« PreviousContinue »
Devery sent an officer to the newspaper men to say that the Mayor had something to tell them, and the reporters were invited into the Chief's office. The Mayor sat in Chief Devery's big chair, while the Chief himself said he had received an order from the Mayor, and he then read that order which related to Chief Devery's order to the captains on Sunday regarding the McCullagh men and voters. The Mayor's mandate reads: “William S. Devery, Chief of Police:
"Sir :-You will at once revoke the order published in this morning's papers and issued from your office on the 4th inst., at 5:20 P. M., relative to the duties of the Police Force on Election Day, and you will issue immediately such further orders as will require your subordinates to co-operate with and assist in the execution and enforcement of the Metropolitan Election District law, Chapter 676, of Laws of 1898, and amendments thereto.
“ROBERT A. VAN WYCK, Mayor.” When the Chief had read the order to the reporters, the Mayor spoke to them saying: “There will be no intimidation or violence at the election tomorrow. It will pass off as quietly as that of a country village. It will be as quiet an election as was ever held in this city. The Chief of Police will take charge of that, and will preserve order. I have the utmost confidence in the Chief. He knows his duties better than I do. He is a perfectly efficient Chief, and understands how to maintain peace and order.”
Chief Devery then said that there would be no trouble whatever to-morrow, and that he would enforce the orders of the Mayor to the letter.
Chief Devery sent out the following order late in the night: "To All in All Boroughs:
"Pursuant to directions received by me from His Honor Mayor Robert A. Van Wyck, and because of the misconstruction placed upon the order which I issued at 5:20 P. M., November 4, 1900, commencing with the words, 'Tactics and methods of intimidation,' etc., you are hereby notified that said order is revoked. You will instruct the members of your command that it is their duty under Section 7 of Chapter 676 of the Laws of 1898, as amended, to co-operate and assist in the execution and enforcement of the Metropolitan Election District law and render aid and assistance to the State Superintendent of Elections and his deputies in the performance of their duties when called upon to do so. Read this at the midnight roll call and at the roll call in the morning prior to the men leaving their stations for duty at the polling places.
"WILLIAM S. DEVERY,
“Chief of Police." The Chief said afterward: "To-morrow's election will be the fairest ever held in New York City. I will do all that lies in my power to see that that end is accomplished.” The Chief then said “Good-night,” and went home.
It made a difference in the State of New York when the Governor came home, especially in the City of New York.
There were no unnecessary words in the letter of the Governor of New York State to the Mayor of New York City, the evening before Presidential election day, November 6, 1900. The hours were swift and time was precious. The sequel appears in the public papers of Governor Roosevelt, page 202 of 1900. There is a statement of the Governor's opinion on the election case tried and decided in short order. "Matter of the Removal of District Attorney Gardner.”
"State of New York, "Executive Chamber, Albany, December 24, 1900. “The charge vitally affecting the conduct of the District Attorney is that which relates to his attitude at and about election time toward the indictment of Chief of Police Devery after the latter had issued a scandalously improper and seditious order to the police force under him.
“When the conduct of the District Attorney of the County of New York affects elections, this conduct becomes a matter not merely of County, but of State and National concern. Fraud or violence at the polls in New York County in a National election may concern not merely the County itself, not merely the other Counties of the State, but also the other States of the Union. It is a mere truism to assert that honest elections, free from both fraud and violence, stand at the very basis of our form of Republican self-government. There is no use in discussing principles and issues unless it is settled that the conclusion which the majority reaches upon such principles and issues shall be honestly recorded in the election itself. There can be no possible justification for any man, and above all for any public officer, failing to do everything in his power to prevent crime against the ballot box. No more serious crime against the State, and in time of peace, no crime as serious, can be committed.
"Before the election last November, there was the most open incitement by certain leading politicians to violence and fraud at the polls. In New York State in particular, this incitement took the form of a naked appeal to mob violence—the leader of one of the two great parties in this State urging his followers in repeated public utterances to gather at the polls and criminally assault the officers of the law in certain contingencies. Utterances such as these, of course, excited great public uneasiness and bade fair to cause the most serious disturbances; but there was nothing to be done regarding them so long as they were only the utterances of individuals in private life.
"When, however, the Chief of Police of the City of New York issued a publiç order to his subordinates in which he incited them to criminal violation of the lawman order which was certain to cow and terrorize some men, and to encourage the entire disorderly and lawless element—the situation became so grave as to call for the interference of the Chief Executive of the State. Accordingly, the Chief Executive notified the Mayor, the Sheriff and the District Attorney that in view of the issuance of this order they would be held to a strict accountability for their acts in preserving, or failing to preserve, the public peace.
