and from which arose the present sentiment. In the old days the governor or ruler was appointed by the king, or at least by some power outside of the people, and the only check that, in turn, the people had over his actions, was by the control of the body elected by them, that is, by their control of the legislature, local or state. The governor, nominated by the power without, made the nomination; those elected by the people confirmed or rejected it. But now things are entirely different; the mayor is quite as much the servant of the people, in the true sense of the word he is far more the servant of the people, than are all the aldermen. The mayor has a larger constituency before which to go; the mayor is held to a more strict accountability for his actions. The aldermen are not held to such an accountability; the aldermen are only accountable to their local leaders. The one man is held responsible by the people; the other men only by the bosses who have saddled themselves on the people. It is true we give the mayor power, but we put with that power, accountability. We say, "You will exercise this power unchecked, and for every step that you take we will hold you rigidly responsible. Not a movement will you make that we do not hold you accountable for making. You will no longer be able to shield yourself behind the board of aldermen; you will no longer be able to put them forward as the excuse for your wrongdoing; you will have to stand or fall according to your own actions. You will have undivided power, and you will have an undivided responsibility." Does any man think for a moment that things could be much worse than they are? Even if we grant that they may become no better, do you think that if we

have one master in New York we will suffer more than we do with the twenty-four who rule us now, or rather, with the twenty-four who register the decrees of two or three outside rulers? Certainly, it seems to me, this is the must thoroughly democratic bill that could be presented; that it is a bill giving the people power; that it is a bill to break the might of the oligarchy that now rules us.

It is said that here in the new world we have no aristocracy; yet I sometimes think that in our great city we have what might be called, were it not a contradiction in terms, an aristocracy of the bad, or, as an eminent traveler put it, "an aristocracy of blackguards,” for those that should be lowest-mind you, I do not mean socially, I mean those who, from their vices, should be lowest - rule over us. It is right, and it is our pride, that the banker and the bricklayer, the merchant and his clerk, the millionaire and the day laborer, should be equal. It is our boast that all positions and degrees in life stand on the same plane before the law, but it is not right that those who, by their pursuits, are most likely to be brought into contact with the criminal classes, and who, indeed, often spring from or sink into these classes, should be men who, above all others, are to be chosen to rule over us. Of the last board of aldermen one half were liquor dealers. Does any man suppose that one half of our mayors would be liquor sellers? that a man who was a liquor seller could be elected? The board of aldermen has just chosen as its president a man who, I believe, was removed from the board of education on account of grave charges made against him in connection with the misappropriation of money.

Does any man suppose that such a man could be elected mayor of the city of New York? Would it be possible for our people as a whole to elect one such? He is elected easily enough when you get the politicians to dickering and dealing with one another, and no more fruitful field for dickering and dealing exists than in the board of aldermen.

I think that almost without exception the mayor has been a man of far better character than the average member of the board of aldermen; that almost without exception the mayor has been a man who has responded to the will of the people — to the will of the decent people far more readily than have the board of aldermen. More than that; in times past we have realized that we were electing as mayor a man whose hands were bound. There has been little incentive to exert all our efforts to elect a man when we knew that his endeavors could, and would, be completely nullified by the concerted action of others. Now, I propose in the future to give us a chance to elect a man who shall have the real as well as the nominal power, and I think we shall be far more likely to elect a good mayor than we have been in times past; and if we do not, then we can truly say that we ourselves are to blame accountable for his election.

I have purposely confined my bill purely to taking away the confirming power of the board of aldermen; there are many other changes that it is highly desirable to make, in my opinion, in the city of New York. I think that the mayor should be given absolute power of removal; I think that the departments ought for the most part to be made single-headed; I believe personally

in spring elections; but very many of my friends on this floor utterly disagree with me upon those points; therefore I have refused to have any amendments put in this bill, and shall vote against any additional provisions to be put in, for the reason that I shall regard any attempt to put other amendments in as efforts to load down the bill and to prevent its passage, for every such amendment will increase the opposition to the bill. I will cheerfully vote on the other measures as separate bills; to give the mayor absolute power of removal; to provide for spring elections; to provide for single-headed departments. I will vote for each of those measures in turn; but I propose to have a vote taken in this Legislature upon this naked proposition, “Are you, or are you not, willing to give us a responsible government in the city of New York, unhampered by any other considerations?" Take that naked question and answer it.1

VIII. PREACHING AND PRACTICE

I Do not know that I shall be able to go to Cuba if there is a war. The army may not be employed at all, and even if it is employed it will consist chiefly of regular troops; and as regards the volunteers only a very small proportion can be taken from among the multitudes who are even now coming forward. Therefore it may be that I shall be unable to go, and shall have to stay here. In that case I shall do my duty here to the best of my ability, although I shall be eating out my heart. But if I

1 From Remarks of the Honorable Theodore Roosevelt on the Bill taking away the confirmatory power from the board of aldermen of the City of New York, in Assembly. February 5, 1884, in Committee of the Whole House.

am able to go I certainly shall. It is perfectly true that I shall be leaving one duty, but it will only be for the purpose of taking up another. I say quite sincerely that I shall not go for my own pleasure. On the contrary, if I should consult purely my own feelings I should earnestly hope that we would have peace. I like life very much. I have always led a joyous life. I like thought and I like action, and it will be very bitter to me to leave my wife and children; and while I think I could face death with dignity, I have no desire before my time has come to go out into the everlasting darkness. So I shall not go into a war with any undue exhilaration of spirits or in a frame of mind in any way approaching recklessness or levity.

Moreover, a man's usefulness depends upon his living up to his ideals in so far as he can. Now, I have consistently preached what our opponents are pleased to call "Jingo doctrines" for a good many years. One of the commonest taunts directed at men like myself is that we are armchair and parlor Jingoes who wish to see others do what we only advocate doing. I care very little for such a taunt, except as it affects my usefulness, but I cannot afford to disregard the fact that my power for good, whatever it may be, would be gone if I did n't try to live up to the doctrines I have tried to preach. Moreover it seems to me that it would be a good deal more important from the standpoint of the Nation as a whole that men like myself should go to war than that we should stay comfortably in offices at home and let others carry on the war that we have urged.1

1 Letter to Dr. Sturgis Bigelow, March 29, 1898. From Theodore Roosevelt and His Time, by Joseph Bucklin Bishop. Copyright, 1920. Charles Scribner's Sons, publishers.