POLITICS AND POLITICIANS
The "English-American" Vote--The Best People in Politics--What
Politics Means in America--Where Corruption Creeps in--The
Danger in England--A Presidential Nomination for Sale--Buying
Legislation--Could it Occur in England?--A Delectable Alderman--
Taxation while you Wait--Perils that England Escapes--The
Morality of Congress--Political Corruption and the Irish--
Democrat and Republican.
The American people ought cordially to cherish Englishmen who come to
the United States to live, if only for the reason that they have never
organised for political purposes. In every election, all over the United
States, one hears of the Irish vote, the German vote, the Scandinavian
vote, the Italian vote, the French vote, the Polish vote, the Hebrew
vote, and many other votes, each representing a _clientele_ which has to
be conciliated or cajoled. But none has ever yet heard of the English
vote or of an "English-American" element in the population. It is not
that the Englishman, whether a naturalised American or not, does not
take as keen an interest in the politics of the country as the people of
any other nation; on the contrary, he is incomparably better equipped
than any other to take that interest intelligently. But he plays his
part as if it were in the politics of his own country, guided by
precisely the same considerations as the American voters around
him.[227:1]
The individual Irishman or German will often take pride in splitting off
from the people of his own blood in matters political and voting "as an
American." It never occurs to the Englishman to do otherwise. The
Irishman and the German will often boast, or you will hear it claimed
for them, that they become assimilated quickly and that "in time," or
"in the second generation," they are good Americans. The Englishman
needs no assimilation; but feels himself to be, almost from the day when
he lands (provided that he comes to live and not as a tourist), of one
substance and colour with the people about him. Not seldom he is rather
annoyed that those around him, remembering that he is English, seem to
expect of him the sentiments of a "foreigner," which he in no way feels.
More than once, it is true, during my residence in America I have been
approached by individuals or by committees, with invitations to
associate myself with some proposed political organisation of Englishmen
"to make our weight felt;" but in justice to those who have made the
suggestion it should be said that it has always been the outcome of
exasperation at a moment either when Fenianism was peculiarly rampant in
the neighbourhood, or when members of other nationalities were doing
their best to create ill-will between Great Britain and the United
States. The idea of organising, as the members of other nationalities
have organised, for the mere purpose of sharing in the party plunder,
has, I believe, never been seriously contemplated by any Englishmen in
America; though there are many communities in which their vote might
well give them the balance of power. It would, as a rule, be easier to
pick out--say, in Chicago--a Southerner who had lived in the North for
ten years than an Englishman who had lived there for the same length of
time. It would certainly be safer to guess the Southerner's party
affiliation.
The ideas of Englishmen in England about American politics are vague.
They have a general notion that there is a great deal of politics in
America, that it is mostly corrupt, and that "the best people" do not
take any interest in it. As for the last proposition, it is only locally
or partially true, and quite untrue in the sense in which the Englishman
understands it.
The word "politics" means two entirely separate things in England and in
the United States. Understanding the word in its English sense, it is
conspicuously untrue that the "best people" in America do not take at
least as much an interest in politics as the "best people" take in
England. Selecting as a representative of the "best people" of America,
any citizen eminent in his particular community--capitalist, landed
proprietor or "real-estate owner," banker, manufacturer, lawyer, railway
president, or what not,--that man as a usual thing takes a very active
interest in politics, and not in the politics of the nation only, but of
his State and his municipality. He is known to be a pillar of one party
or the other; he gives liberally of his own funds and of the funds of
his firm or company to the party treasury[229:1]; he is consulted by,
and advises with, the local committees; representatives of the national
committees or from other parts of the State call upon him for
information; he concerns himself intimately with the appointments to
political office made from his section of the country; he attends public
meetings and entertains visiting speakers at his house; as far as may be
judicious (and sometimes much further), he endeavours by his example or
precept to influence the votes and ways of thought of those in his
service. The chances of his being sent to Congress or to the Senate, of
his becoming a cabinet minister, being appointed to a foreign mission,
or accepting a position on some commission of a public character, are
vastly greater than with the man of corresponding position in England.
So far from not taking an interest in politics, as Englishmen understand
the phrase, he is commonly a most energetic and valuable supporter of
his party.
But--and here is the nub of the matter--politics in America include
whole strata of political work which are scarcely understood in England.
When the English visitor is told in the United States that "our best
people will not take any interest in politics," it is usually in the
office of a financier, or at a fashionable dinner table, in New York or
some other of the great cities. What is intended to be conveyed to him
is that the "best people" will not take part in the active work in
municipal politics or in that portion of the national politics which
falls within the municipal area. The millionaire, the gentleman of
refinement and leisure, will not "take off his coat" and attend primary
meetings, or make tours of the saloons and meet Tammany or "the City
Hall gang" on its own ground. As a matter of fact it is rather
surprising to see how often he does it; but it is spasmodically and in
occasional fits of enthusiasm for Reform, "with a large R." And,
whatever temporary value these intermittent efforts may have (and they
have great value, if only as a warning to the "gangs" that it is
possible to go too far), they are in the long run of little avail
against the constant daily and nightly work of the members of a
"machine" to whom that work means daily bread.
I have said that it is surprising to see how often these "best people"
do go down into the slums and begin work at the beginning; and the
tendency to do so is growing more and more frequent. The reproach that
they do not do it enough has not the force to-day that once it had.
