When William Dean Howells summed up Mr. Godkin’s career, he wrote that, influential1 as were his discussions of national and international issues, his greatest reputation was won by his assaults upon the indecent corruption3 of the government of New York city. “For a long series of years he cried aloud and spared not; his burning wit, his crushing invective4, his biting sarcasm5, his amusing irony6, his pitiless logic7, were all devoted8 to the extermination9 of the rascality10 by nature and rascals11 by name who misruled that hapless city, where they indeed afterwards changed their name but not their nature.” In this contest, Howells believed, he became “not only a great New York journalist, but distinctively13 the greatest, since he was more singly devoted to civic14 affairs than any other great New York journalist ever was.” The only contemporary editor whose prominence15 equaled his own, Charles A. Dana, aligned16 himself for the most part upon the Tammany side.
Howells thought that the editor wore himself out while apparently17 accomplishing little, because the people tired of the contest before he did. But Mr. Godkin had the pleasure in 1895 of writing the preface to a volume called “The Triumph of Reform,” which really chronicled a temporary triumph—that following the Lexow investigation18; while he powerfully aided in the slow arousal of the public conscience which has made each renewal20 of the city’s misgovernment a little less bad. He enjoyed the struggle, as he enjoyed all hot fighting, an unusual number of amusing episodes gave zest21 to it, and there is no evidence that he felt discouraged at the end.
When in 1884 Godkin first began treating municipal affairs in the Evening Post with his usual aggressive style,477 the city had biennial22 elections and the certainty that a Democratic Mayor would always be chosen. None but a Democrat23 had been elected since 1872, and none was to be elected until 1894, a state of things which a number of Republican bosslets—“Johnny” O’Brien, “Mike” Cregan, “Barney” Biglin, “Jake” Hess, and “Steve” French—regarded with complacency because they shared the Tammany pickings. The essential question was always whether the Mayor should be a Tammany Democrat or a Democrat representing the reform wing (the County Democracy), and in the determination of this the willingness or unwillingness24 of the Republican rank and file to join hands with the reform Democrats25 was always a leading factor. In every election in the eighties the Republican bosslets put their own ticket into the field, thus drawing the fire of non-partisan26 reformers like Mr. Godkin, but sometimes the majority of Republicans could be brought behind what was really a coalition27 nomination28.
At the outset, in 1884, occurred one of the most gratifying surprises in the whole history of New York politics—the election of William R. Grace, a reform Democrat, over the Tammany candidate, a disreputable politician named Hugh J. Grant. The victory was the more unexpected because it was generally believed that John Kelly, the Tammany Chieftain who had succeeded Tweed, had made an infamous29 compact with the Blaine Republicans, by which they were to trade votes and give the State to Blaine and the city to Grant. Kelly had always disliked Cleveland. Just before the election Thomas A. Hendricks, who was running for the Vice30-Presidency with Cleveland, made a thousand-mile journey from Indiana to hold a protracted31 night conference with Kelly, and many have held that he succeeded in winning him over to support the national ticket. But Godkin refused to accept this explanation of the result. Kelly had failed to deliver the vote, he wrote, because Grace was an honored Catholic who drew many Irish Democrats away from Grant, while Republicans by thousands had voted for Blaine and Grace when they were expected to vote for478 Blaine and Grant. Kelly, though the most stolid32 of men, was confined to his house for weeks by nervous depression, and soon retired33. His downfall inspired Godkin to utter a prophecy which time, bringing Richard Croker to the front, partly belied34:
We doubt if the city will ever again be afflicted35 with a boss who will be Kelly’s equal in ability and power. There will, of course, be other bosses, but they will be of a different kind. They must possess qualities which will enable them to rule under the new conditions which will prevail after Jan. 1 next. Kelly succeeded Tweed, and for a time was almost his equal in power, but he was a different boss from Tweed. He was never personally corrupt2. He arranged “fat things for the boys,” and put into our local offices and into the Legislature about the worst succession of political speculators and strikers that the city has ever been called upon to endure. He stole nothing himself, but he enabled others to steal with great freedom. His power rested mainly upon his standing36 as a good Catholic. Connected by marriage with the very head of the church in this country, he was able to command that blind obedience37 of his followers38 which exists only within the pale of the church.... He had a lecture upon some topic of church interest which he delivered in aid of all kinds of the Church’s charities....
