網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

Tammany Outdone in Mayor of Minneapolis as a Republican.

Minneapolis

The shocking revelations of police complicity with vice have so uniformly exposed conditions in some great metropolis that people in our smaller cities have naturally come to think of their own municipal virtue with a snug and smug complacency unwarranted by the facts, and peculiarly benumbing to the public conscience. It is true that public plunder on a vast scale may more readily be organized in a great city without public knowledge, and that it is more difficult there for a few publicspirited citizens to accomplish its overthrow; but there is no difference whatever in the kind of temptations to which public officials are exposed, and no difference whatever in the need of eternal vigilance on the part of the public to preserve municipal purity. The problem of municipal corruption is the same in Newark as in New York, the same in Harrisburg as in Philadelphia, the same in Minneapolis as in Chicago. This last proposition at least is now indisputable, for Mr. Lincoln Steffens's article on "The Shame of Minneapolis" in the January "McClure's" exposes a brazenness of municipal corruption not equaled in Chicago or even in New York during the past quarter of a century.

In the fall elections of 1900 Dr. Albert Alonzo Ames was nominated as the Republican candidate for Mayor of Minneapolis at the direct primaries. The responsibility for his nomination, therefore, cannot be lifted from the ordinary voter and saddled upon a corrupt political machine. His loose private character was known at the time of his nomination. He came of good Puritan stock. His father-also a physician-was one of the pioneers of Minneapolis, and Dr. Ames. himself was a man of great professional skill, who from the first had one supreme virtue of a political leader-genuine kindness toward the poor. But, along with this attractive quality, he was from his young manhood sensuously self-indulgent, and as years advanced this characteristic grew upon him, and he not only made friends of the poor by his generosity, but friends of the corrupt by moral affinity. Entering politics early, he was elected

Changing his politics, he was at intervals twice elected to the same position as a Democrat, and changing his politics again a few years ago, he was, as stated, nominated in 1900 as a Republican. At the primaries which nominated him voters of either party could vote either ticket without challenge, and Dr. Ames is believed to have received the votes of a great many Democrats who did not take their party allegiance seriously. In the campaign which followed hundreds of Republicans who were disgusted with his nomination acquiesced in his election because it was a Presidential year.

During Dr. Ames's previous administrations he had not been especially venal. "He was a 'spender,' not a 'grafter,'" and his personal dependents seem to have monopolized the spoils which the wide-open city furnished. At the very beginning of his fourth term, however, he set out to organize the licensing of vice for his own enrichment. He made his brother, Colonel Fred W. Ames, a discredited officer from the Philippines, his chief of police. He made Norman W. King, a former gambler, his chief of detectives. The collector for women of the town was to be Irwin A. Gardner, a medical student in Dr. Ames's office, who was made a special policeman for the purpose. "These men looked over the force, selected those men who could be trusted, charged them a price for their retention, and marked for dismissal 107 men out of 225, the 107 being the best policemen in the department from the point of view of the citizens who afterwards reorganized the force." The carnival of corruption which followed is vividly depicted by Mr. Steffens, and a few of his strong lines will indicate the character of the picture:

66

The administration opened with the revolu tion in the police force. They liberated the thieves in the local jail, and made known to the Under World generally that "things were doing" in Minneapolis. The incoming swindlers reported to King or his staff for instructions and detectives in charge. Gambling went on openly went to work, turning the "swag" over to the and disorderly houses multiplied under the fostering care of Gardner, the medical stu dent. . . . [Even before this] disorderly houses were practically licensed by the city, the women appearing before the clerk of the Mu nicipal Court each month to pay a "fine" of

$100. Unable at first to get this "graft," Ames's man Gardner persuaded women to start houses, apartments, and, of all things, candystores, which sold sweets to children and tobacco to the "lumber Jacks" in front, while a nefarious traffic was carried on in the rear. But they paid Ames, not the city. . . . But the money still paid direct to the city in fines, some $35,000 a year, fretted the Mayor, and at last he reached for it. He came out with a declaration, in his old character as friend of the oppressed, that $100 a month was too much for these women to pay. They should be required to pay the city fine only once in two months. This puzzled the town till it became generally known that Gardner collected the other month for the Mayor. "In a general way," says Mr. Steffens, all this business was known. It did not arouse citizens, but it did attract criminals, and more and more thieves and swindlers came hurrying to Minneapolis." When the whole orgy of profit-sharing with crime was finally exposed, it was shown that detectives were stationed at the doors of gambling-houses which swindled their clients, for the express purpose of scaring the victims if they threatened to complain, and, if possible, running them out of town in fear that they would be prosecuted. If the victims insisted upon taking their complaints to the Chief of Police, the Mayor's brother would first try to wear them out with long delays and then he too would attempt to browbeat them into silence. What this policy yielded to the administration is graphically presented to the eye by photographic excerpts from the ledger of one of the swindling concerns. The first entry in this ledger ran as follows:

ACCOUNTS NOVEMBER 18 TO 25 [Expenditures.]

