Mr. Sanford to Mr. Seward.
No. 418.]
Legation of the United States,
Brussels, March 25, 1867.
Sir: M. Frère urban, the minister of finance,
in a speech upon electoral reform, the day before yesterday, in the
house of representatives, made such incorrect statements and mistaken
conclusions, based upon newspaper correspondence, and Messrs. de
Tocqueville’s and Macaulay’s theories respecting the condition and
results of extended electoral rights in the United States, that I felt
impelled not to accept his assumptions by silence, and, accordingly,
wrote him a letter in reply, which I have the honor to enclose herewith,
together with his speech as reported in the Moniteur.
It is curious to observe how the leaders of the “liberal’ party here,
which, after the revolution that separated Belgium from Holland, sought
to model their constitution upon ours, appear now to fear the influence
of our system here. I had occasion to notice, in discussions in the
house during the rebellion, the eager haste with which the supposed
failure of self-government was accepted and commented on by some of
them. Self preservation may have, as well as
[Page 628]
patriotism, its show in this feeling; for any
considerable extension of the electoral franchise would, especially if
greater facilities for voting were given those living outside of the
large towns, he likely to cost the party its hold on power. The number
of electors for the Belgian chambers is 107,000, which is in much less
ratio to the population than in England, (1 in 46 in the former, 1 in
20, I believe, in the latter.) The proprietorship of the principal
railroads and canals, the telegraph, &c, by the State, gives to the
government an unusual amount of patronage, and there are about 32,000
functionaries and employés, not counting soldiers, dependent upon it, or
equal to near one-third the number of electors.
The influence upon the elections, which can be exerted in this channel by
those in power, it can readily be imagined would be less potent in
proportion as the number was increased. Still this tendency is very
decidedly to an enlarged basis for the electoral franchise.
The discussions in the house which relate to the extension of suffrage in
the communal and provincial elections show that there are considerable
men of both parties who are disposed to join in this universal movement
for reform which is destined to give to the people of most European
States a larger place in their governments.
I have the honor to be, with great respect, your most obedient
servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.
March 29.
P, S.—On the point of mailing my despatch, I received the reply of M.
Frêre-Orban to my letter, which I have barely time to send you in
translation, and which I annex hereto. The speech of the minister,
enclosed, will show how far its tendency was to “mislead public
opinion,” and to what extent he assumed and applied as truth the
newspaper statements and theories referred to.
It is satisfactory to receive his disclaimer. I add my reply.
H. S. S.
Mr. Sanford to Mr. Orban.
Brussels, le
24 March,
1867.
Mon Cher Ministre: I have read in the Annales Parlementaires the report of your
speech of which I heard a part yesterday in the discussion upon the
electoral law in the house of representatives, and you must permit
me to take exception to the application by you to the United States
of abuses with respect to elections, which, on the authority of a
writer in a foreign newspaper, you ascribe to the city of New York.
To judge fairly and justly of our electoral system and its results,
an example taken from its workings in a State or section of the
country would have given a more correct idea than that of a city,
whose dense population is, in great part, foreign, and whose
administration is so notoriously bad that the people of the State,
through their legislature, are seeking to reform it. Why not take
the State of New York instead of the city as a test of the electoral
corruptions, which you assert are practiced on so large a scale in
the United States, or any other State or group of States ?
