Immagini della pagina
PDF
ePub

THE PROPOSED NEW YORK POST-OFFICE.

We do not know, either that there is any hope of any thing being done at this late day to prevent the adoption of the Design for the New York Post-Office which has been accepted by the committee; or, that, if it be determined, in defiance of art, common sense, and economy, to adopt that design, any influence from any quarter can prevent its erection on the site selected, at the lower end of City Hall Park; but to do all that lies in his power to prevent either of these misfortunes, is the duty of every man who believes they would be misfortunes, and accordingly we offer the following considerations to the public.

A careful reading of Mr. A. B. Mullett's two papers: his first Report to the Government on the Plan presented by the New York Post-Office Commissioners; and his subsequent Defense of that Report in answer to the Architects of the Plan, who had had the indiscretion to attempt a Reply to that exhaustive and able paper, must convince any fair-minded person that the Design cannot be carried out without squandering the public money on a building every way unsuited to the purpose for which it is intended. All that was said and written before the Design had been sent in, and of course, therefore, before its character could be known, as to the moral certainty, reasoning a priori, that a design so prepared, made up by seven architects out of their seven separate designs sent in in competition, could not be worthy of acceptance, all this has been more than justified by the result; as is sufficiently proved, even to the non-professional mind, by Mr. Supervising Architect Mullett's searching examination.

Much more than this has been proved by that gentleman's Report and by his subsequent Defence, although it may well be that he had no such object in view. For it is now made clear to every one who has the power to form an independent judgment, that the authors of this Design have shown an amount of ignorance not only of the theory, but of the practice, of their noble profession, that, in any one of the older countries, where a healthy competition has greatly raised, and

steadily maintains, the standard of excellence, would make it impossible for them to even dream of obtaining an important Govern ment commission. And if these words seem harsh, and difficult to justify, the reader has only to read Mr. Mullett's Report, where he will find abundant evidence that we speak within bounds, and hold no intemperate opinion.

Mr. Mullett says little, and perhaps little need be said, as to the exterior of the proposed building-what may properly be called the Design. If the building is to be erected at all, the exterior must probably be accepted as it is, although, if any body chose to go over it, point by point, it could easily be shown to be as bad in design as Mr. Mullett has proved it to be in construction and in plan. It may suffice to say that its design belongs to the worst phase of the worst school of architecture that has ever existed— the late French Renaissance; that, both in its mass, and in its details, it is equally repugnant to a pure taste; and that, if by any misfortune it should be erected, it will bring an additional discredit upon our ill-fated city, already most unfortunate in its public architecture. No man of education, no man whose judgment in this matter is entitled to any respect whatever, whether in the profes sion or out of the profession, has ventured to say, or will venture to say, that he considers this Design beautiful; that he would be glad to see it carried out; or, that he thinks it would be a credit to the city of New York, or to the General Government. But this point need not be enlarged upon, for, if the Design shall be rejected, as it probably will be, on the scores of bad construction, inconvenient planning, and extravagant cost, the vulgar and ugly exterior must share the fate of the interior.

After it has once been decided that this Design cannot be accepted, the question will again be in order, whether, after all, the PostOffice should be erected on the site already chosen. This is a question of grave interest to the citizens of New York, and yet it has been decided in the most off-hand and careless fashion, as if it were of no interest or

importance whatever. On neither of these subjects the selection of the site, and the acceptance of the plan-has the public ever been allowed an opportunity to express its approbation or its disapprobation of the decisions arrived at by the committees. The whole business has been a piece of jobbery, from beginning to end. The arguments, too, in favor of the site, instead of being of that large and public-spirited nature that might have been expected, have been drawn from the supposed interests of a small portion of the public,-of business men in the lower part of the city, and of two or three of the daily newspapers. All these arguments, however, seem reducible to two: 1st, that the site chosen is a central one, easy of access to the majority of business men, near to the principal newspaper-offices, and surrounded by wide streets; 2d, that it is the only piece of ground, in that neighborhood, that is in the market, or that can be bought by the Government at a reasonable price. It is also urged, in addition, that the Government has already bought it and paid for it.

As for the first of these arguments, it ought to be a sufficient answer, that, so long as the Post-Office is not inaccessible, it cannot long make any matter whether it is especially convenient of access or not. Postmaster Kelly is trying to bring about, what ought long ago to have been established, such a system of collection and delivery of mail-matter as will make it as unnecessary for any body to go to the Post-Office in New York for his letters and newspapers, as it is, to-day, in London or Paris. In fact, he means to break up the system of box-delivery altogether has already begun to break it up. When he has fully perfected his arrangements, what will prove to have been the benefit of closing up the one remaining open spot in the lower city? What shall we have gained that will be worth that sacrifice?