Meanwhile in England there is little complaint that the same people do
not do that particular work, for the excellent reason that that work
does not exist to be done. It would only be tedious here to go into an
elaborate explanation of why it does not exist. The reason is to be
found in the differences in the political structure of the two
countries--in the much more representative character of the government
(or rather of the methods of election to office) in America--in the
multiplication of Federal, State, county, and municipal
office-holders--in the larger number of offices, including many which
are purely judicial, which are elective, and which are filled by party
candidates elected by a partisan vote--in the identification of national
and municipal politics all over the country.
Of all these causes, it is probably the last which is fundamentally most
operative. The local democracy, local republicanism everywhere, is a
part of the national Democratic or Republican organisation. The party as
a whole is composed of these municipal units. Each municipal campaign is
conducted with an eye to the general fortunes of the party in the State
or the nation; and the same power that appoints a janitor in a city hall
may dictate the selection of a presidential candidate.
Until very recently, this phenomenon was practically unknown in England.
The "best person"--he who "took an interest in politics" as a Liberal or
as a Conservative--was no more concerned, as Liberal or Conservative, in
the election of his town officers than he was accustomed to take part in
the weekly sing-song at the village public house. National politics did
not touch municipal politics. Within the last two decades or so,
however, there has been a marked change, and not in London and a few
large cities alone.
Englishmen who have been accustomed to believe that the high standard of
purity in English public life, as compared with what was supposed to be
the standard in America, was chiefly owing to the divorcement of the
two, are not altogether gratified at the change or easy in their mind as
to the future. London is still a long way from having such an
organisation as Tammany Hall in either the Moderate or Progressive
party; but it is not easy to see what insuperable obstacles would exist
to the formation of such an organisation, with certain limitations, if a
great and unscrupulous political genius should arise among the members
of either party in the London County Council and should bend his
energies to the task. It is not, of course, necessary that, because
Englishmen are approximating to the American system in this particular,
they should be unable to avoid adopting its worst American abuses. But
it will do no harm if Englishmen in general recognise that what is, it
is to be hoped, still far from inevitable, was a short time ago
impossible. If Great Britain must admit an influence which has, even
though only incidentally, bred pestilence and corruption elsewhere, it
might be well to take in time whatever sanitary and preventive measures
may be available against similar consequences.[232:1]
Meanwhile in the United States there is continually being raised, in
ever increasing volume, the cry for the separation of local and national
politics. It is true that small headway has yet been made towards any
tangible reform; but the desire is there. Again, therefore, it is
curious that in politics, as in so many other things, there are two
currents setting in precisely opposing directions in the two
countries--in America a reaction against corruptions which have crept in
during the season of growth and ferment and an attempt to return to
something of the simplicity of earlier models, and, simultaneously in
England, hardly a danger, but a possibility of sliding into a danger, of
admitting precisely those abuses of which the United States is
endeavouring to purge itself. The tendencies at work are exactly
analogous to those which, as we have seen, are operating to modify the
respective modes of speech of the two peoples. What the ultimate effect
of either force will be, it is impossible even to conjecture. But it is
unpleasant for an Englishman to consider even the remotest possibility
of a time coming, though long after he himself is dead, when the people
of America will draw awful warnings from the corrupt state of politics
in England, and bless themselves that in the United States the municipal
rings which dominate and scourge the great cities in England are
unknown.
At present that time is far distant, and there can be no reasonable
doubt that there is much more corruption in public affairs in the United
States than in England. The possibilities of corruption are greater,
because there are so many more men whose influence or vote may be worth
buying; but it is to be feared that the evil does not exceed merely in
proportion to the excess of opportunity. Granted that bribery and the
use of undue influence are most obvious and most rampant in those
spheres which have not their counterpart in Great Britain--in municipal
wards and precincts, in county conventions and State legislatures--it
still remains that the taint has spread upwards into other regions which
in English politics are pure. There is every reason to think that the
Englishman is justified in his belief that the motives which guide his
public men and the principles which govern his public policy are, on the
whole, higher than those which guide and inspire and govern the men or
policies of any other nation. Bismarck's (if it was Bismarck's)
confidence in the _parole de gentleman_ is still justified. In America,
a similar faith in matters of politics would at times be sorely tried.
Perhaps as good an illustration as could be cited of the greater
possibilities of corruption in the United States, is contained in a
statement of the fact that a very few thousand dollars would at one time
have sufficed to prevent Mr. Bryan from becoming the Democratic
candidate for the Presidency in 1896. This is not mere hearsay, for I am
able to speak from knowledge which was not acquired after the event. Nor
for one moment is it suggested that Mr. Bryan himself was thus easily
corruptible, nor even that those who immediately nominated him could
have been purchased for the sum mentioned.
The fact is that for a certain specified sum the leaders of a particular
county convention were willing to elect an anti-Bryan delegation. The
delegation then elected would unquestionably control the State
convention subsequently to be held; and the delegation to be elected
again at that convention would have a very powerful influence in
shaping the action of the National Convention at St. Louis. The
situation was understood and the facts not disputed. Those to whom the
application for the money was made took all things into consideration
and determined that it was not worth it; that it would be better to let
things slide. They slid. If those gentlemen had foreseen the full volume
of the avalanche that was coming, I think that the money would have been
found.
