THE POLITICAL ASSESSMENT OF OFFICE HOLDERS A REPORT ON THE SYSTEM AS PRACTISED BY THE REPUBLICAN ORGANIZATION IN THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA 1883-1913 ILLUSTRATED WITH REPRODUCTIONS OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS THIS PAMPHLET IS NOT PRINTED AT PUBLIC EXPENSE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROOM 216 CITY* HALL PHILADELPHIA 1913 Page from Log Book, Truck House No. 9 Located at 21st and Market Streets Showing schedule political assessments levied against firemen on Novem- ber 1, 1911, a few days before Mayor Blankenburg’s election. See Appendix A for translation of this public record. ^ 51 . tH ^ REPORT ON THE POLITICAL ASSESSMENT OF OFFICE- HOLDERS To the Honorable Rudolph Blankenburg, Mayor of Philadelphia. My dear Mr. Mayor, — In every large city in this country a political assessment of the office-holders has been one of the vicious features of machine control. It has been gener- ally recognized that in this respect Philadelphia has been no exception. The statements made from time to time in the newspapers and on the political platform, taken with the common talk of the street, have tended on the whole, I be- lieve, to suggest that perhaps the systematic assessment of office-holders in this City has been carried to a further extent by the dominant political machine than anywhere else in the world. So startling, however, has been the confirmation of this generally accepted belief that I feel it to be my duty to place upon the record at least a part of the information which has reached me entirely through official sources and supported and substantiated by what must be considered official papers. While the public has generally understood that campaigns have in very large measure been financed through the politi- cal assessment of office-holders, I feel sure that the amounts collected and the relentlessness with which practically every office-holder was made to “stand and deliver ” has not been generally appreciated. It is a fair statement that in no single year in the last ten years has the amount contributed directly by office-holders to the Republican campaign funds been less than a quarter of a million dollars, which amount was the sum raised in 1911, the year in which you were elected. Dur- ing the previous year, 1910, almost half a million was so collected, and even ten years ago, or in 1903, the figures approximated $350,000. I can hardly believe that the public 4 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, DIRECTOR'S OFFICE. contribution to republic a;. CITY CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE, Nam®. Anount , Peter E. Costello, *3 $5400.00 Wra. H. Baker, <3 120.00 Willis Ghable , $ 22.60 Lewis R* Snow, 0 22.50 Rob’t. C. Kick®* 0 13.00 Ernest T. HaneCeld 0 15.00 .Andrew L. Tearcer, o 15.00 Harry A. Stoy, <3 9.00 Roscoe C. Lockwcod, O 9.00 J. J. Johnston, a 7.00 $638.00 / \ £ to /o o Photographic Reproduction of Director’s Office Schedule The long hand entries were made by the Director’s private secretary. The only employee whose name does not appear is the janitress. and the office-holders will fail to be shocked to have proven that in the last ten years over $3,000,000 have been taken out of the pockets of the office-holders and used ostensibly for keeping these office-holders in office, but actually for the political enslavement of all the people. Owing to the fact that up to and including 1910 there were two elections a year, while in 1911 there was only one, a con- siderable reduction in the amounts previously assessed was made in the year during which you came into office. If the rates which had prevailed in 1910 had been used in 1911, 1912, and 1913 the total amount raised in each year would 5 have been $500,000 and over. May I remind you that this venal system is still in full force and effect among a very large number of the employees whose salaries and wages are paid by the tax-payers of the City? That part which would have been contributed by employees under your direction, of course, has been saved to them since you have been Mayor. All our information, however, goes to show that the rates of assess- ment for the employees in the County offices and City offices not controlled by you and the City Solicitor have been raised so as, in a measure, to make up the difference. A clearer idea of how