The five principal daily newspapers in New York City are unequally divided in opinion on this subject, though their interests would appear to be identical, since with one exception-the Evening Post-they are all situated in the same quarter. The Evening Post, the Herald, and the World are strongly opposed to the erection of the Post-Office in the City Hall Park. On the other hand, the Tribune and the Times are in favor of it. It is unfortunate that the attitude of the Herald and the World to the Government, or rather to the Republican party, is such as, to those influenced by party feelings, to make

their arguments of no weight. Nevertheless, the arguments of the World, at least, have never been answered. They cannot be answered, and no one has ever seriously attempted to answer them. This newspaper has done more than any other journal in New York to convince the public that the site has been unwisely selected, and that the Design is unworthy of adoption; and it is greatly to be regretted that its advice cannot get a hearing, or be rated at its worth, because its politics are not those of the dominant-and long may it be the dominant-party. The Evening Post has also done yeoman's service for the right in this matter, having freely opened its columns to the discussion, and having printed every thing bearing upon the subject from official sources, including Mr. Mullett's two unanswerable papers, for which the Tribune could find no room. It may be that the Herald's opinion has been influenced by a desire to prevent the erection of a building that would not only cut off the view of its own new and costly structure, but would also dwarf it and drown it, by its superior size and greater amount of vulgar finery. But, we have no right to suspect motives, and the arguments of the Herald have been too sound and reasonable to be answered by mere aspersions of character.

The course of the Times and the Tribune is greatly to be regretted. The course of the latter is simply inexplicable. After a series of articles arguing against the Design itself, and against the choice of site, saying, among other things, that the building is not only ugly, but that it has chosen the most conspicuous place in the city to air its ugliness in, and that, situated at the end of the Park, it would be like a boil on the end of a man's nose, it suddenly chopped about, almost the next day, and argued in favor of the site, and has been pursuing the same course ever since. Yet, all its arguments are reducible to the one plea of centrality, which, as has been already shown, will be rendered of no importance or cogency when Mr. Kelly's new system of letter-delivery shall have been perfected..

So much for the argument of convenience and its advocates. It is not likely that any one considers the other argument of any great weight. The Government can, of course, buy land or take it, wherever it chooses. No doubt it might buy the remainder of the land on Chambers street, not occupied by Stewart's wholesale store-an excellent situation, bounded by three streets; and there are plenty

of places as good. But it is of little use to go into this portion of the subject. It remains, that any land the Government really needs, it can easily procure on reasonable terms, and land, too, with a defensible title, which is more than can be said of the site at present fixed upon.

As for the arguments against the site selected by the Commission, it would be long to examine them in full. They are arguments drawn, 1st. From its inconvenience of access-a very strong argument if the present system of mail-delivery were to be adhered to, but, of course, of little value in case it is changed. 2d. From its want of availability, from the point of view of Art: it is a site where no building of consequence ought to be placed, since it cannot be seen to any advantage; and it will completely hide the City Hall, itself an excellent piece of architecture and extremely well placed. 3d. From the impossibility of the future extension of any building that may be erected on this triangular plot. Mr. Mullett shows that the present Design calls for every foot of the land! 4th. From its entire unsuitableness to at least one of the purposes of the proposed building: it is to be remembered that the Courts of Justice are to be under

the same roof with the Post-Office, and that the freedom from noise desirable in a building devoted to courts of law can never be ob tained in a structure situated as this is proposed to be. The argument of "inconvenience," though of little weight when the PostOffice is concerned, becomes of great importance in relation to the Courts of Law. The building cannot be reached without crossing two broad, and at all times crowded, streets. 5th. And lastly, there is the argument drawn from health. This building will rob the lower city of another of its lungs; the City Hall Park will follow the fate of St. John's Square, and the only bit of open space that is left in this wilderness of bricks-andmortar will be closed upon rich and poor alike.

These arguments have been many times presented, nor are they all that might be brought forward. But they have never been answered; nor would it be easy to answer them. And we venture to hope that something may yet be done to prevent the consummation of a scheme that will be alike injurious to the reputation of the city of New York on the score of good taste, and a serious, blunder in relation to the public convenience and utility.