It was, however, better as it was. The motives which prompted the
refusal of the money were, as I was told, not motives of morality. It
was not any objection to the act of bribery, but a mere question of
expediency. It was not considered that the "goods" were worth the money.
But, as always, it was better for the country that the immoral act was
not done. The Free Silver poison was working in the blood of the body
politic, and it was better to let the malady come to a head and fight it
strenuously than to drive it back and let it go on with its work of
internal corruption. Looking back now it is easy to see that the fight
of 1896 must have come at some time, and it was best that it came when
it did. The gentlemen who declined to produce the few thousand dollars
asked of them (the sum was fifteen thousand dollars, if I remember
rightly, or three thousand pounds) would, a few weeks later, have given
twice the sum to have the opportunity back again. Now, I imagine, they
are well content that they acted as they did.
As illustrating the methods which are not infrequent in connection with
the work of the State legislatures, I may mention that I once acted
(without premeditation) as witness to the depositing of two thousand
dollars in gold coin in a box at a safety deposit vault, by the
representative of a great corporation, the key of which box was
afterwards handed to a member of the local State legislature. The vote
and influence of that member were necessary for the defeat of certain
bills--bills, be it said, iniquitous in themselves--which would have
cost that particular corporation many times two thousand dollars; and
two thousand dollars was the sum at which that legislator valued the
aforesaid vote and influence.
It is not always necessary to take so much precaution to secure secrecy
as was needed in this case. The recklessness with which State
legislators sometimes accept cheques and other easily traceable media of
exchange is a little bewildering, until one understands how secure they
really are from any risk of information being lodged against them. A
certain venerable legislator in one of the North-western States some
years ago gained considerable notoriety, of a confidential kind, by
being the only member of his party in the legislature at the time who
declined to accept his share in a distribution which was going on of the
mortgage bonds of a certain railway company. It was not high principle
nor any absurd punctiliousness on his part that made him decline. "In my
youth," said he to the representative of the railway company, "I was an
earnest anti-slavery man and I still recoil from bonds." It was said
that he received his proportion of the pool in a more negotiable form.
It would be easy, even from my own individual knowledge, to multiply
stories of this class; but the effect would only be to mislead the
English reader, while the American is already familiar with such
stories in sufficiency. The object is not to insist upon the fact that
there is corruption in American public life, but rather to show what
kind of corruption it is, and that it is largely of a kind the
opportunity for indulgence in which does not exist in England. The
method of nominating candidates for Parliament in England removes the
temptation to "influence" primaries and bribe delegations. In the
absence of State legislatures, railway and other corporations are not
exposed to the same system of blackmail.
Let us suppose that each county in England had its legislature of two
chambers, as every State has in America, the members of these
legislatures being elected necessarily only from constituencies in which
they lived, so that a slum district of a town was obliged to elect a
slum-resident, a village a resident of that village; let us further
suppose that by the mixture of races in the population certain districts
could by mere preponderance of the votes be expected to elect only a
German, a Scandinavian, or an Irishman--in each case a man who had been
perhaps, but a few years before, an immigrant drawn from a low class in
the population of his own country; give that legislature almost
unbridled power over all business institutions within the borders of the
county, including the determination of rates of charge on that portion
of the lines of great railway companies which lay within the county
borders--is there not danger that that power would be frequently abused?
When one party, after a long term of trial in opposition, found itself
suddenly in control of both houses, would it always refrain from using
its power for the gratification of party purposes, for revenge, and for
the assistance of its own supporters? Local feeling sometimes becomes,
even in England, much inflamed against a given railway company, or some
large employer of labour, or great landlord, whether justly or not. It
may be that in the case of a railway, the rates of fare are considered
high, the train service bad, or the accommodations at the stations poor.
At such a time a local legislature would be likely to pass almost any
bill that was introduced to hurt that railway company, merely as a means
of bringing pressure to bear upon it to correct the supposed
shortcomings. It obviously then becomes only too easy for an
unscrupulous member to bring forward a bill which will have plausible
colour of public-spirited motive, and which if it became a law would
cost the railway company untold inconvenience and many tens of thousands
of pounds; and the railway company can have that bill withdrawn or
"sidetracked" for a mere couple of hundred.
Personally I am thankful to say that I have such confidence in the
sterling quality of the fibre of the English people (so long as it is
free, as it is in England, from Irish or other alien influence) as to
believe that, even under these circumstances, and with all these
possibilities of wrong-doing, the local legislatures would remain
reasonably honest. But what might come with long use and practice, long
exposure to temptation, it is not easy to say. Some things occur in the
colonies which are not comforting. If, then, the corruption in American
politics be great, the evil is due rather to the system than to any
inherent inferiority in the native honesty of the people. Their
integrity, if it falls, has the excuse of abundant temptation.