Two years later another happy ending crowned the famous three-cornered campaign between Theodore Roosevelt (Rep.), Henry George (Labor39), and Abram S. Hewitt (United Democrat)—the choice of Hewitt. The Evening Post was surprised when Tammany joined with the County Democracy behind Hewitt, a man of the highest reputation. The Times and Tribune supported Roosevelt, but Mr. Godkin contended that he could not be elected, and that every vote for him simply gave a larger chance of victory to Henry George. He was justified40 by the result, Hewitt polling 90,552 votes, George 68,110, and Roosevelt only 60,435. In 1884 the Post had first published a “Voters’ Directory,” short biographical sketches42 of the candidates, and its characterizations of the three party leaders this autumn are still of interest:
479
ABRAM S. HEWITT (United Dem.)—Has served continuously in Congress, with the exception of one term, since 1874; is a large iron manufacturer, and is distinguished43 for his generous dealing44 with his employees; is a high authority upon politico-economic subjects, and a thoroughly45 trained public man in all respects; declares that he was nominated without pledges....
THEODORE ROOSEVELT (Rep.)—Is twenty-eight years of age; served three terms in the Assembly, where he was of great service in securing reform legislation for this city; it was through his labors46 at the head of a committee of investigation that the “fee system” was abolished and other evils exposed and corrected; he went to the Chicago Convention openly and strongly opposed to Mr. Blaine’s nomination because of his bad personal record, but subsequently consented to support him.
HENRY GEORGE (Labor.)—Is best known as the author of “Progress and Poverty,” of which the leading idea is that all property should be confiscated47 by the State through the taxing power, without compensation to the owners; is the candidate of Socialists48, boycotters, etc.; has declared since his nomination that if he were elected “there would be no more policemen acting49 as censors,” that he “will loosen the bonds of the police and make them servants of the people”; that the horse cars “ought to be as free as air” to the public; and that the “French Revolution is about to repeat itself here.”
Unfortunately, in 1888 Hewitt was defeated by the old Tammany favorite, “Hughie” Grant, and the corruptionists returned to their former power and spoils. Worst of all, Grant’s election was accepted without alarm, and even with satisfaction, by the educated classes. The new Mayor, an ignorant and unprincipled son of a saloonkeeper, was given “social recognition,” asked to dinner in the best circles, and opened a ball with Mrs. Astor. When he said, “If I don’t prove a good Mayor, it will be because I don’t know how,” this remark was repeated as if it were a gem50 of aphoristic51 wisdom. Harper’s Weekly, which with the help of the cartoonist Nast had done so much to drive Tweed from power, yielded to this folly52, and (July 13, 1889) published a long article extolling53 a “New Tammany,” with high aims, which it said was governed by a “big four” consisting of Richard480 Croker, Mayor Grant, Thomas F. Gilroy, and Bourke Cockran. The article declared that Croker was pre-eminent for “his political sagacity, political honesty, great knowledge of individuals, and spotless personal integrity.” It described Grant as “well-educated,” “shrewd and far-seeing,” remarkable54 for “personal honesty and trustworthiness,” and “entirely fearless.” Gilroy was praised as “a genial55, pleasant, obliging man,” who was “remarkably gifted with business ability.” In short, the brilliancy and integrity of Tammany were pictured as startling.
Every one at the time was thinking of the projected World Columbian Exposition, and many New Yorkers were bent56 upon making Central Park or some other part of the city its site. Mayor Grant lost no opportunity to increase his prestige by frequent conferences upon the subject with admiring business men.
Watching this madness with disgust, as the year 1890—that of another city election—opened, the Evening Post resolved to make a stand against it even if it had to do so single-handed. It had never ceased to maintain that Mayor Grant was illiterate57, that all his associations from youth up had been low, that his administration as sheriff had been so loose and corrupt that a grand jury had rebuked58 it by a scathing59 presentment, and that his appointments had been wretched. The men he put in office were of the worst Tammany type. Moreover, it ridiculed60 the idea that there could be a “New Tammany,” arguing that the character of the organization made it impossible for it to change without committing suicide; that it necessarily drew its support from the criminal and semi-criminal population of the city, and from levies61 upon vice, so that if this were cut off it would wither62. “The society,” wrote Godkin, “is simply an organization of clever adventurers, most of them in some degree criminal, for the control of the ignorant and vicious vote of the city in an attack upon the property of the taxpayers63. There is not a particle of politics in the concern any more than in any combination of Western brigands64 to ‘hold up’ a railroad481 train and get the express packages. Its sole object is plunder65 in any form which will not attract immediate66 notice from the police.”
How could this fact be pressed home to the consciousness of the citizens? Mr. Godkin, Horace White, Joseph Bucklin Bishop67, and the managing editor resolved upon a thorough-going biographical exposure of the real character of the men who constituted Tammany. They felt that while decent New Yorkers knew in a general way that some of the district leaders and their henchmen were low in character and morals, they did not appreciate just how noisome68 was the gulf69 of boodle, vice, ignorance, and crime out of which these men emerged. They determined70 to probe that gulf, to give the city a whiff of its fumes71, and to show how the Tammany organizers reeked72 with its slime.