“The Mayor and Sheriff promptly responded to this notification, expressing and showing their desire to see that the laws were observed, the Mayor taking immediate steps to force the Chief of Police to rescind the obnoxious order itself. About the same time the grand jury found an indictment against the Chief of Police for having issued it.
“Alone, among the other city officials charged with the solemn duty of enforcing the laws, the District Attorney on whom rested the heaviest responsibility in the enforcement of the law, gave by public utterance, aid and comfort to the Chief of Police. There is a fat conflict of veracity between the District Attorney and his accusers on the point. In the newspapers of the day following, those containing the publications of the Chief of Police's order, there appeared interviews with the District Attorney in which he attacked the grand jury and justified the action of the Chief of Police. To give out such interviews was, of course, to give active encouragement to every element in the community which was enlisted upon the side of fraud or violence. The District Attorney denies that he gave them out. Two witnesses have testified that he independently gave them interviews which were substantially the same, and in one case the testimony is explicit that he was informed the interview was for publication. These interviews, and others like them, appeared conspicuously in the various morning papers, and were never repudiated then or afterwards by the District Attorney. He never acknowledged in any way the receipt of the notification by the Chief Executive, which, if anything, had been needed, would certainly have called his attention to the gravity of the situation and have aroused his vigilance as to anything he might say or had said. Under the circumstances it is impossible to believe that he did not give any such interview, or that he was ignorant of its publication. It is equally incredible that he could have been ignorant of the effect that might be produced by such public statements from that County official, whose special duty it should have been to see to the observance of the law in the County. Had the other officials concerned assumed or preserved a similar attitude, the very gravest consequences might have ensued, and the District Attorney can not be allowed to profit by the fact that the action of others prevented the evil consequences of his own acts.
“As to the charges that the District Attorney failed in his duty in assisting the officials of the Attorney General's office who were concerned in preventing violations of the election laws, it appears that there was such failure in at any rate certain cases prior to the election. This does not appear to have been the case after the election.
"It is impossible again to accept the plea that acts like these are to be excused on the ground that they spring from folly, rather than from intent to do wrong.
"Under these circumstances, the District Attorney of the County of New York is removed from office.
“THEODORE ROOSEVELT.” Rarely in History has a greater service been performed than that of the Governor of New York, November 5, 1900, in the crushing out of disorder that had countenance and orders from the police. If that had been the only act of Theodore Roosevelt's life, he would have been remembered for it, and honored forever. The best of it was, the iron hand meant and made peace. The decisive act was directly in the interest of the free people of a continent governing themselves,
THE SPECIAL TRAIN IN POLITICS.
It Is an Agency That Serves to Make the People a Harmonious Nation-It Binds the
Union to Make the Nation a Neighborhood of States—Roosevelt's Campaigning in New York and the West-Bryan's Competition-Roosevelt Fights to the Finish List of His Literary Work3.
THEN Charles Dickens was in this country, on his second visit, he was
asked at the Delmonico Dinner given him by journalists, whether he
would be able to go West again. His answer, “No, your country is too big for me." He got to Buffalo and the Niagara Falls, and thought he had done bravely. If he could have been provided with a well equipped special train, or even the hospitality of a special car, he might have been wafted to California, and ascertained the sensations of crossing the continent are those of living in a well appointed hotel on wheels, and found the traveler rests more softly on rails and wheels of steel than would be possible with metal of less tensile strength. One needs steel to rest "flowery beds of ease" upon.
It is the bigness of our country that introduces the Special Train, into the politics of the Nation. Once Europeans boasted that they put the weight of iron of railroads, rather in the roadbed than the carriages, and contrasted themselves to our disadvantage, saying we had comparatively light roads and ponderous trains. Those who remember the light carriages that cross the European disunited countries, will say that comfort is not promoted by cars that shiver at high speed, and cause the feeling as if possibly the ride was in a flying machine with an eccentric oscillation that permits no rest. We use an enormous quantity of steel in rails, and do not seek to reduce the weight of trains. The quantity of steel in bridges gives the sense and the reality of safety, and the heavy cars have a steady bearing on the rails with the wheels. The contact of steel surfaces gives a silky smoothness. Our comforts on long journeys are remarkable, and the excellence of the trains quite keeps pace with the solidity of the roads, making trans-continental rides agreeable diversions.
Mr. William J. Bryan's energies as a traveler and speaker were in both his Presidential campaigns prodigious, and his invention of a special train