Nov. 18 Mayor Ames.... $500.00

Gardner..

50.00

[Detective] Norbeck 50.00

Chief Ames.

20.00

Wood..

1.00

Kerosene Oil....

.25

Orrin..

25.00

Nut of Joint..... $646.25

...

conspirators began to rob one another, and the whole situation became chaotic. The conspirators held together well enough to secure the dismissal from office of a county sheriff who attempted to restrain their excesses, but soon the honor necessary to successful thievery failed, and the different conspirators failed to protect one another's protégés. At this juncture. a grand jury was drawn in the ordinary way, one of whose members, Hovey C. Clarke, was a man of extraordinary force of character. Mr. Clarke was made foreman of the jury, and, finding that some of his associates would support him, he determined to overthrow the whole syndicate of corruptionists in control of the city. The determined jurors went to the jail and saw two bunco-steerers who had not received the expected protection and were nursing their grievances against the officials who had failed them. One of these men afterwards stated that he was persuaded to turn State's evidence because he "sized up "Clarke as a man who was bound to keep up his fight till he won. "We," he said, meaning criminals generally," are always stacking up against juries and lawyers who want us to holler. We don't because we see they are quitters. They can be pulled off." Clarke and his associates could not be "pulled off," though Clarke was offered $28,000 to quit, and his life seemed to be in danger from the wrath of the criminal elements. "What startled the jury most, however," says Mr. Steffens, "was the character of the citizens who were sent to dissuade them from their course. No reform I have studied has failed to bring out this phenomenon of virtuous cowardice." three weeks the jury was able, by means of hard personal work and heavy personal 352.00 expenditures, to collect enough evidence to bring in indictments, and, with some difficulty, the assistant public prosecutor was persuaded to institute proceedings. The Grand Jury paid the cost of bringing witnesses from as far as Idaho. First Gardner was tried and convicted, then Captain Norbeck of the detectives, then Fred Ames, and then Chief of Detectives King. As conviction followed conviction and one piece of evidence supplemented another, a panic spread among the conspirators. Among those who fled were two heads of departments against

[Receipts.]
Monday... $533.00
Tuesday.. 269.00
Wednesday.. 622.00
Thursday.... 575.00
Friday
321.00
Saturday....
Sunday..

45.00

$2,718.00

45% Steerers
Bid.... $1,123.10
Bal. Joint...$1.494.90
$646.25

Bal. to Crd... $848.65

Some members of the police force did not stop at direct participation in robberies, one police captain having stood guard while a safe was robbed by confederates.

The final breakdown of the conspiracy came from dissensions within. As plunder increased greed increased, different

In

whom nothing had been shown or discovered until their flight revealed another source of "graft" in the sale of supplies to public institutions, and the diversion of provisions to the private residences of officials. Mayor Ames, under indictment and heavy bonds, fled from the State on a night train. By this time it was evident that the side of the prosecution was the side of victory, and men who had feared to act before were now eager to take part in driving out the last vestiges of the overthrown régime. In a few months a decent government was established, and Minneapolis had an unforgetable lesson not only in the appalling possibilities of municipal corruption at the hands of a few public plunderers, but in the inspiring possibilities of municipal regeneration at the hands of a few determined men of dauntless public spirit.

Mr. Steffens's stirring story should be read everywhere, for it strikes at the very heart of both of the twin stupidities which dull the conscience of American municipalities-the optimism which says that all is so good that nothing need be done, and the pessimism which says that all is so bad that nothing can be done.

The Practical Test

What shall a Christian believer say to one who apparently denies the very foundation of Christian faith by altogether denying the existence of spirit; who insists that only matter and force exist, that there is but one kind of force, that the difference between the force generated by an electric battery and that generated by the brain of a Shakespeare is a difference only in quality and result, not in essence, that as the electric power ceases when the battery decays, so the mental power ceases when the brain decays, that as there can be no music without an instrument, so there can be no spiritual life except as it is connected with and produced by the body? This question in various forms is often asked-has been often asked of The Outlook.

