The New York Times/Schurz for Independents
|←Articles on Carl Schurz||Schurz for Independents||Carl Schurz on Roosevelt→|
|From The New York Times of October 23, 1898. See Opposition to Roosevelt for the Governorship of New York for the full text of the letter.|
SCHURZ FOR INDEPENDENTS
He Gives His Reasons for
Opposing Col. Roosevelt.
HIS DANGEROUS IMPERIALISM
“Worse Than Free Silver and
Tammany” — Fears He May
Carl Schurz has written a letter to The Evening Post, which was published yesterday, in which he gives reasons why he cannot support Col. Roosevelt for Governor and declares himself in favor of the independent State ticket.
Mr. Schurz declares that when Col. Roosevelt was first spoke of as a candidate for the Governorship he “greatly wished and hoped to be able to support him,” and that it was “with painful reluctance” that he had come to an adverse conclusion. He says:
I was much startled when I read that in response to the declaration of the Republican State platform, “We commend the administration of Gov. Black; it has been wise, statesmanlike, careful, and economical,” Col. Roosevelt, in accepting the nomination for the Governorship, went so far in his concession to the Republican Party machine as to say: ‘The record made by the Republican administration in the State of New York is a guarantee that upon all questions involving the property rights and interests and liberty of all citizens the Republican Party can be safely trusted.” Considering what the record of that administration notoriously is, Mr. Roosevelt's language betrayed a kind of partisan spirit which has been fatal to many good intentions such as Col. Roosevelt now — no doubt, honestly — avows in general terms.
But while in this respect we might still be inclined to hope for the best, we can hardly do the same with regard to certain utterances put forth in his speech at the Carnegie Hall meeting, in which he “sounded the keynote of the campaign.” There he told us that the question is not merely whether he or his competitor will make the better Governor of New York, but that by electing him we are to declare to the whole world that the State of New York stands behind the National Administration in its annexation policy, how far that policy may ever go. And even more than that. He virtually asks us to indorse, by electing him, his kind of militant imperialism, which has no bounds. According to him, we need a big navy and “a far larger regular army than we now have,” not for the purpose of keeping order at home, but for action abroad.
Mr. Schurz urges that Col. Roosevelt's programme means much more than the “mere present annexation of the Philippines,” and that while, as Governor, he “would not have the power to carry such ideas into effect,” the people of New York cannot elect him “without approving and encouraging the annexation policy.” Moreover, he declares, “an election to the Governorship of New York * * * may again become in Col. Roosevelt's case the stepping stone to the nomination to the Presidency,” and that its probable effect must be considered from that point of view.
Mr. Schurz asserts his belief that Col. Roosevelt's defeat will not benefit the silver movement, and expresses the “solemn conviction” that “there are worse things even than free silver and Tammany, and that one of them is the imperialism which in its effects upon the character and the durability of the Republic I consider as pernicious as slavery itself was.”
Giving his reasons for supporting the candidates on the independent State ticket, Mr. Schurz says:
Although knowing that they have no chance of election, they courageously assume the leadership of those citizens who have come to the conclusion that the game of the bosses to confine the voters to a choice between two evils must be stopped. At one time it was thought possible to use one boss as a club for annihilating the other. That has turned out a vain hope, for they have too good an understanding among themselves as to the interests they have in common. * * *
But bossism can be really crippled if a strong body of men absolutely refuse to be confined to a choice between evils. The present independent force may be small, but those are mistaken who think that it is without immediate practical usefulness. It will accomplish an important result at this election if it gets votes enough to entitle it, for future occasions, to a place on the official ballot.
|This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1923. It may be copyrighted outside the U.S. (see Help:Public domain).|
- Facsimile at query.nytimes.com