cell.--Vol. i.
The case which appears to have produced the deepest impression for wanton
wickedness and ingenious devilry on the minds of the Commissioners was the
attempt to plunder an unfortunate widow woman of the name of Urchittel.
Mrs. Urchittel was a Russian Jewess, who emigrated to the United States in
1891. Her husband had died at Hamburg, from which city she sailed for New
York, where she arrived, accompanied by her four children, the eldest of
whom was fourteen, the youngest three. But it is best to print in her own
simple language the statement of her wrongs:--
In 1891 I came to New York, a widow with four children; my husband
died in Hamburg. Being without means, I applied to the Hebrew
charities on Eighth Street for help, and they were kind enough to
support me for starting a boarding-house in 166 Division Street, and
gave me for furniture and other necessaries, and, besides 60 dollars,
sent immigrants to my boarding-house. My business was increasing
daily, having thirty to thirty-five persons every week, and in eight
months I saved 600 dollars. I worked hard indeed, but I did it gladly,
knowing that this will enable me to support my children, the orphans.
The immigration having been stopped, I had to give up boarding
business, and applying again to the Charities, they supported me
again, giving me 150 dollars, and sent me to Brownsville, where I
bought a restaurant and made a nice living, but having the misfortune
to lose one of my beloved children, I left Brownsville, after staying
there but a little time, and came back to New York.
I bought a cigar store in 33, Pitt Street, corner of Broome, for 175
dollars, and gave the landlord 40 dollars security, and supplied more
goods for 50 dollars. On the second day of my taking possession of the
store a man came in and bought a package of chew tobacco for five
cents. A couple of days later the same man came in, asking me for a
package of chew tobacco, to trust him, which I refused, excusing
myself being recently the owner of that store; I don’t know anybody of
that surrounding. I cannot do it. He took then out a dollar of his
pocket and gave it to me for changing, and having no small change,
only pennies, which he wouldn’t take, I sent my one-year aged daughter
to get other coin for the dollar, and handing same to the man I felt a
tickling in my hand caused by the quarter of the dollar in the hand of
the man, and I said good-bye to him.
On the evening of that day another man came in the store, and told me
that the man who was before asking for chew tobacco without money is a
detective, and that he has a warrant to arrest me, and I can avoid the
trouble by giving the detective 50 dollars, and refusing to do it, I
will be locked up, and my children taken away from me till the
twenty-first year. Not knowing to have done anything wrong, I laughed
at the man, and told him that I wouldn’t give a cent to anybody, and
if that man should come in again, I will chase him out with a broom.
The other night, at 11 o’clock, the children being asleep already, the
same man who asked me to trust him the chew tobacco, and after which I
learned he was a detective, named Hussey, came in with another man who
took away my cousin that came to see me in that night, and the
detective remained with me alone in the store; he told me then that he
knows that I keep a disorderly house and saved 600 dollars of that
dishonest business. If I wanted to escape being arrested, he wanted 50
dollars. I opposed to his assertion, and protested against his wanting
money of me, saying that I ever made a living by honest business, but
he wouldn’t listen to me, and in spite of my protesting and the crying
of my children, I was forced to leave my store and follow him.
As we were two blocks away we met Mr. Hochstein, and crying, I told
him all my trouble, and how I don’t know anything about the false
accusations. It was of no avail; Mr. Hochstein told me that the
detective wants 75 dollars, but he will try to settle it with 50
dollars, but without any money nothing can be done for me, and gave me
also his advice, to pay 10 dollars monthly to the detective I wouldn’t
be troubled at all, and that I should resume my business unhindered. I
repeated again that I don’t know anything about dishonest business,
but it was no use talking more.
I was dragged from corner to corner till three o’clock in the morning,
insisting that I had money with me, 600 dollars I kept it in my
stockings. Weary and tired out, I sat down at the corner of Essex and
Rivington Streets at a dry goods store and took off my stockings,
showing that I had no money in them. “If you don’t want to give the
money,” said the detective to me, “I can’t help it, you must follow me
to the station-house.” Being convinced that it is impossible that I
should escape without giving money, I took out 25 dollars of my
pocket, the only money I had, and handed them over to the detective
standing by a window, which money was parted between Mr. Hochstein and
himself, he taking 13 dollars and Hochstein 12 dollars.
They went with me to Essex Street, and, sending me in through a gate
in the house, where I was kept about two minutes, they sent me home
after with the warning to be prepared with fifty dollars. At seven
o’clock in the morning the detective, Hussey, came to my store asking
for the money. I cried again and begged him to let me go, that I am
not able to give him any more money; but he didn’t want to hear me any
more, and I had to follow him. By the signal of a whistle a man came
near me, and the defective gave me over to him with the remark not to
let me go till I have the fifty dollars. The name of that man is Mr.
Meyer. I went with him to Mr. Lefkovitz, manufacturer of syrups, 154,
Delaney Street, and to Mr. Frank ---- for selling the store even for
the fifty dollars, but they didn’t want to buy it, seeing the man
after me and fearing trouble. After trying in vain to sell the store
the detective said to Mr. Meyer, “That bad woman don’t want to give
the money. Take her to the court,” and I had to stay at the trial.
Two bad, disreputed boys were engaged by the detective, Hussey, for
witness. The one said that he gave me fifty cents for gratifying him,
and the other said that he would give me forty cents, and I did not
agree asking fifty, and thus I was detained in default of five
hundred dollars bail. Having been sitting in the court the detective,
Hussey, came in to me on the same day at four o’clock P.M., and told
me that my children are already taken away from my house, and if I can
give him the fifty dollars he can help me even now.