On April 3, 1890, therefore, the Evening Post published in nine columns of close print biographical sketches of the twenty-seven members of the Tammany Executive Committee, including the “big four” of the “New Tammany.” This document, which in ensuing months sold in tens of thousands of copies as a pamphlet, is a permanently73 valuable contribution to New York’s political and social history. It abounds74 in a miscellany of roguery rich enough to outfit76 a picaresque novelist. At the head of the list came Mayor Grant, whom the Post accused of dividing, while sheriff, illegal fees with an auctioneer aggregating77 $42,497, and of taking illegal “extra compensation” fees. Under the name of John Scannell, the Post printed details of the murder which this district leader had committed in a basement poolroom, and showed how he had planned it for two years, though he was acquitted78 on the ground of “emotional insanity79.” Another district leader was shown to be an accused murderer, and several more to have committed notoriously brutal80 assaults. A scandal in certain asphalt contracts let by Thomas F. Gilroy, now the Commissioner81 of Public Works, had already been exposed by the Post, and the facts were repeated. Several committeemen were declared at one time482 to have received stolen goods, and several more to have kept disorderly houses. The newspaper described a saloon once kept by “Barney” Martin, one of Grant’s appointees, as the resort for the most distinguished professors of the art of acquiring other people’s property in the country.
Written with sparkle and gusto, these biographical sketches abound75 in interesting anecdotes82. The biography of “Georgie” Plunkett tells us that a friend remarked: “You say Georgie is rich? He ought to be; he never missed an opportunity.” We are told that H. D. Purroy’s secessionist element in Tammany was known as the Hoy Purroy. The sketch41 of John Reilly states that he had been nominated for Assistant Alderman while still living in Ireland, through the efforts of “me brother Barney,” a Manhattan saloonkeeper. It was recalled that when a protest had been made to Sheriff Grant by his friends against the appointment of “Barney” Martin to some post, Grant had made an indignant reply: “What do youse fellows want? Do yez want to break up the organization?” Summing up, the Evening Post listed the Executive Committee as follows:
Professional politicians, 27; convicted murderer, 1; acquitted of murder, 1; convicted of felonious assault, 1; professional gamblers, 4; former dive-keepers, 5; liquor dealers83, 4; former liquor-dealers, 5; sons of liquor-dealers, 3; former pugilists, 3; former toughs, 4; members of Tweed gang, 6; officeholders, 17.
The sensation produced by this publication was profound. Within a few days the Evening Post reprinted delighted comments from half of the important newspapers of the East. As for Tammany, its disturbance84 and outcry led Godkin to compare the inquiry85 by the newspaper with the introduction of a ferret into a cellar. You knew the rats were there, but until the ferret appeared you didn’t know where. “When they become aware of his presence out they scuttle86, from the coal hole, the ash barrel, the garbage can, the woodpile, brown and black, big and little, squealing87 and showing their teeth.” The483 three things a Tammany leader most dreaded89, he concluded, were, in the ascending90 order of repulsiveness91, the penitentiary92, honest industry, and biography.
Immediately two of the men favored with biographies began suits for criminal libel. One was “Barney” Martin, the other Judge “Pete” Mitchel, who had been described by the Evening Post as a “nominal93” lawyer, a “thug,” a “tough,” and a one-time adviser94 in a keno game. Bourke Cockran, their voluble attorney, known for his eloquence95 as the Tammany Chrysostom, began what Godkin called “a minatory96 flux97 like the rush of Croton through a water-gate.” The Evening Post’s answer to the libel suits was to add two more counts to its charges against “Pete” Mitchel, saying that at one time he had received stolen goods and at another had been a partner in a rumshop with a murderer named Sharkey. Within a week (April 29) the grand jury dismissed the two suits against the Post, evidence of the unassailable solidity of its charges. Once more there was an outburst of congratulation from the press of the country, the paper in one issue reprinting editorials from other journals in Boston, Pittsfield, Springfield, Philadelphia, Wilmington, Portland, Me., and Milwaukee.
While these suits were pending98 (one was soon after revived, and four in all were vainly brought) Tammany did its utmost to make them an annoyance99 to Mr. Godkin, serving summons after summons at the most inconvenient100 hours possible. He was arrested three times in one day, to the great delight of Dana. But only once did his persecutors really succeed in vexing101 him. A policeman came with a summons at an early hour one Sunday morning, when Mr. Godkin was looking after the welfare of some guests. With characteristic impulsiveness102, he gave the officer $5 to leave and come back a little later. His enemies at once saw their opportunity. Godkin the reformer bribing103 an officer of the law to evade104 arrest! Next morning, when he came down to work and found his associates somewhat staggered by the printed reports, he was puzzled, and did not really understand the situation484 until he lunched with some other reform workers at noon. But of course an explanation was easily given the public.