these contributions total year by year can be had from the following table, on which the amounts contributed in 1912 and 1913, estimated on the basis of the increase in the pay-roll, are printed in bold-face type: Estimate of Assessments Paid During Period 1903-1913 Department of Public Works All City and County Departments 1903 $53,697.75 $349,035.38 1904 60,957.61 367,650.60 1905 68,217.48 386,265.82 1906 75,477.35 404,881.04 1907 82,737.21 423,496.26 1908 89,997.08 442,111.48 1909 97,256.94 460,726.70 1910 104,516.80 479,341.92 1911 55,888.34 248,978.57 (One election) 1912 *59,518.27 258 , 286.18 “ 1913 *63,148.20 267 , 593.79 “ “ $688,746.56 $ 4 , 088 , 367.74 Grand total for ten yrs. * These amounts — not included in total — represent the savings in two years to Em- ployees Department of Public Works. All through the departments under your direction we find records of this abominable system. In order to illus- trate the completeness with which it is carried out I have elected the fall campaign of 1903 as a typical example. I 6 take it because the records for this period are absolutely complete and convincing, and, as it was for a campaign in which there was very little public interest and in which the necessity for the raising of campaign funds was almost missing, it will, I think, be accepted as a conclusive evidence of the general methods which have been used throughout the last generation. This is none too strong an expression because I have in my possession statements of employees of the Survey Bureau that they paid these assessments over thirty years ago. I have other statements of present employees of the Depart- ment which show that up to 1910 they paid political assess- ments twice a year during various periods running from twenty to thirty years. To show that the system was intact prac- tically at the time you took office, I refer you to the official record of the Department of Public Safety, used as a frontis- piece of this report. It is a log dated November 1, 1911, in which the employees of Truck House No. 9 located at Market and 21st Streets were assessed according to the prevailing scale. Let me remind you that this was only a few days be- fore your election. To return to the Department of Public Works and the records for the fall campaign of 1903. I have in my possession in the form of original and official departmental records First — A schedule of assessment rates calling for assess- ments as follows : 1 per cent on salaries of. l| “ “ “ 2 u a n u u g u u u << £ U U Cl 11 (( 5 900 and under 1000 to $1900 2000 to 2900 3000 to 5900 6000 and over [See reproduction on page 7.] Second — An absolutely complete list of all the subscrip- tions made in that year by employees of the Department listing 1809 individual subscriptions at a time when there were 1924 employees, thereby showing that 94% of our employees paid these assessments. [See photographs, pages 4, 8, 14, and 15.] 7 Third — Remittance sheets, showing the way in which the money was remitted to the City Committee. Fourth — Recapitulations, both by divisions of the ser- vice and kinds of currency. [See photographs, page 10.] Fifth — Correspondence between employees of the Depart- ment and the Director’s Office in regard to payments. Sixth — Lists of non-contributors, the latter unfortunately containing very few names. One per cent to $900 One and a half per cent, 1000 to 1900, Two per cent, 2000 to 2900. Three per cent, 3000 to 5900. Four per cent, 6000 and over. Photographic Reproduction of Official Rate Card These percentages were paid twice a year to the City Committee. A half of these percentages were paid twice a year to the Ward Committees. In order to determine the extent to which this system per- meated the Department, I caused to be made up a roll of our employees as of September 1, 1903, two months before the election. This roll is printed as Appendix B. While there are nearly 2000 names on this roll there are only 115 names on it who did not pay assessments. In a number of cases those listed were not in the employ of the City and there- * fore not assessable at the time the assessments were made, from four to six weeks later. On the other hand, there were assessments obtained from a number of employees not carried on these rolls, for the simple reason that they entered the City service after the rolls were made up, but before