The most instructive experience, I think, which I myself had of the
disregard of morality in the realm of municipal politics was received
when I associated myself, sentimentally rather than actively, with a
movement at a certain election directed towards the defeat of one who
was probably the most corrupt alderman in what was at the time perhaps
the corruptest city in the United States. Of the man's entire depravity,
from a political point of view, there was not the least question among
either his friends or his enemies. Nominally a Democrat, his vote and
policy were never guided by any other consideration than those of his
own pocket. On an alderman's salary (which he spent several times over
in his personal expenditure each year), without other business or
visible means of making money, he had grown wealthy--wealthy enough to
make his contributions to campaign funds run into the thousands of
dollars,--wealthy enough to be able always to forget to take change for
a five-dollar or a ten-dollar bill when buying anything in his own
ward,--wealthy enough to distribute regularly (was it five hundred or a
thousand?) turkeys every Thanksgiving Day among his constituents. No one
pretended to suggest that his money was drawn from any other source than
from the public funds, from blackmail, and from the sale of his vote and
influence in the City Council. In that Council he had held his seat
unassailably for many years through all the shifting and changing of
parties in power. But a spirit of reform was abroad and certain
public-spirited persons decided that it was time that the scandal of his
continuance in office should be stopped. The same conclusion had been
arrived at by various campaign managers and bodies of independent and
upright citizens on divers preceding occasions, without any result worth
mentioning. But at last it seemed that the time had come. There were
various encouraging signs and portents in the political heavens and all
auguries were favourable. There were, it is true, experienced
politicians who shook their heads. They blessed us and wished us well.
They even contributed liberally to our campaign fund; but the most
experienced among them were not hopeful.
It was a vigorous campaign--on our side; with meetings, brass bands,
constant house-to-house canvassing, and processions _ad libitum_. On the
other side, there was no campaign at all to speak of; only the man whom
we were seeking to unseat spent some portion of every day and the whole
of every night going about the ward from saloon to saloon, always
forgetting the change for those five-dollar and ten-dollar bills, always
willing to cheer lustily when one of our processions went by, and, as we
heard, daily increasing his orders for turkeys for the approaching
Thanksgiving season.
So far as the saloon keepers, the gamblers, the owners and patrons of
disorderly houses went, we had no hope of winning their allegiance; but,
after all, they were a small numerical minority of the voters of the
ward. The majority consisted of low-class Italians, unskilled labourers,
and it was their votes that must decide the issue. There was not one of
them who was not thoroughly talked to, as well as every member of his
family of a reasoning age. There was not one who did not fully recognise
that the alderman was a thief and an entirely immoral scamp; but their
labour was farmed by, perhaps, half a dozen Italian contractors. These
men were the Alderman's henchmen. As long as he continued in the
Council, he was able to keep their men employed--on municipal works and
on the work of the various railway and other large corporations which he
was able to blackmail. We, on our part, had obtained promises of
employment, from friends of decent government regardless of politics in
all parts of the city, for approximately as many men as could possibly
be thrown out of work in case of an upheaval. But of what use were
these, more or less unverifiable, promises, when on the eve of the
election the half a dozen contractors (who of course had grown rich with
their alderman's continuance in office) gave each individual labourer in
the ward to understand clearly that if the present alderman was defeated
each one of them would have to go and live somewhere--live or
starve,--for not one stroke of work would they ever get so long as they
lived in that ward?
It was, as I have said, a vigorous campaign on our side; and the
Delectable One was re-elected by something more than his usual majority.
On the night of the election it was reported--though this may have been
mere rumour--that the bills which he laid on the counter of each saloon
in the ward (and always forgot to take any change) were of the value of
fifty dollars each. That was some years ago, but I understand that he is
still in that same City Council, representing that same ward.
It was in the same city that one year I received notice of my personal
property tax, the amount assessed against me being about ten times
higher than it ought to have been. Experience had taught me that it was
useless to make any protest against small impositions, but a
multiplication of my obligations by tenfold was not to be submitted to
without a struggle. I wrote therefore to the proper authority, making
protest, and was told that the matter would be investigated. After a
lapse of some days, I was invited to call at the City Hall. There I was
informed by one of the subordinate officials that it was undoubtedly a
case of malice--that the assessment had been made by either a personal
or a political enemy. I was then taken to see the Chief. The Chief was a
corpulent Irishman of the worst type. My guide leaned over him and in an
undertone, but not so low that I did not hear, gave him a brief _resume_
of the story, stating that it was undoubtedly a case of intentional
injustice, and concluding with an account of myself and my interests
which showed that the speaker had taken no little trouble to post
himself upon the subject. He emphasised the fact of my association with
the press. At this point for the first time the Chief evinced some
interest in the tale. His intelligence responded to the word
"newspapers" as promptly as if an electrical current had suddenly been
switched into his system. "H'm! newspapers!" he grunted. Then, heaving
his bulk half round in his chair so as partially to face me----
"This is a mistake," he said. "We will say no more about it. Your
assessment's cancelled."
"I beg your pardon," I said, "I have no objection to paying one-tenth of
the amount. If an '0' is cut off the end----"
"That's all right," he said. "The whole thing is cut off."
I made another protest, but he waved me away and my guide led me from
the room. Because it was opined that, through the press, I might be able
to make myself objectionable if the imposition was persisted in, I paid
no tax at all that year. Which was every whit as immoral as the original
offence.