THE SITUATION AND THE CANDIDATES.

POLITICAL PARTIES, in the zeal of heated contests, greatly exaggerate the consequences for good or evil which are to result from their success or failure, unless it be on the eve of those transition periods, when circumstances too slight in themselves to be the causes of important events, prove to be the occasion, in conjunction with far deeper causes, of great revolutionary upheavals and intense and momentous chapters of history. On such great occasions the imagination of partisan oracles, lacking the sure inspiration of a statesman-like and prophetic insight into the secret springs of the social mechanism, falls as far short of the truth as its predic. tions had on previous and petty occasions overrun it. We are entering upon a campaign in which Republicans charge that a Democratic victory means revolution, while the Democratic platform responds by declarIng that upon the election of Gen. Grant the American people will meet as a ɛubject and

conquered people "amid the ruins of liberty and the shattered fragments of the Constitu tion."

Is there any thing in the platforms of the respective parties which justifies either in indulging in such strenuous and violent expectations? The provisions of the two platforms on minor points are nearly identical. Both promise protection to naturalized citizens, economic administration, and gratitude to the army and navy of the Union. The Democratic platform recognizes the two ancient grounds of conflict, secession and slav. ery, as ended by the war-terms that frankly imply a surrender of once cherished principles by that party, which they could not be expected to express more plainly. It also recommends the payment of the national bonds according to the letter of the bonds themselves and of the laws authorizing them, while the Republican platform goes farther, and advocates their payment according to their letter and

spirit. Of the prominent Republican statesmen we find Senators Sherman, Henderson, Morton, and we believe Howe, and RepreBentatives Stevens, Butler, and others, in favor of paying the bonds according to the Democratic platform, in "lawful money," while Gov. Seymour and a respectable section of the Democratic party seem to advocate making the greenbacks as good as gold; in which event the question in which manner. payment is to be made wholly disappears. As a singular and unlooked-for concession in favor of what has been regarded as a Republican principle, the Democratic platform recommends such an adjustment of the tariff to the internal revenue as shall incidentally protect our American manufactures. True, the clause is equivocally drawn, but this is its only unequivocal rendition. The Republican platform is silent on the question, but three fourths of Republican politicians would endorse this feature of the Democratic platform. Upon the question of taxing the bonds, the Republican resolution for "equal taxation," if interpreted by the votes of a majority of the Republicans in Congress on the Bill passed by the House to tax the interest on the National bonds, differs not materially from the Democratic platform. The most important difference, and that which calls forth the adverse predictions above referred to, lies in the attitude of the two platforms toward the Reconstruction policy of Congress. The Republican platform endorses it, and pledges to carry it out. The Democratic platform denounces it as unconstitutional, but leaves open and undecided the course they should pursue in the event of their success.

In Reconstruction, therefore, lies the gist of the political issue. To this both parties refer when they charge-the one, that a Democratic victory means revolution, and the other, that a Republican triumph would result in the unconstitutional subjugation of the Southern States to the colored race. Underlying this question of reconstruction is that question of sovereignty of race, which may be pregnant with dangers and convulsions no less fearful than those which have arisen out of the slavery question. judices and falsehoods have as often given rise to wars as principles or truths, it does not dispose of the negro-question to argue, or even prove, that repugnance to the colored race is a groundless prejudice or the result of miseducation. It is undeniable that this prejudice exists, in so far that, if it were to be submitted to the vote of the white people

As pre

of the United States, whether, in all our Go vernments, from that of the Nation, through the State, County, and City, down to the School District, blacks should be admitted to equal participation with whites in the right to vote and hold office, the majority would be heavy against it in all the States south and west of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. There are a few who would go all lengths for universal negro suffrage as an abstract principle, independent of political necessity; but they are not a twentieth of the number of those who assent to negro suffrage as the only tangible means of securing the supremacy of loyal men at the South. The last is the only ground on which Congress could hope to carry the Northern States in favor of negro suffrage as a means of reconstruction, and even on this issue the Republican party did not feel in condition to disdain the aid which their principles would receive at the polls from the powerful name of Gen. Grant. Several contingencies may reveal the weakness which honeycombs the Republican party on the abstract question of universal suffrage. If it should appear that colored votes will not secure the ascendency of loyal men at the South, the broken reed would be discarded. If it should result in a clannish preference for blacks for office, it will fall into increased disfavor. Many Republicans blush to-day at the prospect that black men, of whatever talents or abilities, may sit in the United States Senate and House, or act as Governors of States. If the abilities and character should be wanting, the disgraceful conduct which might be overlooked in a white Senator or Governor, would kindle fiery indignation against a suffrage system which permitted the disgrace to come from an African. On the other hand, every day lessens the feeling of partisan hostility toward the rebels. Popular sentiment runs a race with the President and Congress in granting universal amnesty, and removing political disabilities. The importance of confining office and power to those who were loyal during the war disappears with the growth of the conviction that all are loyal

now.