The reply to this question is to be found in the principle that the test of any theory, whether in philosophy or in science, is simply this: Can the theory be

some

practically applied in the conduct of life? This test is thus stated by Professor James in "The Varieties of Religious Experience." After quoting at length from Sir Henry Maudsley, one of the ablest representatives of materialistic philosophy, he adds: "In other words, not its origin, but the way in which it works on the whole, is Dr. Maudsley's final test of a belief. This is our own empirical criterion; and this criterion the stoutest insisters on supernatural origin have also been forced to use in the end." The italics are those of Professor James. Using this test, how does the theory that mental force and physical force are identical work when applied to the conduct of life?

There are in philosophy two contrasted skeptical theories: one, that there is no matter, all is mind; the other, that there is no mind, all is matter. It is not easy to refute either by pure reason; but neither works well in actual life. How do we know that matter exists? We see it and touch it? But this only means that certain sensations take place in us which we attribute to external causes. How do we know that they are due to external causes? How do we know that we are not dreaming, that matter is anything more than a phantasmagoria, a succession of mental images, a series of pure imaginings? How does the materialist know that there is an electric battery? How does he know that there is a brain? The answer is that we have to live as though matter existed. This is the practical answer, and it is all-sufficient. If I think I am cold, the coldness may be only a "mortal thought;" but I shall continue to think cold, until I can think coal and put it on what I think is a fire. The answer, and the only answer, so far as we can see, to pure idealism is that it does not work well; whether matter exists or not, we have to act as though it exists.

Similarly, How do we know that mind exists? We reason, feel, resolve; but how do we know that reasoning, feeling, resolving, are anything more than a phase of physical energy, a more subtle form of electricity, a material force generated by the brain? How do we know but that the statement of one of the older materialists is true, and that "the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile"?

The

answer to this question is the same as the answer to the other. The theory of materialism does not work well. We cannot apply it to the conduct of life. As we have to act as though there were-matter, so also we have to act as though there were mind. Physical forces are not subject to moral judgments; we do not condemn gravitation as guilty of wrong-doing. Spiritual forces are subject to moral judgments; we do condemn spiritual forces as guilty of wrong-doing. If a paper-weight falls off the desk and hits you on the knee, you do not think the desk, paper-weight, or gravitation deserving of condemnation; if a man throws a stone and hits you on the knee, you do think the man worthy of condemnation. Society could not go on except upon the assumption that man is a free moral agent; that his acts are not the necessary

sequence of purely physical conditions; that he deserves praise for some actions and blame for others. Except on this assumption there could be neither government nor public opinion, neither good morals nor good manners. Civilization is based on the hypothesis that matter exists; it could not go on upon any other hypothesis. Society is based upon the hypothesis that mind exists; it could not go on upon any other hypothesis. So long as a man acts as though there were matter, and as though there were mind, society does not care what theories he broods in his study. But when a man acts as though matter had no real existence, we call him crazy. If he attempts to put his theories into practice, he is liable to be sent to the insane asylum. If he acts as though mind did not exist, and ignores all moral responsibility for his action, we call him immoral, and he is liable to be sent to the penitentiary. Neither pure idealism nor pure materialism works. Life repudiates them both.

We do not think there is much use in arguing with either the idealistic skeptic or the materialistic skeptic. We never knew of much progress made in such argument. It is best to let him play with his pet doll before the study fire as much as he likes. It is certainly not a living child, and cannot go out by itself and enter into the tussles of actual life. To the idealistic skeptic we should simply say, Whether there is matter or not, you

would better act as though matter is real, or you will very soon come to grief. To the materialistic skeptic we should say, If it be true that the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile, you would better see to it that your brain secretes the right kind of thought if you wish to enjoy the esteem of your fellow-men. If what we call the life of the soul is inseparably bound up with the body, and ends when the body ends, still let us make that life high, pure, true, noble. Religion is life; and to all philosophical skepticism, whether of the pure idealist or the pure materialist, our reply would be, Let us live as though life were real, life were earnest. It is not by the theories which we brood in our studies that we are to be tested, but by the life we live in the world of men.