Hearing the distress of my poor children, I cried loudly, and a lady
took me to a dark room, where I was locked up. Unable to procure bail,
I was imprisoned for three days, and sent after to the Tombs, where I
had to stand trial.
There were about fifty persons to witness that I had always made an
honest living, but they were not asked at all, and being wholly unable
to understand the English language, I couldn’t defend myself. The
lawyer, who was sent from the Hebrew Charities, came too late, and had
to give only the certificate of the society, testifying that I was
supported by them, and led a decent living. It came too late, and I
could not talk any more.
I was fined fifty dollars. My brother sold my store for sixty-five
dollars, and paid the fine.
I ran then crazy for my children, for I didn’t know where they were.
Meeting the detective he told me that they are in the hands of a
society in Twenty-third Street. I ran there, but no one knew of my
children. Finally, after five weeks, I received a postcard of my
child, that the children are at One Hundred and Fifty-first Street and
Eleventh Avenue, and when I got there, and begged to give me back my
children, none would hear me.
Grieved at the depths of my heart, seeing me bereaved of my dear
children, I fell sick, and was laying six months in the Sixty-sixth
Street hospital, and had to undergo a great operation by Professor
Mundy. After I left the hospital, I had the good chance to find a
place in 558, Broadway, where I fixed up a stand by which I am enabled
to make a nice living, to support and educate my children. I went
again to Twenty-third Street, begging to release my children, and that
was denied again. My heart craves to have my children with me.
I have nothing else in the world only them. I want to live, and to die
for them. I lay my supplication before you, honourable sir, father of
family, whose heart beats for your children, and feels what children
are to a faithful mother. Help me to get my children. Let me be mother
to them. Grant me my holy wish, and I will always pray for your
happiness, and will never forget your kind and benevolent act towards
me. Your very humble and faithful servant, (Signed) CAELA
URCHITTEL.--Vol. iii., pp. 2, 961-4.
[Illustration: MRS. URCHITTEL.]
The piteous plea of this bereaved mother produced a great effect upon the
mind of the Committee. The children had been taken away by the Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, under an Act which had been passed
with the best intentions in the world, but which, as the case of Mrs.
Urchittel showed, was only too facile an instrument in the hands of the
corrupt police. It will be noticed that in her evidence she said that “two
bad, disreputed boys” were engaged to swear away her character. The
allusion was a reminder of the fact that one of the worst developments of
the system under which the police became bandits was the organisation of a
band of professional perjurers, who would swear anything the police cared
to tell them. Mrs. Urchittel’s character was irreproachable, yet on the
evidence of these scoundrels she was convicted of keeping a house of
prostitution. The man Hochstein, who divided the plunder with the
detective, was a saloon-keeper, and a prominent politician in the
district, who figures very conspicuously in the evidence of other
witnesses before the Committee. No sooner had Mrs. Urchittel given her
evidence than two men came to her and warned her that if she were to
commence with Mr. Hochstein she would get into trouble, and be sent to
prison for two years.
The efforts of the Commissioners to secure the return of the children to
their distracted mother were for a time thwarted by the provisions of the
law which is so hidebound and imperative in its terms that no judge would
venture to interfere with the commitment of the police magistrate. Mr.
Goff called attention to the fact that “the condition of the law in New
York City is that, upon the _ipse dixit_ of one man, children can be taken
from their protectors, fathers and mothers, and secreted away in some
institution, and there is no power invested in any court or in any
official to compel him to reveal where the children are or to restore
them.” The sensation occasioned by this case was so great that the
Commission were able towards the close of their sittings to announce the
gratifying intelligence that they had at last succeeded in securing the
release of the children, who were then, after more than eighteen months,
handed over to their mother. The opinion of the Commissioners on the case
was embodied in the following terms, which I quote from their Report:--
Oppression of the lowly and unfortunate, the coinage of money out of
the miseries of life, is one of the noteworthy abuses into which the
department has fallen....
The evidence of many witnesses shows the existence of a wonderful
conspiracy in the neighbourhood of Essex Market police-court, headed
by politicians, including criminals, professional bondsmen,
professional thieves, police, and those who lay plots against the
unwary, and lead them into habits of law-breaking, or surround them
with a network of false evidence, and then demand money as the price
of salvation, and if they do not receive it, drag their victims into
court and prison, and often to a convict’s cell....
In another case, Mrs. Urchittel, a humble Russian Jewess, ignorant of
our tongue, an honest and impoverished widow with three small
children, whom she was striving to support, was falsely accused by a
precinct detective of keeping a disorderly house in the back room of
her little store where she and her little children slept, and he
demanded a sum of money which she could not pay, whereupon he took her
from her home, dragged her through the streets until three o’clock in
the morning, pulled down and searched her stockings for money, until
she in despair produced all that she had saved for her month’s rent.
This being insufficient, he gave her a short time to obtain the
balance, and she tried to sell her store, but failed, and then he
arrested her again, lodged a false and infamous charge against her,
fastened it upon her by the testimony of miserable tools whom he had
employed for the purpose, and secured her conviction. Her children
passed into the hands of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Children. Her fine was paid by selling her store, and she was
released, only to fall into a severe and lingering illness. When she
recovered her home was gone, her children were gone, and she was
penniless.
Many cases of similar oppression are found on the record.--Vol. i.,
pp. 43, 44.
Is it any wonder that the Lexow Committee reported under the head of
“Brutality,” as it existed in the police force:--
This condition has grown to such an extent that even in the eyes of
our foreign-born residents our institutions have been degraded, and
those who have fled from oppression abroad have come here to be doubly
oppressed in a professedly free and liberal country.--Vol. i., p. 30.
This is how “Liberty enlightens the world” from her eyrie in the Island of
Manhattan.
[Illustration: AUGUSTINE E. COSTELLO.]