does not apply to agricultural communities, but it is true of the Irish in cities and towns. This is the testimony not only of my own personal experience and observation, but of all whom I have consulted upon the subject. It is the testimony of Irishmen themselves. One of the foremost of that race in this country, a man whose name would command the respect of all of our citizens, says, in a letter which lies before me: "Life in cities demoralizes to a noticeable degree the descendants of Irishmen. They are not as good as their immigrant fathers; that is, a large proportion of those descendants. They are disinclined to work, seek easy jobs, rush into politics for the excitement which politics afford. In country places, descendants of Irishmen are an improvement upon the old stock almost in all cases."

The Irish-American finds himself better schooled and better dressed than his father, and with a brogue so much modified as to be barely perceptible. These differences, or superiorities as he conceives them to be, create in him a most unwholesome contempt for the traditions and simple virtues of his father's people. That feeling of racial inferiority which, as I have said, the Irish brought with them, or partly, perhaps, acquired here, is strong in the Irish-American, and he becomes Americanized almost too quick ly. He imbibes with avidity the theory of equality, and with true Celtic ardor pushes it to excess. There are, of course, many Irish-Americans who, as the authority whom I have just quoted says, "add to the virtues of the old stock the activity and intelligence of the American." On the other hand, there are many Irish-Americans, young men growing up in our cities, who are too vain or too lazy to work, self-indulgent, impudent, and dissipated.

We can hardly blame the Irish for this degeneracy, when we consider how quickly and completely their habits and ideas were revolutionized by the change

of residence from Ireland to America. In Ireland they were chiefly an agricultural people, living in cottages more or less isolated, each family having a home to itself. In this country they live chiefly in cities and in tenement houses, and often under such circumstances that real

home life is impossible. An accomplished Irishman, Mr. Philip Bagenal, gives the following description of how his countrymen, or many of them, live in the city of New York:

"Crowded into one small room a whole family lives, a unit among a dozen other such families. . . . There is a high rent to be paid, but no one dares in New York to say with Michael Davitt that such a rent is an immoral tax.' The street below is dirty and ill kept. In the basement is a beer saloon, where crime and want jostle each other, and curses fill the air. On the other side is an Italian tenement reeking with dirt and rags. Close by is a Chinese quarter or a Polish Jew colony. Everywhere the moral atmosphere is one of degradation and human demoralization. Gross sensuality prevails; the sense of shame, if ever known, is early stifled." Could we expect the simple virtues of an agricultural people to survive such an environment as this?

But perhaps the theory of equality, as the Irish commonly misunderstand it, has worked more havoc with Irish manners and morals than any other new circumstance of their life in America. At home, they lived under a political and social system intensely aristocratic. The Irish peasantry have been regarded, and therefore have regarded themselves, as a class so inferior as to deserve little consideration from their superiors. A striking illustration of this is cited by Mr. Lecky from the notes of a traveler in Ireland:

"In the month of June, 1809, at the races of Carlow, I saw a poor man's cheek laid open by the stroke of a whip. The inhuman wretch who inflicted the wound was a gentleman of some rank in

From a subjection somewhat like this, though less harsh, the Irishman passes, in no longer time than it takes a modern steamship to cross the Atlantic, to a political condition where no classes are recognized by law, and where one man is considered to be " as good as another." The principle that all men are equal commonly means, as the Irish immigrant, or, more truly, as his son understands it, that there is no superiority of one man to another except the superiority of wealth, and perhaps of that kind of intelligence which enables people to acquire wealth. Now, when a man thinks, or believes that he thinks, or even when he makes a pretense of thinking, that, other things being equal, an untrained, unrefined, uneducated person is as "good as" or "equal to " a trained, refined, and educated person, he has taken the first step in a downward course. He has let go of the truth, and has begun to build on a foundation of falsehood. We often see in native Americans the same degeneracy, the same half-conscious acceptance of a false theory, the same fallingoff in manners and morals, when they pass from an agricultural community to a great city.

But what makes the matter worse in the case of the Irish is this: the Irishman is essentially a loyal person, and many generations of subordination have made it natural for him to look up to others. He has need of and an instinctive liking for some one to follow, to obey, to imitate. Can we blame him,

1 England in the Eighteenth Century, vol. ii.

p. 318.

then, if, from the want of worthy leadership, he falls away? He would scarcely look for such leadership among native Americans, for they are alien to him in race and religion. And if he did look for it among them, he would not easily find it. Our aristocracy, so far as we have one, is mainly a vulgar and selfish plutocracy. Among his own race there are individuals, but there is no whole class fit to serve as leaders in morals or in manners; and for want of anything better, he is compelled to fall back upon Irish politicians, orators, and saloonkeepers.