The Evening Post hastened to follow up its first biographies with an exposure of the Tammany Committee on Organization, numbering 1,070 members, of whom it found 161 to be rumsellers, 133 criminal rumsellers (that is, open after hours or on Sundays), and 235 without specified105 occupation or not in the city directory, a suspicious circumstance, since professional gamblers never had an assigned occupation. In the weeks just before election there was published a searching examination of the Tammany General Committee, numbering 4,564 men, of whom no fewer than 654 were rumsellers, 565 criminal rumsellers, and 1,266 not in the directory, most of them for good reasons. Detailed106 biographies of the most despicable committeemen were printed, of which one of the shortest may be extracted:
ELEVENTH DISTRICT.—Classed among the rumsellers of this district is August Heckler, familiarly known as “Gus.” While the nominal proprietor107 of the rumshop called “The Bohemia” at No. 1257 Broadway, he recently obtained much notoriety by turning the upper stories of the building into what for the sake of decency108 is called by him a hotel. For this his liquor license109 was taken away, and so far as can be learned there are now no intoxicating110 liquors sold on the premises111. The hotel, which is a most disorderly house, still flourishes, however, while Heckler is “on the road” selling a brand of champagne112. Technically113, Heckler cannot be classed among the criminal rumsellers; yet he is a good deal worse than most of them.
Heckler made a personal call upon Mr. Godkin, and assured him that his hotel was respectable, whereupon the editor called in the efficient reporters who gathered material for the biographies, and proved that it was not.
So far as that fall’s election went, the Evening Post’s labors were in vain. Because 30,000 registered Republicans, jealous of the reform Democrats, stayed from the polls, Mayor Grant beat the anti-Tammany nominee114, Francis M. Scott, by a vote of 116,000 to 94,000. Not only that, but two years later, in 1892, Thomas F. Gilroy,485 called “a business candidate,” was easily elected to succeed Grant. Before his term was well advanced it was generally admitted that Tammany had become so well entrenched115 behind the offices that it would be useless to elect a reform Mayor without legislation which would enable him to dismiss nearly all the city officials.
Nevertheless, the spade-work of Mr. Godkin had been so well done that the idea of a “New Tammany” was now laughed at, and the organization was regarded with thorough suspicion by decent elements. His campaign in 1890 brought him letters from Eastman Johnson, Bishop Potter, S. G. Ward12, Charles Loring Brace116, Gen. Wm. F. Smith, and other public-spirited men. The city began to awake. Other newspapers, notably117 the World early in 1894, imitated the Post by publishing Tammany biographies which stung the grafters to the quick. On April 4, 1892, the City Club was organized with a Board of Trustees which included men deeply interested in the reformation of the city government, the most prominent being James C. Carter, R. Fulton Cutting, W. Bayard Cutting, August Belmont, and William J. Schieffelin. With the special encouragement of the City Club, more than two-score local Good Government Clubs were shortly founded (Carl Schurz helped establish one among the German-Americans) and although Dana of the Sun contemptuously nicknamed them “Goo-Goos,” they exerted an important educational influence. There was ample basis for suspicion of the city rulers under both Grant and Gilroy. Mayor Grant had sworn in 1888 that two years earlier Croker was “very poor indeed.” But by the end of 1893 he had invested $250,000 in a stock-farm, $103,000 in race-horses, $80,000 in a Fifth Avenue mansion118, and drove about in carriages costing $1,700. The Post further stated that Croker paid $12,000 a year to a jockey, and $5,000 to the manager of his stock farm, and that on a trip to the Pacific Coast early in 1894 he made the journey in a private car costing $50 a day. Where did he get the money? Godkin harped119 continually upon the outrageous120 appointments made under both486 Mayors. Thus when in December, 1890, Patrick Divver was appointed a police justice at $8,000 a year, the Post reprinted his biography:
PATRICK DIVVER.—Commonly called “Paddy,” is the Tammany leader in the Second Assembly District. He is the keeper of a sailors’ boarding house, and is the proprietor, or has interests, in several liquor saloons. He is an ex-member of the Board of Aldermen, a race-track frequenter, and the friend and confidant of gamblers. He is on terms of intimacy121 with “Johnny” Matthews and “Jake” Shipsey, two members of the sporting and gambling122 fraternity, whose particular methods of gaining a livelihood123 are unknown to the frequenters of Paddy Divver’s and other rumshops on Park Row, where they are generally to be found.
