The New York Times/1899/4/11/Mr. Schurz and Militarism (The Times)

MR. SCHURZ AND MILITARISM.

In a letter in another column Mr. explains that we have given an erroneous impression of his views on the possible evils of “militarism,” and cites passages from his Philadelphia address which would have prevented that impression. We did not intend to attribute to Mr. the apprehension of military usurpation, and we are glad to have any risk of such an inference removed by his letter.

We suppose that his present attitude of mind is fairly expressed in the following remarks which he reproduces from his address:

&ldquo;However, usurpation of so gross a character would now be rendered infinitely more difficult, not only by the republican spirit and habits of the people, but also by our federative organization dividing so large an expanse of country into a multitude of self-governing States. But even in such a country, and among such a people, it is possible to demoralize the Constitutional system and to infuse a dangerous element of arbitrary power into the Government without making it a monarchy in form or in name.&rdquo;

Mr. adds:  “And then I went on to show that recent events had stimulated among us a spirit of recklessness as to the disregard of the Constitutional limitations of Governmental power which may become very dangerous to our democratic institutions.”

It is substantially these apprehensions, which with Mr. are so acute and deep-seated, that we are unable to share. We do not ignore a certain tendency to disregard the Constitutional limitations of Governmental power, but we think that that tendency diminishes rather than increases. We think that the temptation for any man or body of men to seek power beyond Constitutional limits is less than it ever has been, and that the chances of success in any effort to do so are distinctly fewer and feebler than in any previous stage of our National existence. And we are persuaded that this is particularly true as to any abuse of Governmental power involving the employment of military force directly or indirectly.

It is, of course, a question of comparison, and the comparison is complex and somewhat obscure. But, going back to the beginning of the present century, if we set over against our present situation that which existed during the Administrations of President and President, with reference to the disregard of Constitutional limitations of Governmental power and the uses made of the power assumed &mdash; it would hardly be too strong a term to say usurped &mdash; and the relation is one of curious contrast. Take the history in these two Administrations, of the measures resorted to with regard to the Louisiana and Florida territory, both as to their acquisition and as to the government of them; take not only the action of Congress but the action of the two Presidents, and especially, without the authorization of Congress, far in excess of Executive functions and in conflict with fundamental conceptions of political rights, involving not merely provocation to war but actual war, surely there is nothing like it in our recent essay in “imperialism.” What is more significant, as it seems to us, is that there was not then any such popular judgment on these excesses, or even any serious attempt to awaken condemnation, as we might now expect.

This is but one instance of what we believe to be the basis afforded by history for apprehension or freedom from apprehension as to the dangers of abuse of Governmental power. A broader examination would, we think, confirm our inferences.


 * Facsimile at query.nytimes.com