The result of such research would, I affirm, demonstrate that outside
of great cities the elections are conducted with a purity difficult
to parallel in any country of restricted suffrage. The candidate
base enough to offer to bribe the electors, is deterred by their
numbers as well as by the publicity which accompanies his acts, and
the public odium which would attach to him. So far from the stories
which you have repeated from the correspondent of the London Times
about the corruptions of elections being of truthful application to
the whole country, or costing the sums you name, I venture to assert
that nine out of ten of the members of the present Congress need, on
account of their moderate fortunes, for their support, the meagre
pay which is attached to their office. I go further, and I give you
my opinion, which is quite as good authority as the assertions of
the anonymous correspondent of a journal notoriously hostile to the
United States, that not one in ten, if any, of the members from the
rural districts has given a dollar in aid of his election, save as
subscription to the electoral committee
[Page 629]
of his district, or for the distribution of
documents, &c, for the enlightenment of the electors upon the
questions at issue. Money is given, to be sure, in aid of the
elections, but more by private citizens than candidates for office;
but it is given to their party organizations who provide orators,
suitable places of meeting for the discussions of the candidates,
and distribute documents which shall serve to inform the people upon
the political questions which enter into the canvass. When you
instance the election in the city of New York of Mr. Morrissey, who
was once a boxer, and the alleged enormous cost of his election, and
draw from that your conclusions, you might with as much and more
justice, recalling the fact that a notorious prize fighter was for
years a member of the British House of Commons, and the details of
the late inquests upon the electoral corruptions at Totsnes and
Yarmouth, instance those as the general results of restricted
suffrage in Great Britain.
When foreign writers, attached to old and fading systems, seek to
find faults, distort facts and predict or announce the failure of
that system whose progress alarms them, and whose inevitable triumph
in the world they seek to avert, I comprehend their fears, and do
not wonder at their vain efforts, but I do not comprehend that those
who seek to lead in Belgium should follow in their footsteps, and
mislead public opinion with regard to the results of self-government
in the United States. Why not look at results and draw your
conclusions from them? These results were shown strikingly during
the late war upon the slaveholders’ rebellion. To this participation
of the great mass of the people in public affairs, association I may
call it with the government, which is created by it, and which
excites such general and lively interest in the public weal, may be
ascribed in no small degree that magnificent uprising of the nation
in arms to support its government. We had less than 9,000 men in our
army, and but 800 soldiers on the Atlantic coast when the war
commenced. When it ended there were 1,060,000 veterans in arms, and
twice that number of loyal citizens had in the course of the war
volunteered their services.
I need not call to you how triumphantly the government elected by
this people, whose corruption, you so boldly assert, resisted a
strain upon it under which any other would probably have succumbed.
If electoral corruption were so prevalent it is to be supposed the
enemy would have taken advantage of it to paralyze the government
through the elections to Congress. You saw 10 per cent, of the
population volunteering in its armies; you saw how they clamored for
taxes to enable the government to carry on the war, and instructed
their representatives to vote for them; and you saw how, the war
over, that vast host resolved again into a peaceful army of
workingmen, and how vigorously the people’s representatives set
themselves to the work of paying off the debt created during the
war, (about 1,200,000,000 francs being extinguished the year after;)
and with these great facts before you, you seek in an exaggerated
story in the “Times” about elections in New York, for your
conclusions to the house of representatives of Belgium as to the
results of extended suffrage in the United States ! Where you may
have found in a local disturbance proofs of corruption and decay in
the body politic, another statesman might with more justice draw the
conclusion that it was owing to exuberant health! And when you quote
seriously the standing joke of a well-known wit of New York, “Vote
early, and vote often,” I agree with you that the example of the
United States is “bien mal appris, bien mal apprecie” by some
people.
If we are, as you affirm, on the “pente de la démocratie,” may it not
rather be ascribed to the success which has attended our system of
suffrage than to its failure? The jealousy of the masses which
distinguished our early legislation touching suffrage has given way
before the experience of these 80 years, and its limits have been
steadily enlarged. I admit that there may be danger in carrying it
to excess, but I insist that it proves that the result of extended
suffrage in the United States has been to impress the public mind
and our legislators with the fact that the people may be trusted.
With your opinion that the people of Belgium are not so to be
trusted I have nothing to do; but I insist that, in order to win
others over to that opinion, the condition of the people and
institutions of my country ought not to be misrepresented, as they
were, I am happy to believe, unintentionally in your speech of
yesterday.
Accept, my dear minister, the assurance of my most distinguished
consideration,
His Excellency M. Frêre Orban, Minister of Finance,
Mr. Orban to Mr. Sanford.
My Dear Minister: I received, the day
before yesterday, the letter which you did me the honor to write to
me, under date of the 24th instant, touching opinions which I
expressed in the discussion in the house of representatives relative
to electoral reform.