election. The record shows that the percentage of employees by Bureaus who paid these assessments was as follows: 8 Director’s Office 90.9 Bureau of Gas 100 “ “ Lighting 87j “ Highways 95 “ “ Surveys 93 “ “ Water 94 In view of this fact that 94% of all employees paid these assessments which shows there is a certain grim humor in the use of quotation marks around the word “ Contributions” in the schedule of the Bureau of Lighting, photograph of which is shown on page 16. This schedule affords conclusive evidence that men who did not pay assessments could not stay in the service. BUREAU OF CAS. Rooms 330-332 City Hall. “All Present! ” This is the only bureau showing 100% efficiency. Everybody paid! This bureau also had the distinction of always just “eating up” its $10,000 annual appropriation. Opposite each name on the roll printed as Appendix B, I have indicated the rate and amount of the assessment made for the benefit of the City Committee prior to the Fall Election in 1903. These individual payments total $17,899.25 for the Department of Public Works alone. The practice in the making of assessments was to the effect that the City assessment (a schedule of rates for which 9 is shown on page 7) was made twice a year, once before each election. Every office-holder received a written noti- fication when this assessment became due. Every office- holder also paid to the Ward Committee one-half of the City assessment before each election. So that to obtain the total payments by employees of the Department of Public Works in 1903 on the regular assessments, one must multiply the printed rate by three, which shows that the employees of the Department of Public Works alone paid almost $54,000 in this one year. The following table shows the method under which the annual assessment rates for the several salary and wage scales were figured out. Yearly Assessment Rates $900 and under $1000 to $1900 $2000 to $2900 $3000 to $5900 $6000 and over Spring election — City Committee 1% u% 2% 3% 4% U U Ward \% \% 1% H% 2% Fall election -City 1% H% 2% 3 % 4% U (C Ward \% i% 1% H% 2% Total annual assessment rates 3% 4|% 6% 9% 12% The following table shows the amount contributed each year in these regular assessments: Revenue from Assessments on Various Salaries $600 @ 3 % $18.00 $1200 @ 4|% $54.00 $3000 @ 9% $270.00 720 “ “ 21.60 $500 “ “ 67.50 3500 “ U 315.00 750 “ “ 22.50 1800 “ “ 81.00 4000 “ C6 360.00 800 “ “ 24.00 2000 “ 6% 120.00 8000 “ U 960.00 840 “ “ 25.20 2100 “ “ 126.00 6000 “ 12% 720.00 900 “ “ 27.00 2400 “ “ 144.00 8000 “ U 960.00 $1000 “ “ 45.00 2500 “ “ 150.00 $10000 “ (( $1200.00 1100 “ “ 49.50 2800 “ “ 168.00 12000 “ (C 1440.00 10 e/ peprlmetti of public pjorhs, Bureau or Water, Office General Superintendent, Rooms 784, 786, 788, City Hall. A. J. FULLER, General Superintendent. C'tez-cte'tfztztei. . f /$ 0 \S '/tSLot* ULaMa) / oL fo v Jfotw 23 W.J~D* £ O' 26 * * Z/rlZc r l23o-U 13 - / 0 0 . /> a CL^O <^AAJtoS£<^T^ / S 0 0. 00 Ll - Zo. * /d'/O’Oo J3T - Jo. . 13? o.oo •i^Z - f. 2 2 / o. o o t_£, ■ ■ U Uz3o.LZ Water Bureau Remittance Slip These monies were deducted directly from pay warrants by bureau officials. Note the absence of checks. Everything remitted in cash! 11 Fokm 156—11—1901—1000. CITY OF PHILADELP A STATEMENT OF AMOUNTS TO BE COLLECTED BY THE RECEIVER 0 From — 9 'zz> IV&ITO. 1W ■ 5 ~° '%rfod t/' 1*11 Od •S' gL 2 L $-£~0 ^ f • & o &%■£-<) 1 Rough Draft of Survey Bureau Remittance Slip Evidently considerable care was put in on these papers. The final type- written draft of this remittance slip is shown on opposite page. It must be remembered that especially among the police and firemen extra assessments were frequently made. For a great many years the assessments payable to the City Committee were collected in the several Bureaus and remitted officially by the Department to the Republican City Committee. Some years ago this practice was broken up over at least a part of the Department, as the men 12 preferred to make their remittances in person. The Ward Committee assessments were paid, by the greater number of the employees, at the Ward Committee rooms. A postcard notice calling for a special meeting of the Ward Committee was sent to the employees, and they went in person on the given evening to the Ward Committee and paid up.