In this unsettled state of public opinion, reconstruction on the basis of universal suffrage is neither assured by the election of Grant, nor overthrown by the election of. Seymour, but depends largely on other contingencies. The moral effect of the election of Seymour would be immense through its influence upon the Supreme

Court, on Congress, and on the Southern people. It would be the apparent vox populi against the reconstruction policy of Congress. The two Houses would still remain Republican, and their complexion could not be changed for two years, perhaps not for four, unless some of the present members should change their views. While the direct exercise of the presidential powers alone could not without revolution overturn the reconstruction policy of Congress, these powers aided by others, might. The Supreme Court has at no time been trustworthy for more than three votes out of eight in favor of the reconstruction policy, and since the separation of Chief-Justice Chase from the Republican party, and his strong enunciation of the States' rights theory of reconstruction, it would be reasonable to expect that the Supreme Court would, especially in the event of Seymour's election, decide the Reconstruction Acts unconstitutional.

The

The negro suffrage element in reconstruction is also exposed to danger from other causes. The platform of the Republican party agrees with that of the Democratic in declaring that the control of the suffrage question belongs to the States alone. same doctrine is made part of the Constitution by the XIVth Amendment, under which the reconstructed States are admitted. This provides that wherever the majority of the people of a State disfranchise the minority on account of race or color, the representation of the State in Congress and in the Electoral College shall be reduced in the proportion that the number excluded from the suffrage bears to the whole number of adult male citizens. The right of the majority of the people of any State to disfranchise the minority being thus made part of the Constitution of the United States, all Acts of Congress, or Constitutions or Acts of any State, inconsistent therewith, are void. The Acts to prevent the disfranchisement of the blacks by excluding whites from voting unless they accept the political equality of all men, are probably consistent with the XIVth Amendment, and would not be annulled by it. Not so, however, the Acts of Congress providing, as the condition of the return of those States to the Union, that the readmitted State shall not disfranchise any of its citizens on account of race or color. This would be clearly void. The whites, by voting solid, have a sufficient majority to disfranchise the blacks in all the States except South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana,

and even in Mississippi they have recently procured a sufficient number of the blacks to vote with them to defeat the very Constitution which was to have secured equal political rights to all. Whichever of the two candidates may be elected, therefore, it is plain that reconstruction, on the basis of universal suffrage, will still have to contend against the repugnance to negro equality at the North in both parties; a probable adverse decision of the Supreme Court; and, possibly, the votes of the white majority of the people of the Southern States, changing or amending their constitutions.

It will be aided, indeed, by the powerful arguments that the colored race are now in possession of the ballot; that they have thus far used it on the whole wisely, prudently, and with a peaceful tendency; that prior to its conferment upon them every tendency of the white voting class at the South was toward oppression, black codes, slavery, the restoration of rebels to power and disunion, and that the continuance of political rights in the black race is essential to their protection, promotive of their industry, conducive to the peace of Southern society, and indeed, essential to the welfare of the country and the maintenance of the Union. But all these arguments, though satisfactory to the nation at large, like the arguments against slavery, will utterly fail if the question be left to the Southern States. If all these reasons for colored suffrage be true, the Republican party will have fallen almost as far short of securing these ends in leaving the question to the Southern States, as the Democratic party in denouncing universal suffrage as unconstitutional.

Looking at the personal characters of the two candidates, we must conclude that revolution under the administration of either would be alike impossible. Gov. Seymour, while radically hostile to any introduction of the colored race into citizenship, is by personal constitution and judgment cautious to the verge of timidity, and legal to the extreme of technicality, in the modes by which he would attain these results. While he has none of the executive or military vigor which might be relied on to suppress a rebellion, he has still less of the misguided energy which would inaugurate one. With the twothirds vote of both Houses of Congress threatening him with impeachment and removal at the first revolutionary act, he would be powerless to effect a revolution if he had the folly to attempt it.

« IndietroContinua »