You suppose that from the facts of electoral corruption in New York,
I concluded that corruption of this kind was general in the United
States; and you are pleased to say that, “outside of the great
cities the elections are conducted with a purity difficult to
parallel in any
[Page 630]
country of
restricted suffrage.” There is evidently here a misunderstanding” on
your part, my dear minister. I did not, from particular and local
facts, draw the conclusion that the identical situation was the same
everywhere. I did not even go so far as you, in stating that
analogous facts to what passed at New York would be found in “other
great cities.” I limited myself to recalling facts which are not
disputed, in order to reply to an assertion frequently repeated
here, that in lowering, and, with greater reason, in suppressing the
rate, electoral corruption would disappear. One’s reason says that
it cannot be so; the experience of all people and of all countries
proves it. Canvassing illegitimate pressure, means of corruption are
inherent not to such or such electoral system, but to all.
Restricted suffrage is not more exempt from them than universal
suffrage, but the latter is not more immaculate than the others, and
too often it causes abuses to increase in ratio to the number of
those who are called upon to exercise it.
In Belgium, a country of restricted suffrage, corruption is reduced
to such feeble proportions that there is yet no law to express it.
Lately complaints have been made of the expenses which candidates
incur in giving dinners to the electors, under [plea] that these
dinners engender corruption. The house wished to proscribe these
expenses; the senate did not concur.
Stating such facts in America, as in England, or even in Belgium, is
neither speaking ill of their institutions nor giving a false idea
of them. On the other hand, declaring as I did that the regime in
vigor in the United States has been too short a time in action, and
in conditions too exceptional to permit a definitive judgment
respecting it; in recognizing, moreover, how much it had produced
that was great and glorious, I do not think to have authorized it to
be said with reason “that public opinion is misled with regard to
the results of self government in the United States.”
With regard to my appreciation as to the consequences which I believe
inevitable of every system which leads to pure democracy, you will
permit me to preserve my convictions. I believe them to be shared by
very distinguished men of the United States. There are many who
dread—you know it better than I—the results already very apparent in
the great cities of a very extended suffrage, and you admit yourself
that “there may be danger in pushing this system to excess.” But
whatever the opinion in this respect formed touching the destiny of
that great republic, there is no one who does not recognize the
marvels which have been brought forth by the genius of the American
people.
Accept, my dear minister, the assurance of my most distinguished
consideration.
H. S. Sanford, Esq., &c., &c., &c.
Mr. Sanford to Mr. Orban.
Brussels,
March 29, 1867.
My Dear Minister: I have to thank you for
your letter of yesterday; and I am gratified to learn that I was
mistaken in my impression respecting your speech on the 23d
instant.
I think, however, that when you assert that “electoral corruption is
practiced on the vastest scale in the United States,” and when you
assume as truth and quote the scandalous stories respecting the
elections in the city of New York, and apart from the deductions
which you draw from them as to the effects of general suffrage, you
distinctly indicate the exceptional condition of things in that city
according to foreign newspaper correspondents, as “the results in an
administrative point of view which universal suffrage gives already
at this moment in the United States,” it might be fairly assumed, I
think, that public opinion was being “misled” as to what was the
tendency and results of extended suffrage in the United States, as
well as the moral condition of its people in consequence.
I am glad to be corrected in the impression I had formed of the
character of your speech, and to be assured that you do not take the
frightful condition of things in New York, as depicted in the
newspaper stories referred to, as a type of the results of extended
suffrage with us, and I venture to express the hope that you will
publicly say so.
I have to ask you to excuse me for encroaching upon your valuable
time with this correspondence, but I was anxious to correct a wrong
impression, if it existed in your mind, and to set myself right with
respect to the impression which your speech had made upon me if I
was in the wrong.
I have again to thank you for your courteous response.
I pray you to believe me, my dear minister, with sentiments of great
esteem, your obedient servant,
His Excellency M. Frêre Orban, &c., &c., &c.
