THE REMINISCENCES OF CARL SCHURZ
ences exercised by it; but, notwithstanding the criticism now and then called forth by the more scandalous excrescences of the system, it was, on the whole, accepted as a permanent thing which, in this country, could not be otherwise, and attempts to change which would be utterly vain. But it had at that period not yet evolved the “boss” and the “machine,” those perfect agencies of party despotism, as we now know them—although a sinister beginning in that direction was already made in the State of New York, where unscrupulous leadership found the most and the fittest material for a mercenary following, and where selfish personal politics had the most promising field of operation. But, inside of the political parties, the leadership of organization by means of the patronage had then not yet so largely superseded the leadership of opinion as the spoils system would enable it to do, unless checked in its development. Such were the impressions I received in a more or less vague way from my talks and observations at Washington, and I may say that I became then and there, unconsciously to be sure, a civil service reformer.
As to the slavery question, which interested me more than all else, Mr. Grund's moral nature did not seem to be as much wrought up as mine was. He had hoped that the Compromise of 1850 would keep that question in the background for a long period. But the introduction of the Nebraska Bill had disturbed him very seriously, and he now feared that a decisive crisis would ensue. I diligently visited the galleries of the Senate and of the House to listen to the debates. I cannot say that the appearance of either body struck me as very imposing. I had attended, as a spectator, a sitting of the German Parliament of 1848 at Frankfort, several sessions of the French National Assembly at Paris in 1850, and one of the British House of Commons in 1852. Of these parliamentary
[ 28 ]
