Illinois Staats-Zeitung -- January 06, 1872[Political Matters]
The Chicago Tribune quotes, without giving its source, a press notice according to which Mr. E. Jussen owed his office as Federal Tax Collector to his brother-in-law Carl Schurz. To this the Tribune adds: "Our knowledge of the circumstances in which the appointment of Mr. Jussen took place enables us to declare the above imputation as explicitly false. Not only had Sen. Schurz no part in securing the office for Jussen, but Mr. Jussen himself had no part in it, as he was not a candidate, before the position was tendered to him. A similar exculpation of Mr. Schurz from various accusations we find in the Baltimore Weekly.....
Both these go a little too far. Last August a copy of a letter by Mr. Schurz to the President was put at our disposition, in which he recommends the appointment of Jussen most urgently, not, of course, on the grounds of his kinskip, but for what he knew about Jussen's political attitude and his ability. We put this document quietly into our editorial drawer where with many other papers it was burned. A new copy probably could be secured - but what for?2
It is correct in any case that Mr. Schurz did not take the initiative in regard to the appointment of his brother-in-law. A letter by Mr. Jussen (that was not burned) exists in which he very unequivocally admits that this initiative originated with the writer of these lines, the editor of the Ill. Staats Zeitung.
Mr. Jussen was on his way to Washington where he wanted to be a candidate for a consulate in Germany (Aachen, Aix-les-Bains), when he fell sick in New York. There he received a telegraphic inquiry, emanating from the editorial rooms of the Ill. Staats Zeitung, asking if he would permit his friends to nominate him for tax collector. The answer was,"Yes!" If the Tribune in respect to all this says that the office was tendered to Mr. Jussen it is correct. But if it wished to produce the impression that Mr. Jussen was not a candidate till the President "tendered" him the office (and only he can do that; party friends cannot tender the office itself, but only the candidature) it is wrong. Between that exchange of telegrams and the nomination of Jussen passed several weeks during which he was a candidate for the office.3
General Salomon then went to Washington in order to win the President for the nomination of Jussen. At that time Schurz wrote the above mentioned letter. That by doing so Schurz intruded into Chicago politics or that he committed a political faux pas we would not assert. As the situation then was the misinterpretation that Schurz was using his political influence for Jussen because he was his brother-in-law, was extremely improbable. Jussen's name had been proposed by Chicago friends of Mr. Schurz, why should'nt be added his recommendation? We hardly doubt that if not Jussen, but the present incumbent of the Tax Collectors office had been proposed, Schurz, if asked to do so, would have written for him an equally warm letter of recommendation.
No reproach can be castron Mr. Schurz for his quite secondary part in the nomination of his brother-in-law.
Perhaps the one comment could be made, that Schurz, according to the standard that he has defined himself, has become guilty of the same"lack of a finer point d'honneur" with which he reproaches the President. However, that would only be the case according to his standard, not ours.
III D, IV
Your search criteria returned no results.