Within three years, said the Post in 1894, Divver was reputed to be worth $200,000. Among the many other unfit appointments were those of “Barney” Martin, “Joe” Koch, and “Tom” Graham to the police courts, and of “Mike” Daly, John J. Scannell, and “Andy” White to important municipal offices. In 1892–93 the Evening Post, Times, and World repeatedly challenged the methods of conducting the public business in the Building Department, Dock Department, and Street Cleaning Bureau, and in the latter part of 1893 the City Club began collecting evidence of corruption from top to bottom in the Police Department. This corruption, indeed, was almost a matter of common knowledge, for repeated charges were made against police captains, and the bipartisan Police Commission of four shielded the men in the most audacious way. The insurrection of virtue124, as Theodore Roosevelt called it, reached a head during 1892–1893 in the charges of Dr. Charles H. Parkhurst, minister of the Madison Square Presbyterian Church, that the police system was battening upon an extensive blackmail125 system. The response was immediate; business men and others came to Dr. Parkhurst with evidence that was incontestable; the City Club began demanding an investigation by the Legislature; and Harper’s Weekly, which had defended Tammany a few years earlier, published early in487 January, 1894, a cartoon which recalled Nast in the Tweed days. Entitled “Tammany’s Tax on Crime,” it showed a line of saloon-keepers, criminals and prostitutes passing before a cashier’s desk in which stood the dummy126 figure of a policeman, with Boss Croker crouching127 behind it and stretching forth128 his hand for the “contributions.” From the public uproar129 grew the Lexow Inquiry.
For Mr. Clarence Lexow, the Senator who offered at Albany the resolution for an investigating committee and became its chairman, the Evening Post had no respect. It called him “a young country lawyer of very moderate abilities residing at Nyack, N. Y., and dabbling130 more or less in politics under the guidance of the rather mediocre131 understanding of Mr. T. C. Platt,” and it believed his interest in the inquiry was as lukewarm as Platt’s own. But it earnestly supported the movement for the inquiry, was disappointed when the committee failed to secure Choate for counsel, and, when Gov. Flower vetoed the appropriation132 of $25,000 for its work on the ground that it was a partisan body, said that it knew no precedent133 for such a gross abuse of the executive power save Gov. Hill’s veto of the appropriation for the similar Fassett Committee. The State Chamber134 of Commerce came to the rescue by advancing $17,500 to cover the committee’s expenses, and John W. Goff, assisted by Frank Moss135 and Wm. Travers Jerome, proved an admirable counsel.
By the middle of June, 1894, the inquiry had driven one of the four Police Commissioners136, John McClave, to resignation and flight. It had been disclosed that the police force had a well-determined tariff137 of charges for its protection of various criminal trades and practices within the city. Each disorderly house was expected to pay an “initiation fee” of $500 to every new police captain placed in charge of the district, and $50 a month thereafter, besides a contribution to the captain’s “Christmas present.” One keeper of such a house testified that he had been charged $750 within three months. Concert saloons, without a city license, had to pay $50 a month to the captain, while the regular tariff for saloons employing488 waitresses, and operating without a license, ran from $15 to $25 a month. It is not surprising that the fact was elicited138 that one captain had paid $15,000 for appointment to his post. For the privilege of selling on Sunday all saloons regularly paid the ward men—the name then given a petty officer—$5. Whenever the inspector139 of the excise140 department found a saloon without a city license, he got $5 for overlooking the fact. Tickets to Tammany “chowder parties,” usually distributed among disorderly houses and saloons in blocks of five, were $5 each, and it was gross bad manners to send any back. The push-cart men were expected to pay $3 a week from their pitiful earnings141, and the ward-men had miscellaneous sources of tribute which made an appointment to the force worth $300.
Every steamship142 line landing cargoes143 at the port had to pay heavy blackmail charges at every stage of its business, and to every official—police, dock, and custom-house—connected with Tammany. The agent of the French Line displayed pitiable embarrassment144 when called upon to explain an item of $500 “payés a qui le droit.” All merchants who wished to use the sidewalks to display or handle goods paid $25 to $50 annually145, it being customary to put this in an envelope and leave it somewhere to be called for. Men who rented their premises for polling booths had to divide the money with the police. But much worse than such grafting146 as this was the evidence that the police, instead of repressing pure criminality, were actually encouraging it as a source of revenue. Thus green-goods swindlers were allowed to do business on payment of $50 a month to the police captain, policy-gamblers had the same privilege, and receivers of stolen goods shared with the detectives. As a climax147, to quote the Post, “Mr. Goff showed us a police justice sitting on the bench, and not merely shielding a regular practitioner148 of abortion149 from punishment, but conniving150 with him in his guilt151.”