Stories of this class it would be easy to multiply indefinitely; but
again I say that it is not my desire to insist on the corruptness which
exists in American political life, but rather to explain to English
readers what the nature of that corruptness is and in what spheres of
the political life of the country it is able to find lodgment. What I
have endeavoured to illustrate is, first, how the peculiar political
system of the United States may, under some exceptional conditions, make
it possible for even the nomination of a President to be treated as a
matter of purchase, though the candidate himself and those who
immediately surround him may be of incorruptible integrity; second, the
unrivalled opportunities for bribery and other forms of political
wrong-doing furnished by the existence of the State legislatures, with
their eight thousand members, drawn necessarily from all ranks and
elements of the population, and possessing exceptional power over the
commercial affairs of the people of their respective States; and, third,
the methods by which, in certain large cities, power is attained, used,
and abused by the municipal "bosses" of all degrees, a condition of
affairs which is in large measure only made possible by the
identification of local and national politics and political parties. In
each case the conditions which make the corruption possible do not exist
in England, even though in the last named (the identification of local
with national politics and parties) the tendency in Great Britain is
distinctly in the direction of the American model. It is, perhaps, an
inevitable result of the working of the Anglo-Saxon "particularistic"
spirit, which ultimately rebels against any form of national government
or of national politics in which the individual and the individual of
each locality, is debarred from making his voice heard.
* * * * *
As for the corruptness which is supposed to exist in Congress itself,
this I believe to be largely a matter of partisan gossip and newspaper
talk. It may be that every Congress contains among its members a few
whose integrity is not beyond the temptation of a direct monetary bribe;
and it would perhaps be curious if it were not so. But it is the opinion
of the best informed that the direct bribery of a member of either the
Senate or the House is extremely rare. It happens, probably, all too
frequently that members consent to acquire at a low figure shares in
undertakings which are likely to be favourably affected by legislation
for which they vote, in the expectation or hope of profit therefrom; but
it is exceedingly difficult to say in any given case whether a member's
vote has been influenced by his financial interest (whether, on public
grounds, he would not have voted as he did under any circumstances), and
at what point the mere employment of sound business judgment ends and
the prostitution of legislative influence begins. The same may be said
of the accusations so commonly made against members of making use of
information which they acquire in the committee room for purposes of
speculation.
Washington, during the sessions of Congress is full of "lobbyists"--_i.
e._, men who have no other reason for their presence at the capital
than to further the progress of legislation in which they are interested
or who are sent there for the purpose by others who have such an
interest; but it is my conviction (and I know it is that of others
better informed than myself) that the instances wherein the labours of a
lobbyist go beyond the use of legitimate argument in favour of entirely
meritorious measures are immensely fewer than the reader of the
sensational press might suppose. The American National Legislature is,
indeed, a vastly purer body than demagogues, or the American press,
would have an outsider believe.
There is no doubt that large manufacturing and commercial concerns do
exert themselves to secure the election to the House, and perhaps to the
Senate, of persons who are practically their direct representatives,
their chief business in Congress being the shaping of favourable
legislation or the warding off of that which would be disadvantageous to
the interests which are behind them. Undoubtedly also such large
concerns, or associated groups of them, can bring considerable pressure
to bear upon individual members in divers ways, and there have been
notorious cases wherein it has been shown that this pressure has been
unscrupulously used. Except in the case of the railways, which have only
a secondary interest in tariff legislation, this particular abuse must
be charged to the account of the protective policy, and its development
in some measure would perhaps be inevitable in any country where a
similar policy prevailed.
In the British Parliament there are, of course, few important lines of
trade or industry which are not abundantly represented, and both Houses
contain railway directors and others who speak frankly as the
representatives of railway interests, and lose thereby nothing of the
respect of the country or their fellow-members. It is not possible here
to explain in detail why the assumption, which prevails in America, that
a railway company is necessarily a public enemy, and that any argument
in favour of such a corporation is an argument against the public
welfare, does not obtain in England. It will be necessary later on not
only to refer to the fact that fear of capitalism is immensely stronger
in America than it is in England, but also to explain why there is good
reason why it should be so. For the present, it is enough to note that
it is possible for members of Parliament to do, without incurring a
shadow of suspicion of their integrity, things which would damn a member
of Congress irreparably in the eyes alike of his colleagues and of the
country. There is hardly a railway bill passed through Parliament the
supporters of which would not in its passage through Congress have to
run the gauntlet of all manner of insinuation and abuse; and when the
sensational press of the United States raises a hue and cry of "Steal!"
in regard to a particular measure, the Englishman (until he understands
the difference in the conditions in the two countries) may be bewildered
by finding on investigation that the bill is one entirely praiseworthy
which would pass through Parliament as a matter of course, the only
justification for the outcry being that the legislation is likely,
perhaps most indirectly, to prove advantageous to some particular
industry or locality. The fact that the measure is just and deserving of
support on merely patriotic grounds is immaterial, when party capital
can be made from such an outcry. I have on more than one occasion known
entirely undeserved suffering to be inflicted in this way on men of the
highest character who were acting from none but disinterested motives;
and he who would have traffic with large affairs in the United States
must early learn to grow callous to newspaper abuse.
In wider and more general ways than have yet been noticed, however, the
members of Congress are subjected to undue influences in a measure far
beyond anything known to the members of Parliament.
In the colonial days, governors not seldom complained of the law by
which members of the provincial assemblies could only be elected to sit
for the towns or districts in which they actually resided. The same law
once prevailed in England, but it was repealed in the time of George
III., and had been disregarded in practice since the days of
Elizabeth.[247:1] Under the Constitution of the United States it is,
however, still necessary that a member of Congress should be a resident
(or "inhabitant") of the State from which he is elected. In some States
it is the law that he must reside in the particular district of the
State which elects him, and custom has made this the rule in all. A
candidate rejected by his own constituency, therefore, cannot stand for
another; and it follows that a member who desires to continue in public
life must hold the good will of his particular locality.