This noble virtue, loyalty, is, in these days, hardly considered a virtue. To esteem a man so much above one's self as to be loyal to him and to show him respect is thought by many persons to be anti-democratic. I was in a room the other day, when there entered a man distinguished in political life, a former Senator of the United States. Nobody was at pains to hand him a chair except one old gentleman, whose notions of respect were derived from a former generation. The Irish, and the Irish-Americans too, are loyal. They have the true spirit of devotion to a leader, to a hero, to a cause. After all, this is not only a virtue, but a fruitful one; and it may be doubted if, in the long run, even a republic can safely dispense with it. The loyalty of the Irish to the Democratic party, though fraught with some evils, is a rare example of constancy. It is like the devotion of a lover to a mistress not always deserving of devotion. The origin of this political attachment is so familiar that it need only be glanced at here. In 1792, the period of residence in this country fixed by law as a condition of naturalization was extended by the Federalists, who were then in power, from two years to five years. In 1798, it was again extended from five years to fourteen years. In the same year, the Federalists passed the famous, or infamous, Alien Act, which

empowered the President, of his own motion and without trial or process of law, to order any and every alien in the country to leave it forthwith, under penalty of imprisonment. The act expired by limitation in 1801. Mr. Adams never made use of it, and the only consequence of it was to hasten the downfall of the Federal party. This unwise and illiberal legislation had the effect of driving every Irishman in the country into the Republican party, as it was then called, and its successor the present Democratic party.

By many people the adhesion of the Irish to the Democratic party is considered to be a vicious thing. There are certain newspapers and reformers who appear to think that the rank and file of Tammany Hall, for example, are actuated by purely selfish motives. But the rank and file have nothing to gain in politics. Tammany draws upon a deep reservoir of loyalty; it has a following composed mostly of good, true men, worthy of better leadership. The Irish vote is not a mercenary vote. It is a significant fact that the Republican party, with all its wealth and with all the unscrupulousness which characterizes political parties in general, has never been able to break the solid column of the Irish Democrats. It is true, no doubt, that in some cases Irish political leaders have "traded" the votes which they controlled, or perhaps even sold them for money; but in these transactions the voters were innocent dupes. There are districts in which, among a large class, a man's vote is a recognized, merchantable commodity. In Rhode Island, for instance, the extent of this vote has been calculated with some nicety; but it has never been charged, in Rhode Island or elsewhere, except in rare cases, that Irishmen sell their votes. But when an Irishman goes into politics, as the phrase is, he leaves honesty behind him.

1

The political activity of the Irish in 1 See The Century, vol. xliv. p. 940.

this country has been notoriously great, and on the whole it has been pernicious. Ireland has furnished us with a few commanding figures in political life. The fathers of two Presidents of the United States emigrated from one and the same small town in the north of Ireland; but for the most part the Irish have contributed an insignificant number to the higher offices, state or national. They have, however, figured very largely as councilmen and aldermen in the chief cities, and also as legislators in several States, notably in New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. In these positions, it must be confessed, they have been distinguished more by corruption and intrigue than by any better qualities. The part which Irishmen have played in the city government of New York and in the New York Assembly is too familiar to require comment here. Not long ago an Irish member of the Massachusetts legislature remarked that he was a laughing-stock to his Irish associates because he refused to take money from persons interested in matters of legislation before the House. And yet it would be easy to exaggerate the relative depravity of the Irish in this respect. The power of Tammany in New York would probably have been broken long since had it not been for native American, and, during the latest campaign, German-American support. If we say that the course which the Irish have taken in politics has been more uniformly and consistently bad than that pursued by native Americans, we shall probably state the truth. Among Irish politicians there is an almost entire absence of that reform element which has always to be reckoned with in the case of native Americans. Even Irishmen who are honest in business will often adopt a different standard in politics.

This laxity can be attributed mainly, I think, to the fact that for centuries the Irish in Ireland have been educated to a false conception of government. The government has commonly stood to them

in the place of an oppressor, or at best as something out of which as much as possible should be got, and to which nothing was due. The Irish have not yet realized the American idea, that the people are themselves the government, and that he who holds office is administering a trust for the whole people, of whom he himself is a part. In a measure, also, the unscrupulousness of the Irish in politics arises from the Celtic ardor and partisanship with which they pursue their objects. The end in view seems to them so necessary as to justify almost any means of accomplishing it. Political dishonesty is hardly more of a crime to an Irishman than smuggling is to a woman. In time, however, we may expect that the Irish will acquire clearer views upon this subject.

Another political evil arising from the presence of the Irish in this country is that they help to disturb our relations with England. Many things have been said and done by politicians merely to catch the "Irish vote," and a consciousness of Irish opinion tends to make it hard for Americans to preserve an impartial attitude toward Great Britain. It is difficult to be impartial and spontaneous toward a third person whom the neighbor at your elbow is continually abusing. In such a case one's agreement or disagreement with the neighbor is apt to assume too violent a form. But this influence is not so strong as it was, and the power of the Irish as a political entity in the United States has declined. During the civil war the hopes of the Irish ran high. They thought that their hour had come when the Mason and Slidell affair nearly precipitated a war with England; and although this incident ended peacefully, the expectations which it aroused among the Irish were revived by the Alabama claims. But still there was no war; and, finally, the quick collapse of the Fenian attack upon Canada convinced the Irish that America would never give them any material

assistance in a struggle of their own making against England. Moreover, the Fenian fiasco made it clear to native Americans as well as to Irish-Americans that the power of the Irish to involve the United States in trouble with England had been exaggerated. Since then fear of the Irish vote has decreased.

