The Writings of Carl Schurz/From Charles R. Codman, January 31st, 1887
FROM CHARLES R. CODMAN
| 57 Marlboro' St., | |
| Boston, Jan. 31, 1887. |
I arrived here on Saturday having pushed through from Washington. I had but one interview with the President which lasted two hours and which he showed no impatience to bring to an end. I laid before him my statement which was substantially to this effect: “Dissatisfaction exists among our friends who feel that at the rate at which removals are being made there will scarcely be any Republican left in office at the expiration of Mr. Cleveland's term, and we shall have a condition of things no better than under previous Administrations. The ‘clean sweep’ would be complete though it would be gradually accomplished.” I also said that there was much criticism of the Maryland and Indiana appointments and, generally, I said explicitly what I told you I should say. The President heard me with the greatest patience and attention, and when I had done he said in substance that our friends ought to be quite sure that they understand exactly what his pledges were, and that to his knowledge he had violated none. All that he had said in his letter to Curtis (and it was more than he need to have said) was that officials, not in the classified service, who were competent, and not offensive partisans,—might expect to retain their places and would not be turned out to reward party workers. “He had never said that they might expect reappointment at the end of their terms of office. He claimed that all the removals that had been made were, so far as he had been able to control them, for what were believed to be good reasons. Not that mistakes had not been made, not that instances could not be found where good officials had been removed and bad ones put in their places, not that some of his own appointees had not disregarded the principles upon which he himself acted.”—All this was said in answer to the suggestion of unfaithfulness to his pledges. He said, besides, that he had already been considering whether a farther step in advance could not soon be taken. He stated that the pressure upon him to make removals merely to give places to Democrats was at an end. So much at least had been gained. Whether it were best to make an announcement, that—now that the offices were reasonably fairly divided between the parties—appointments in the Post-Office Department, at least, should be made wholly from considerations of fitness without regard to politics, was something he was considering.
To my suggestion that at least some conspicuous reappointments might be made of Republican postmasters he seemed to incline favorably, and when I said that these appointments might be made to advantage outside of Massachusetts, he replied “that that too should be considered.” We then had a general conversation in which among other things the President said that he had often refused to make appointments that Senator Gorman desired, telling him plainly that it could not be done. He claimed that the collector and district attorney at Baltimore were good appointments and that Rasin the Naval Officer (whatever his antecedents) did his work well. Of Indiana he spoke as if he were disgusted and discouraged at the behavior of his party friends in that State. He recognized Mr. Swift's honesty of intention and said nothing disparaging about him. And then he said, when we got onto the inter-state commerce bill and other matters, “I can't grasp this whole thing,” meaning the whole range of Presidential responsibility—as I understood him. I have given you the points of the conversation as I recall them. Of course I have omitted many things, such as some local matters in Massachusetts. The President mentioned your letters and said that they sometimes irritated him, though he acknowledged your entire disinterestedness. The impression made upon me was that he thought you did not allow for the difficulties of his position in the immense variety of questions and subjects to which he is obliged to give attention.
Let me sum up my general impression:—If I saw the President oftener I should have an opportunity to judge better; and, even as far as it goes, I may be quite wrong in my observation. With my present light, it appears to me that the President inclines too much to look at the details of his functions and imagines that by working these out correctly he will be best able to achieve results. It is in a certain sense with him, “Take care of the pence and the pounds will take care of themselves.” He has not the scientific way of going to work, of laying down his propositions and then carrying them out in a general way. He wants to make a good appointment in every case and thinks less perhaps of the principles upon which all appointments should be made. I say that he thinks less of these; I am far from saying that he does not regard them at all. He has certainly an idea of educating the leaders of his party and he believes that encouraging progress has been made in this direction.
I am of opinion that President Cleveland has shown much courage in his power of resistance, and rather less in his power of advance, but my conclusion is, that in spite of appearances and inconsistencies, he is a man of a good and honest purpose. I think he ought to be supported cordially, that we should not irritate or discourage him, but that nevertheless we should kindly and clearly point out what we think should be done.
As I was about to leave him he said, “And now what are you going to say to your friends?” I replied, as well as I can recall it: “I am going to tell them that you say that you never promised to reappoint capable Republicans when their terms expired, that you claim that progress has been made, that you expect to make still more and that you are considering what the next step shall be.” To this he made no objection.
And then I said to him, almost the last thing, “I don't want you to think hardly of Carl Schurz, who is really your friend.” “Yes,” said he with perfect good nature, “but where am I to find three or four hours to answer his letter?”
Our whole intercourse in this interview was frank and cordial. The President talked a good deal. I don't think his tone was despondent, although some of the things I have described him as saying may seem to indicate it. I can only say that I left him, as I always do, with an increased regard for him. He has his limitations, of course, like the rest of us. He certainly has not been trained to be and perhaps (though I am not so sure of that) cannot be a logical and constructive statesman, but he is a faithful public servant, honest and manly and simple and brave, and growing every day in experience and in comprehension of the situation. I am for sustaining him, and in the interests of good government I would not be too rigid with him.
The American people, too, have their limitations and peculiarities, one of which is that they do a great many things without any particular system. It is the French rather than the Anglo-Saxons that want mathematically perfect constitutions and who are disappointed when they don't work to perfection.
But our people like a man, and when they get a notion that a President means to do right on the whole, notwithstanding many errors and shortcomings, and that in so doing he disturbs the “little games” of the machine-men, even if some very good people find fault with him and do so justly, the average people are apt to do what I must think is demonstrably unreasonable, but which is yet profoundly characteristic of our people, and that is to stand by him, right or wrong.
I hope, therefore, that our report will deal very gently with Mr. Cleveland, even more so than does the original draft, and I intend to look at it again with the view of suggesting modifications in the direction I suggest.