So entirely is this accepted as a matter of course that any other system
(the British system for instance) seems to the great majority of
Americans quite unnatural and absurd; and it has the obvious immediate
advantage that each member does more truly "represent" his particular
constituents than is likely to be the case when he sits for a borough or
a Division in which he may never have set foot until he began to canvas
it. On the other hand, it is an obvious disadvantage that when a member
for any petty local reason forfeits the good will of his own
constituency, his services, no matter how valuable they may be, are
permanently lost to the State.
The term for which a member of the Lower House is elected in America is
only two years, so that a member who has any ambition for a continuous
legislative career must, almost from the day of his election, begin to
consider the chance of being re-elected. As this depends altogether on
his ability to hold the gratitude of his one constituency, it is
inevitable that he should become more or less engrossed in the effort to
serve the local needs; and a constituency, or the party leaders in a
constituency, generally, indeed, measure a man's availability for
re-election by what is called his "usefulness."
If you ask a politician of local authority whether the sitting member is
a good one, he will reply, "No; he hasn't any influence at Washington at
all. He can't do a thing for us!" Or, "Yes, he's pretty good; he seems
to get things through all right." The "things" which the member "gets
through" may be the appointment of residents of the district to minor
government positions, the securing of appropriations of public moneys
for such works as the dredging or widening of a river channel to the
advantage of the district or the improvement of the local harbour, and
the passage of bills providing for the erection in the district of new
post-offices or other government buildings. Many other measures may, of
course, be of direct local interest; but a member's chief opportunities
for earning the gratitude of his constituency fall under the three
categories enumerated.
It is obvious that two years is too short a term for any but an
exceptionally gifted man to make his mark, either in the eyes of his
colleagues or of his constituency, by conspicuous national services.
Even if achieved, it is doubtful if in the eyes of the majority of the
constituencies (or the leaders in those constituencies) any such
impalpable distinction would be held to compensate for a demonstrated
inability to get the proper share of local advantages. The result is
that while the member of Parliament may be said to consider himself
primarily as a member of his party and his chief business to be that of
co-operating with that party in securing the conduct of National affairs
according to the party beliefs, the member of Congress considers himself
primarily as the representative of his district and his chief business
to be the securing for that district of as many plums from the Federal
pie as possible.
Out of these conditions has developed the prevalence of log-rolling in
Congress: "You vote for my post-office and I'll help you with your
harbour appropriation." Such exchange of courtesies is continual and, I
think, universal. The annual River and Harbour Bill (which last year
appropriated $25,414,000 of public money for all manner of works in all
corners of the country) is an amazing legislative product.
Another result is that the individual member must hold himself
constantly alert to find what his "people" at home want: always on the
lookout for signs of approval or disapproval from his constituency. And
the constituency on its side does not hesitate to let him know just what
it thinks of him and precisely what jobs it requires him to do at any
given moment. Nor is it the constituency as a whole, through its
recognised party leaders, which alone thinks that it has a right to
instruct, direct, or influence its representative, but individuals of
sufficient political standing to consider themselves entitled to have
their private interest looked after, manufacturing and business concerns
the payrolls of which support a large number of voters, labour unions,
and all sorts of societies and organisations of various kinds--they one
and all assert their right to advise the Congressman in his policies or
to call for his assistance in furthering their particular ends, under
threat, tacit or expressed, of the loss of their support when he seeks
re-election. The English member of Parliament thinks that he is
subjected to a sufficiency of pressure of this particular sort; but he
has not to bear one-tenth of what is daily meted out to his American
_confrere_, nor is he under any similar necessity of paying attention to
it.
Under such conditions it is evident that a Congressman can have but a
restricted liberty to act or vote according to his individual
convictions. It is only human that, in matters which are not of great
national import, a man should at times be willing to believe that his
personal opinions may be wrong when adherence to those opinions would
wreck his political career. So the Congressman too commonly acquires a
habit of subservience which is assuredly not wholesome either for the
individual or for the country; and sometimes the effort to trim sails to
catch every favouring breeze has curious oblique results. As an
instance of this may be cited the action taken by Congress in regard to
the army canteen. A year or more back, the permission to army posts to
retain within their own limits and subject to the supervision of the
post authorities, a canteen for the use of soldiers, was abolished. The
soldiers have since been compelled to do their drinking outside, and, as
a result, this drinking has been done without control or supervision,
and has produced much more serious demoralisation. The action of
Congress was taken in the face of an earnest and nearly unanimous
protest from experienced army officers--the men, that is, who were
directly concerned with the problem in question. The Congressmen acted
as they did under the pressure of the Woman's Christian Temperance
Union, and with the dread lest a vote for the canteen should be
interpreted as a vote for liquor, and should stand in the way of their
own political success.
From what has been said it will be seen that the member of Congress is
compelled to give a deplorably large proportion of his time and thought
to paltry local matters, leaving a deplorably small portion of either to
be devoted to national questions; while in the exercise of his functions
as a legislator he is likely to be influenced by a variety of motives
which ought to be quite impertinent and are often unworthy. These things
however seem to be almost inevitable results of the national political
structure. The individual corruptibility of the members of either House
(their readiness, that is to be influenced by any considerations, other
than that of their re-election, of their own interests, financial or
otherwise), I believe to be grossly exaggerated in the popular mind.