The news pages, following the inquiry closely, showed489 how the early bravado152 of the police force changed within a few weeks to panic:
That which has altered the feelings of the police [wrote a reporter June 16] is the fact that the committee has entered recesses153 of the corruption system which were believed to be unapproachable. So long as the despised lowest class of criminals was the one drawn154 upon for witnesses, there was felt little alarm. It was reasoned that the records of the persons sworn would crush the force of their testimony155.... But when the “better class” women and the professional criminal, like George Appo, began to squeal88, danger was foreseen. Women in the “tenderloin” and other more pretentious156 districts have been treated fairly from a police standpoint. Where they have paid for protection they got it, or, according to the blackmailers, are supposed to have received it. If there was any abuse of the police power it was not authorized157, and must have been the indiscretion of the wardman or the individual patrolman. It was meant that the “ladies,” as they are uniformly called, should be justly and squarely dealt with. Anyway, it is a shock to the guilty to learn that women like “Eva Bell,” who has been protected for years in Thirty-sixth Street, should give the game away and peach as she did on Friday.
Worse than the fickleness158 of the women is the weakening of the criminal and the gambler to the men who watch such lines of defense159 give way. Appo, it is said, however, has been ill-treated, has a grievance160, and these are taken in account as reasons for his having “thrown down” his fellows.
Mr. Godkin insisted that the source of the corruption was in the higher ranks of the Tammany hierarchy161, and in the impracticable administration of the police by a bipartisan board of four instead of a single Commissioner. The reporters declared that the best elements of the force also held its heads to blame:
These men complain chiefly that the political phase of the matter is not more urgently bored into. They say that the conduct of the commissioners for years has been such as to poison a patrolman from the time he first applies for admission to the force. The payment for appointment, the reputation of the politicians in the Board, the uses made of him by his executive superiors in their private schemes, and by the Commissioners, directly and indirectly162, for their partisan purposes, together with the general moral tone490 of the force and the work, all tend to teach him how he is to do for himself when he can. There ... is daily disappointment that the higher evils are not kept in view.
So far as immediate remedial legislation was concerned, the Lexow inquiry produced less effect than had been hoped. Boss Platt controlled the Republican Legislature, and had a strong influence upon Gov. Levi P. Morton, who succeeded Flower; and Platt declared that to put the police under a single Commissioner would be “revolution.” When the Committee made its report in January, 1895, the Evening Post joined with Dr. Parkhurst in ridiculing163 its recommendations, which included retention164 of the bipartisan, four-headed Police Commission. Godkin drew a scathing picture of Lexow as he “sneaked off to Platt’s express office, and engaged in a dirty little intrigue165 for the defeat of the reform movement, and tossed his little head in the air and sniffed166 at all the leading men in the city, and abused reformers in general, and went to work under Platt’s direction to concoct167 a few little bills to secure for Platt a few little offices.” The Legislature refused to put the police under a single head. It passed enactments168 making possible the reformation of the police court bench, and the reorganization of the public school system, but in other fields in which the reformers had expected changes it refused to act.
The real triumph of reform came in the municipal election in 1894. Tammany, trying to brazen169 out the Lexow revelations, first nominated Nathan Straus, one of the worst Park Commissioners the city ever had, the chief abettor in 1892 of a scheme to ruin Central Park by putting a race-track in it; but he declined, and the nomination was given “Hughie” Grant, who had begun the process of filling the city offices with the criminals and semi-criminals who adorned170 them. The reform Democrats and reform Republicans held a meeting in Madison Square Garden and selected a Committee of Seventy to conduct their campaign, this body nominating491 William M. Strong for Mayor and John W. Goff for Recorder. Its choice struck the Evening Post as admirable, not only because Strong was a man of high character, a successful citizen, and well known to the public, but because he was a Republican. The next Governor and Legislature, wrote Godkin, with accurate anticipation171 of the fact, would be Republican, and while a Republican administration in New York city might not be able to get from Gov. Morton and Boss Platt all that was desired, they would certainly get more than any Democrat. “A Democratic Mayor would probably not be allowed to make a single removal or appointment except such as came to him under the present Charter, and we should continue to wallow in our present quagmire172 until the next Presidential election, and then might well bid farewell to all thought of city reform.” Decent citizens this time were fully19 aroused. They went to the polls in such numbers that, although Tammany mustered173 108,000 votes, Strong and Goff had a majority of over 45,000. It was an impressive demonstration174, wrote Mr. Godkin, of the power of non-partisanship:
The Committee of Seventy have shown, more conspicuously175 than ever before, the power which, even in this city of many nationalities and creeds176, lies in the union of good people. We believe the Good Government clubs are doing invaluable177 work in turning the lesson to account. They are spreading the non-partisan (not bi-partisan) view of city affairs. It is especially important that they should hammer it into the brains of the young, for the men who have conducted this campaign against Tammany will be gone from the stage in twenty years, as the men of 1871 are now, and in about twenty years Tammany regains178 its old strength. Tammany will surely come again, unless young and old get into the way of looking at the city as they look at their bank, and think no more about the Mayor’s politics than they think about the politics of the cashier who keeps their accounts. All the well-governed cities of the world are governed on this business plan, all the badly governed on the other.