The Gifts of Millionaires

The daily papers report simultaneously two addresses, one by John A. Hobson, the English economist, delivered in Philadelphia, the other by Professor John Bascom, of Williams College, delivered in Chicago. Both, if they are correctly reported, maintain as a principle that educational, philanthropic, and religious institutions should refuse to receive gifts from donors whose money, in the judgment of the trustees, or perhaps we should say in the judgment of the general public, has been obtained by unrighteous methods. We quote from the newspaper reports a few sentences to indicate the principle implied or affirmed. Thus, from the report of Mr. Hobson's address: "Is society to be saved by the millionaires? The fact that they give us great gifts should not keep us from tracing the origin of their wealth. . . . Is it safe to take money so gained [i.e., by unrighteous methods] and spend it for public purposes at the wish of the millionaire?" The answer that Mr. Hobson evidently expects to this question Professor Bascom gives: "John D. Rockefeller's dollars have sealed the lips of every instructor at the University of Chicago. . . . In the East it is considered necessary to teach political economy and sociology in any large institution of learning. How are professors at the Chicago University to do this? They have accepted this man's

money, and in fairness to him and themselves they must not tell the young men and women who come to their school how their benefactor gained his dollars. . . . There are men at this university who are being prepared to fill pulpits and teach the law of God. They should know of the business immorality which exists. Can they be taught that at the University of Chicago? Dr. Harper can say nothing uncomplimentary about the manner in which Rockefeller gained his dollars. He would cease to be a gentleman if he did."

Whether these reports accurately represent Mr. Hobson and Professor Bascom it is not important for us to determine. They represent accurately enough for our purpose a principle which is specious but, we believe, thoroughly unsound: the principle enunciated in the report of Mr. Hobson's address, namely, that it is the duty of those to whom wealth is offered for use in public service to trace the origin of the wealth, and to decline it if, in their opinion, it has been acquired by unrighteous methods. In our judgment, the trustees of religious, philanthropic, and educational institutions have no such duty; and no such consequences result from a failure to perform this impracticable task as is more than intimated in the report of Professor Bascom's address.

Before such a principle is accepted it must be thought out to its logical consequences. If the trustees of a hospital or college or church are to trace to its origin wealth offered for the public service, and to refuse such wealth as in their judgment has been unrighteously acquired, they must first of all establish a standard of business morality by which to test the commercial transactions of the proposed benefactor. The prohibitionist trustee who holds that it is wrong to make money by selling beer will refuse Matthew Vassar's money for the founding of Vassar College. A more radical temperance companion will refuse money from the hop-grower, because hops are used chiefly for beer. The Sabbatarian will vote against receiving money from a railroad millionaire if the railroad has been operated on Sunday. The vegetarian will decline money from Mr. Armour, because it is wrong to destroy animal life for food. Mr. Hobson classed Mr. Carnegie

and Mr. Rockefeller together; Professor Bascom is reported as saying that "it would be all right to accept Mr. Carnegie's money," but all wrong to accept Mr. Rockefeller's. Who shall decide? Are the Board of trustees by a majority vote to settle a standard of ethics by which past business transactions are to be judged? And when they have decided upon a standard, how shall they decide as to the transactions? Are they to constitute themselves into a court to investigate the method by which Mr. Carnegie made the wealth offered to the library, and Mr. 'Rockefeller the money offered to the university, and Mr. Vanderbilt the money offered to the hospital, and Mr. Drexel the money offered to the institute? They cannot presume a man guilty because he is wealthy. Surely they cannot condemn him without investigation on common report. If they are to condemn him at all, they must give him a hearing in his own defense. This would be a curious result that whenever money is offered to a board of trustees they must, before accepting it, put the donor on trial to see whether he acquired it righteously or not. And yet this is what they must do, if it is their duty to trace wealth to its origin before accepting it for public uses. the inquisition must be a discriminating one. They must determine what proportion of the wealth has been acquired by righteous and what proportion by unrighteous methods. Does any unrighteousness vitiate the whole? Then there can be very few donations received. If not, what proportion of unrighteousness is required to make rejection of the donation a public duty?

And

It is quite impracticable for trustees. to undertake any such inquisitorial function as this principle would lay upon them; but if they were able to perform it, and in the performance of it found that all the money was acquired by methods wholly immoral, this would of itself constitute no adequate reason for refusing to accept the money in trust for the public. Let us suppose the clearest of cases. A man has made his money as a professional gambler. Now that he has it, he desires to give it to the public. What better use can he put it to? He cannot ordinarily search out the men whose money he has won and return it to them. If he converts it into

« 上一頁繼續 »