Certainly a stranger is likely to get the idea that the Congress is a
much less honourable and less earnest body than it is.
* * * * *
The subject of the corruptness of the public service in the larger
cities brings up again a matter which has been already touched upon,
namely the extent to which this corruptness is in its origin Irish and
not an indigenous American growth. Under the favourable influences of
American political conditions the Irish have developed exceptional
capacity for leadership (a capacity which they are also showing in some
of the British colonies) and they do not generally use their ability or
their powers for the good of the community. The rapidity with which the
Irish immigrant blossoms into political authority is a commonplace of
American journalism:
"Ere the steamer that brought him had got out of hearing,
He was Alderman Mike introducing a bill."
It is commonly held by Americans that all political corruptness in the
United States (certainly all municipal wickedness) is chargeable to
Irish influence; but it is a position not easy to maintain in the face
of the example of the city of Philadelphia, the government of which has
from the beginning been chiefly in the hands of Americans, many of whom
have been members of the oldest and best Philadelphia families. Yet the
administration of Philadelphia has been as corrupt and as openly
disregardful of the welfare of the community as ever was that of New
York. While Irishmen are generally Democrats, both Philadelphia and the
State of Pennsylvania, are overwhelmingly Republican and devoted to the
protective policy under which so many of the industries of the State
have prospered exceedingly. Those who have fought for the cause of
municipal reform in Philadelphia find that, while the masses of the
people of the city would prefer good government, it is almost impossible
to get them to reject an official candidate of the Republican party. The
Republican "bosses" have thus been able to impose on the city officials
of the worst kind, who have served them faithfully to the disaster of
the community.[253:1] None the less, notwithstanding particular
exceptions, it is a fact that as a general rule the corrupt
maladministration of affairs in American cities is the direct result of
Irish influence.
The opportunities of the Irish leaders for securing control of the city
administration, or of certain important and lucrative divisions of this
administration, have been furthered, particularly in such cities as New
York and San Francisco, by the influence they are able to gain over
bodies of immigrants who are also in the fold of the Roman Catholic
Church, and who, on the ground of difference of language and other
causes, have less quickness of perception of their own political
opportunities. The Irish leaders have been able to direct in very large
measure the votes of the Italians (more particularly the Italians from
the South), the Bohemians, and the other groups of immigrants from
Catholic communities. As the Irish immigration has decreased both
absolutely and relatively, the numbers of voters supporting the
leadership of the bosses of Tammany Hall and of the similar
organisations in Chicago and San Francisco have been made good, and in
fact substantially increased, by the addition of Catholic voters of
other nationalities.
I wish the English reader to grasp fully the significance of these facts
before he allows the stories which he hears of the municipal immorality
which exists in the United States to colour too deeply his estimate of
the character of the American people. That immorality is chiefly Irish
in its origin and is made continuously possible by the ascendency of the
Irish over masses of other non-Anglo-Saxon peoples. The Celts were never
a race of individual workers either as agriculturists or in handicraft.
That "law of intense personal labour" which is the foundation of the
strength of the Anglo-Saxon communities never commanded their full
obedience, as the history of Ireland and the condition of the country
to-day abundantly testify. It is not, then, the fault of the individual
Irishman that when he migrates to America, instead of going out to the
frontier to "grow up" with the territory or taking himself to
agricultural work in the great districts of the West which are always
calling for workers, he prefers to remain in the cities to engage when
possible in the public service, or, failing that, to enter the domestic
service of a private employer.
It should not be necessary to say (except that Irish-American
susceptibilities are sometimes extraordinarily sensitive) that I share
to the full that admiration which all people feel for the best traits in
the Irish character; but, in spite of individual exceptions, I urge that
it is not in the nature of the race to become good and helpful citizens
according to Anglo-Saxon ideals, and that, as far as those qualities are
concerned which have made the greatness of the United States, the
contribution from the Irish element has been inconsiderable. The
deftness of the Irishman in political organisation and his lack of
desire for individual independence, as a result of which he turns either
to the organising of a governing machine or to some form of personal
service (in either case merging his own individuality) is as much
foreign to the American spirit as is the docility of the less
intelligent class of Germans under their political leaders--a docility
which, until very recently has caused the German voters in America to be
used in masses almost without protest.
It is the Anglo-Saxon, or English, spirit which has played the dominant
part in moulding the government of the United States, which has made the
nation what it is, which to-day controls its social usages. The Irish
invasion of the political field may fairly be said to be in its essence
an alien invasion; and, while it may be to the discredit of the American
people that they have allowed themselves in the past to be so engrossed
in other matters that they have permitted that invasion to attain the
success which it has attained, I do not fear that in the long run the
masterful Anglo-Saxon spirit will suffer itself to be permanently
over-ridden (any more than it has allowed itself to be kept in permanent
subjection in England), even in the large cities where the Anglo-Saxon
voter is in a small minority. Ultimately it will throw off the incubus.
In the meanwhile it is unjust that Englishmen or other Europeans should
accept as evidence of native American frailty instances of municipal
abuses and of corrupt methods in a city like New York, where it has not
been by native Americans that those abuses and those methods were
originated or that their perpetuation is made possible. On the contrary
the American minority fights strenuously against them, and I am not sure
that, being such a minority as it is, it has not made as good a fight as
is practicable under most difficult conditions. The American people as a
whole should not be judged by the conditions to which a portion of it
submits unwillingly in certain narrow areas.