The plan of going down among the rank and file of Tammany with books and pamphlets, and University Settlements, and popular lectures, we know has merit. It is a work of humanity and492 civilization which is always in order. But they deceive themselves who think the city can be saved by any such missionary179 work. What Tammany offers to the ignorant and poor is always something more palpable and succulent than enlightenment, or free reading rooms, or cheap coffee. It can never be met and vanquished180 except by union among the honest, industrious181, and intelligent. These are now in a majority and have always been in a majority. A great commercial city like New York could not exist and prosper182 if they were not in a majority. Whenever they cease to be in a majority, capital and labor will both begin to move away from Manhattan Island.
The splendid achievements of Mayor Strong’s reform administration need not be rehearsed in detail. Col. George E. Waring was appointed head of the Street Cleaning Department, and before he had been at work a fortnight the Evening Post commented on the change he had wrought183. When people saw gangs of able-bodied sweepers and shovelers working like Trojans under bosses, instead of groups of infirm and decrepit184 creatures leaning upon their implements185 and talking politics, they rubbed their eyes. Snow actually vanished over night; trucks were no longer stabled in the streets to shelter vice; and the accidents to horses from nails and rubbish strikingly diminished. Waring’s most competent predecessor186 had cleaned 53 miles of street daily in 1888, whereas Waring cleaned 433 miles from once to five times daily. Theodore Roosevelt was made President of the Police Commission, with results familiar to every one. A new Board of Education, after failing to procure187 President Daniel Coit Gilman of Johns Hopkins, chose William H. Maxwell to be the energetic Superintendent188 of the Schools; while in Mayor Strong’s first year fourteen new school buildings were finished, and the salaries of teachers were materially raised. The police courts were reorganized, the Mayor taking pains to choose the best magistrates189 available. The City College, cramped190 into small quarters on Twenty-third Street, was given an adequate site on the heights overlooking Harlem, the493 Metropolitan191 Museum was enlarged, bridges were built over the Harlem, and the parks were much more carefully tended. The administration made blunders, but it was one of the best New York has ever had.
For this great revolt of 1894 and its fruits, Mr. Godkin gave equal credit to the foolish audacity192 of the Tammany yahoos and “the persistence193 and pluck with which Dr. Parkhurst stuck to the police. It was his splendid bulldog obstinacy194 in holding on to them which really made the first clear impression on the public mind.” Dr. Parkhurst will always remain the hero of the uprising. But many who were foremost in the struggle thought at the time that Godkin himself should be bracketed with the fighting pastor195, and publicly or privately196 said so. Dr. Parkhurst just after the election expressed his warm gratitude197 to the editor. This was all very well, wrote Col. George E. Waring; “but Parkhurst don’t know, as do those who have watched your course during all the years of your work here, to what an extent you alone are to be credited with the maintaining, among the leaders of the community, of the spirit which at last made Parkhurst and his work possible. I have known in my short life no equal example of persistent198, vigorous, aggressive virtue receiving the reward of such crowning success.” Frederick Keppel wrote in the same terms: “Both Dr. Parkhurst and Mr. Goff deserve the public honors that have been heaped upon them; but long before these gentlemen were ever publicly heard of (and unfalteringly ever since) your journal has fought against corruption and wrong with a power and vigor199 which certainly has done more than any other single influence to bring about the magnificent result of last election day.” Wayne MacVeagh and President Gilman expressed themselves with equal enthusiasm. Dr. W. R. Huntington suggested statues to Dr. Parkhurst and Mr. Godkin overlooking Tammany Hall.
The strength of this sentiment led a month after the election to the presentation to Mr. Godkin of a loving494 cup, the speech on the occasion being delivered by Bishop Henry C. Potter. The subscription200 was made by a list of women, and the cup testified to their “grateful recognition of fearless and unfaltering services to the city of New York.”