* Men of the higher grades who objected to this method remitted by check. In order to estimate the total amount paid by all depart- ments of the City and County in 1903, I have had taken off the salary and pay warrants counter-signed for that year. The total for Public Works is $1,347,870.41, and the same item for the entire City totals $8,773,356.36. In other words, the political assessments paid in the Department of Public Works must be multiplied by 6^ in order to determine the total assessments for all City and County employees. Hence there must have been paid in 1903 by City and County em- ployees' a total of nearly $350,000. These figures represent the Controller’s actual payments, while the assessments are levied on salaries. The difference between these would appear to be ample allowance for such items as jury and witness service where obviously political assessments were impossible. By 1912 the total salary and pay warrants for the entire City had reached $12,963,508.67, so that if in 1912 the Repub- lican organization had still been in the saddle the office-holders would have had to pay $516,572.36 on the basis of two elec- tions a year, or $258,286.18 for a single election. The law requires that the treasurers of campaign committees, both City and Ward, shall file sworn statements as to their receipts and expenditures. The following tables show the total receipts reported by the Organization for the two bitter campaigns of 1911 and 1912: 1911 1912 Total for 47 Ward Committees $65,144.10 $54,839.86 “ “ City Committee 79,495.30 77,003.60 $144,639.40 $131,843.46 * One type of notices calling for this assessment and sent out this year is shown on page 16 . 13 It is to be presumed that some other contributions were received except from office-holders — in fact some large con- tributions are usually reported from political contractors and their business associates. In view of the fact that the total contributions of office-holders is shown to be greater than the total receipts reported, it is a fair question as to what happened to the balance. It has always been a grievance with the office- holders that they are called upon for the same contributions, contest or no contest! It has also been responsibly suggested that the large and ap- parently generous subscriptions of these political contractors are later returned to them out of the office-holders contributions. You were elected because those who voted for you believed that your pledge to serve the City would be faithfully kept. Naturally those most interested in having you fail were and are the enemies of the kind of politics that is fair, clean, and altogether honest, and which has its mainspring in the voters themselves and not in an organized band of self-seeking and self-perpetuating exploiters of the public working under the guise of the dominant political party. Naturally also, these most thinly disguised enemies of the whole public are more or less expert in throwing dust in the eyes of the public. They rely upon a strong and almost universal trait of partisanship for the acceptance as truths of criticisms which reflect upon the efficiency and sincerity of those really striving to serve the whole people, criticisms which are not based upon the facts and have no relation to truth or fairness. Thus they mislead and often with too much success further their utterly selfish schemes. For many years this City has been in the control of a selfish and relentless band of political free-booters, who have with great skill and (by the cohesive force of public plunder) maintained an almost unbroken sway. It is humiliating to contemplate this particular phase of the power of this Organ- ization, that of a regularly levied assessment upon the office- holders of the City and County. That efforts are still being made to levy these assessments on employees of this department is shown by the issuance of 14 70 ] sOLA,hOuuu 1 15 off BUREAU OF WATER. ROOM 790. CITY MALL. ■ 2 ^ 0 . o o //a. o o CmUX^&*£ 1> J) ^7n&/St “ )?Z*^7&yr JotrfTtts ybA 4 «^<> Jf~ ^2&e^{U^- 7 7s>^lPri*0->T_. Jb%££s X/ (77c*zy£jL<_^ 77/-&C- 0^^Ls/ //< < ^C4*^e.t**'y’kh/ 77<^?7/ Oy'^^/ /Po khzy?£crz-^&' /t/~0 0 (77ir-t>jC/^ &- *rr *2^0 C^o/kLu^, £26l*^£4-^U^- /tf^OO <^// tz-y' *p o a *^•£0 ’^kzr-z r /&<* fo o Jl foa /0* C & O ^ rJkf&C' &S s$?trzcrrzJ /sy>o /6y~J> ^o° dVf.tfr ✓ JZ2(0O yj / ?;o o //'a* /fao / /S~d 0 r /i 2/70 r /syo V /x/~*o 2 //~ O 0 •s //~0 O /< f '0 C > • iS //'/>