* * * * *
It may be well to explain here (for it is a subject on which the
Englishman who has lived in America is often consulted) that the
Republican party may roughly be said to be the equivalent of the
Conservative party in England, while the Democrats are the Liberals. It
happens that a precisely reverse notion has (or had until very recent
years) some vogue in England, the misconception being an inheritance
from the times of the American Civil War.
British sympathy was not nearly so exclusively with the South at the
time of the war as is generally supposed in the United States; none the
less, the ruling and aristocratic classes in England did largely wish to
see the success of the Southern armies. The Southerner, it was
understood, was a gentleman, a man of mettle and spirit, and in many
cases the direct descendant of an old English Cavalier family; while the
Northerners were for the most part but humdrum and commercially minded
people who inherited the necessarily somewhat bigoted, if excellent,
characteristics of their Dutch, Puritan, or Quaker ancestors. The view
had at least sufficient historical basis to serve as an excuse if not
as a justification. So it came about that those classes which came to
form the backbone of the Conservative party were largely sympathisers
with the South; and, after the war, that sympathy naturally descended to
the Democratic party rather than to the Northern Republicans. Except,
however, in one particular the fundamental sentiments which make a man a
Republican or a Democrat to-day have nothing to do with the issues of
war times.
I do not know that any one has successfully defined the fundamental
difference either between a Conservative and a Liberal, or between a
Republican and a Democrat, nor have I any desire to attempt it; and
where both parties in each country are in a constant state of flux and
give-and-take, such a definition would perhaps be impossible. It may be
that Ruskin came as near to it as is practicable when he spoke of
himself as "a Tory of the old school,--the school of Homer and Sir
Walter Scott."
Many people in either country accept their political opinions ready made
from their fathers, their early teachers, or their chance friends, and
remain all their lives believing themselves to belong to--and voting
for--a party with which they have essentially nothing in sympathy. If
one were to say that a Conservative was a supporter of the Throne and
the Established Church, a Jingo in foreign politics, an Imperialist in
colonial matters, an advocate of a strong navy and a disbeliever in free
trade, tens of thousands of Conservatives might object to having
assigned to them one or all of these sentiments, and tens of thousands
of Liberals might insist on laying claim to any of them. Precisely so is
it in America. None the less the Republican party in the mass is the
party which believes in a strong Federal government, as opposed to the
independence of the several States; it is a party which believes in the
principle of a protective tariff; it conducted the Cuban War and is a
party of Imperial expansion; it is the party which has in general the
confidence of the business interests of the country and fought for and
secured the maintenance of the gold standard of currency. It is obvious
that, however blurred the party lines may be in individual cases, the
man who in England is by instinct and conviction a Conservative, must in
America by the same impulse be a Republican.
In both countries there is, moreover, a large element which furnishes
the chief support to the miscellaneous third parties which succeed each
other in public attention and whenever the lines are sharply drawn
between the two great parties, the bulk of these can be trusted to go to
the Liberal side in England and to the Democratic side in America. Nor
is it by accident that the Irish in America are mostly Democrats.
I am acutely aware of the inadequacy of such an analysis as the
foregoing and that many readers will have cause to be dissatisfied with
what I say; but I have known many Englishmen of Conservative leanings
who have come to the United States understanding that they would find
themselves in sympathy with the Democrats and have been bewildered at
being compelled to call themselves Republicans. Whatever the individual
policy of one or the other party may be at a given moment, ultimately
and fundamentally the English Conservative, especially the English Tory,
is a Republican, and the Liberal, especially the Radical, is a
Democrat. Both Homer and Sir Walter Scott to-day would (if they found
themselves in America) be Republicans.
FOOTNOTES:
[227:1] For myself, I confess that my interest began somewhat
prematurely. I had been in the country but a few months and had taken no
steps towards naturalisation when I voted at an election in a small town
in a Northwestern Territory where I had been living only for a week or
two. My vote was quite illegal; but my friends (and every one in a small
frontier town is one's friend) were all going to vote and told me to
come along and vote too. The election, which was of the most friendly
character, like the election of a club committee, proved to be closely
contested, one man getting in (as City Attorney or Town Clerk or
something) only by a single vote--my vote. Since then, the Territory has
become a populous State, the frontier town has some hundred thousand
inhabitants, and the gentleman whom I elected has been for some years a
respected member of the United States Senate. I have never seen any
cause to regret that illegal vote.
[229:1] The laws governing expenditures for electoral purposes, and the
conduct of elections generally, are stricter in England than in the
United States, and I think it is not to be questioned that there is much
less bribery of voters. Largely owing to the exertions of Mr. Roosevelt,
however, laws are now being enacted which will make it more difficult
for campaign managers to raise the large funds which have heretofore
been obtainable for election purposes.
[232:1] In as much as a demand that the control of the police force
should be vested in the County Council has appeared in the programme of
one political party in London, it may be well to call the attention of
Englishmen to the fact that it is precisely the association of politics
with the police which gives to American municipal rings their chief
power for evil.
[247:1] See Bryce, _The American Commonwealth_, vol. i., p. 188.
[253:1] Inasmuch as I have twice within a small space referred to evils
which incidentally grow out of the protective system, lest it be thought
that I am influenced by any partisan feeling, I had better state that my
personal sympathies are strongly Republican and Protectionist.