It is individuals rather than parties who seek to curry favor with the Irish by taking an anti-English position. Thus it was said, whether truly or falsely, of a former mayor of Boston that he once rushed out of town to avoid receiving a British admiral who threatened to make an official call upon him. There was at least nothing improbable in the story. Englishmen who visit this country assume too hastily that the "Irish vote " is the sole cause of American hostility to England. Even so intelligent a critic as Mr. Freeman declared: "The importance of that vote grows and grows; no party, no leading man, can afford to despise it. Parties and men are, therefore, drawn into courses which otherwise they would have no temptation to take, and those, for the most part, courses which are unfriendly to Great Britain." This, no doubt, is partly true; but the importance of the Irish vote becomes, as I have said, less, not greater; and, moreover, it is not the sole cause of American hostility to England. Among all our English critics, the only one, so far as I know, who has correctly stated the relation of Irish influence upon this point is Mr. J. C. Firth, who remarks in his book, Our Kin Across the Sea: "America as well as England . . . has its Irish difficulty. It owes it chiefly, I think, to the absence of good will towards England, which, for various reasons and for a long period, has been but too plainly marked in the United States to be denied."

This, it seems to me, is a true statement of the case. The Irish do not cause, though doubtless they increase and inflame American hostility to Great

Britain. It is impossible for the Irish to regard England fairly and dispassionately, because they have been conquered and cruelly misused by England. But we do not labor under this disadvantage; and there is no valid reason why we should either slavishly imitate or churlishly disparage the English. They are foreigners in the sense that we must maintain our rights and our political principles against them as against any other foreign nation. But they are of our own blood; and, as Commodore Tatnall said when, in the Pei-ho River, he sent a boatload of bluejackets to bring off a party of British in danger of capture by the Chinese,"blood is thicker than water." We cannot expect our Irish fellow-citizens to share this feeling with us, and that is their misfortune; but for a native American to be devoid of it is not only a misfortune, but a fault.1

It is impossible, in a brief examination like this, adequately to describe what the Irish have contributed to American life. I should like, for example, to dwell upon their services in the civil war, which, as the world knows, were many and great. I should like also to dwell upon the Irish priests in America. We hear little about them, but it may be doubted if there ever was a more zealous, faithful, and efficient clergy; and whenever the occasion has arisen, as when an epidemic of yellow fever raged some years ago in the South, they have shown the courage of soldiers as well as the fidelity of priests. We hear little about them; and so it may be

1 The existence of a widespread hostility to England in the United States is taken for granted by many writers. "All the world knows" is apt to be a statement which requires a definition of the world in which the speaker lives. If the testimony of many newspapers is to be taken, such hostility is general. I can only say that my world is not hostile to England, but, on the contrary, most friendly. - EDITOR.

2 Of all foreign nations, the Irish contributed the greatest number of soldiers who won dis

said of the social and moral forces which go to the building of national character, We they are not always apparent. may be sure that the fine qualities of the Irish peasantry will not be lost in that American type which we hope to see produced, when the present ferment of society has had time to subside. If we wanted an example of generosity, where should we look for it if not among the Irish in America! Day laborers and servant girls have given millions of dollars to help their relatives and friends in the old country; and in addition to this enormous drain, the Irish, out of their poverty, have built churches, cathedrals, schools, and convents. If illustrations were sought of the essential qualities of womanhood, - gentleness, self-devotion, and chastity, the latest emigrant-ship from Ireland would supply them in abundance. When we want men with stout hearts and cheerful tempers, tempers which make light of danger and discomfort, we are apt to look for them among the Irish. It is a common complaint of people who would never face a fire or a mob that there are too many Irishmen in our fire and police depart

ments.

It was perhaps a special Providence which deposited the Irish in the Eastern rather than in the Western part of our country. The West, we may be sure, is sufficiently impetuous and unreflective and adventurous without having any additional impulse given to it in that direction. But in the East our tendency is different; we are in danger of becoming ultra-conservative. It has often

tinction in the civil war. See Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge's very interesting essay upon the distribution of ability in the United States, in his volume of Historical and Political Essays.

3 Dr. Tuke states that the amount sent back to Ireland by immigrants every year exceeds the total yearly cost of poor relief in Ireland.

4A church in the United States," writes Mr. Freeman, "which shows any near approach to the character of a great European church is pretty sure to be Roman Catholic."