The two chief municipal issues in which Godkin was interested after 1894, the creation of Greater New York under a charter drafted in 1896, and the election of its first Mayor in 1897, both resulted in defeats for his views. He opposed consolidation201 as premature202. His belief was that if the separate governments of New York and Brooklyn were both corrupt, as they had been with few intermissions for a long generation, their union would simply present a harder problem for reformers, and fatter jobs and more boodle for the bosses. Moreover, he knew that the guiding hand in the formation of a Charter Commission and the legislative203 approval of its work would be Platt’s. But the Platt and Croker machines agreed in supporting the consolidation programme, and many of the reform element stood behind it, so that it was easily made effective. The result of the ensuing mayoralty campaign of 1897 was not long in doubt. On the Tammany side there was one candidate, Robert Van Wyck, and opposing him there appeared three. The Citizens’ union was formed that spring, and its efforts led to the nomination of Seth Low, well known as successively Mayor of Brooklyn and President of Columbia University—an admirable choice; the Platt Republicans nominated Gen. B. F. Tracy; and the Bryan Democrats put forward Henry George. Van Wyck received 233,997 votes, while Low, his nearest rival, obtained only 151,540.
E. L. Godkin
Associate Editor 1881–1883, Editor-in-Chief 1883–1899.
This result seemed a stunning204 reaction from the great victory of 1894. Van Wyck made a clean sweep of Mayor Strong’s efficient departmental heads, and when Devery became chief of police the city ran “wide open.” Yet in the moment of defeat Godkin did not lose heart, pointing out that Van Wyck’s three antagonists205 combined495 had a larger vote than he. “Four years is a long time to wait, undoubtedly206, for another attack on Tammany,” the Post said, “but in those four years Tammany will be furnishing us with plenty of ammunition207, and Republicans will be seeing and thinking, and the Citizens’ union will be learning how to fight.”
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
influential
|
|
| adj.有影响的，有权势的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
corrupt
|
|
| v.贿赂，收买；adj.腐败的，贪污的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
corruption
|
|
| n.腐败，堕落，贪污 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
invective
|
|
| n.痛骂，恶意抨击 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
sarcasm
|
|
| n.讥讽，讽刺，嘲弄，反话 （adj.sarcastic） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
irony
|
|
| n.反语，冷嘲；具有讽刺意味的事，嘲弄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
logic
|
|
| n.逻辑(学)；逻辑性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
devoted
|
|
| adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
extermination
|
|
| n.消灭，根绝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
rascality
|
|
| 流氓性，流氓集团 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
11
rascals
|
|
| 流氓( rascal的名词复数 )； 无赖； （开玩笑说法）淘气的人（尤指小孩）； 恶作剧的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
ward
|
|
| n.守卫，监护，病房，行政区，由监护人或法院保护的人（尤指儿童）；vt.守护，躲开 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
distinctively
|
|
| adv.特殊地，区别地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
civic
|
|
| adj.城市的，都市的，市民的，公民的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
prominence
|
|
| n.突出；显著；杰出；重要 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
aligned
|
|
| adj.对齐的，均衡的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
investigation
|
|
| n.调查，调查研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
renewal
|
|
| adj.(契约)延期，续订，更新，复活，重来 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
zest
|
|
| n.乐趣；滋味，风味；兴趣 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
biennial
|
|
| adj.两年一次的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
democrat
|
|
| n.民主主义者，民主人士；民主党党员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
unwillingness
|
|
| n. 不愿意，不情愿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
democrats
|
|
| n.民主主义者，民主人士( democrat的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
partisan
|
|
| adj.党派性的；游击队的；n.游击队员；党徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
coalition
|
|
| n.结合体，同盟，结合，联合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
nomination
|
|
| n.提名，任命，提名权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
infamous
|
|
| adj.声名狼藉的，臭名昭著的，邪恶的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
vice
|
|
| n.坏事；恶习；[pl.]台钳，老虎钳；adj.副的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
protracted
|
|
| adj.拖延的；延长的v.拖延“protract”的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
stolid
|
|
| adj.无动于衷的，感情麻木的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
retired
|
|
| adj.隐退的，退休的，退役的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
belied
|
|
| v.掩饰( belie的过去式和过去分词 )；证明（或显示）…为虚假；辜负；就…扯谎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
afflicted
|
|
| 使受痛苦，折磨( afflict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
standing
|
|
| n.持续，地位；adj.永久的，不动的，直立的，不流动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
obedience
|
|
| n.服从，顺从 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
followers
|
|
| 追随者( follower的名词复数 )； 用户； 契据的附面； 从动件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
labor
|
|
| n.劳动，努力，工作，劳工；分娩；vi.劳动，努力，苦干；vt.详细分析；麻烦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
sketch
|
|
| n.草图；梗概；素描；v.素描；概述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
sketches
|
|
| n.草图( sketch的名词复数 )；素描；速写；梗概 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
dealing
|
|
| n.经商方法，待人态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
thoroughly
|
|
| adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
labors
|
|
| v.努力争取(for)( labor的第三人称单数 )；苦干；详细分析；（指引擎）缓慢而困难地运转 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
confiscated
|
|
| 没收，充公( confiscate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
socialists
|
|
| 社会主义者( socialist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
gem
|
|
| n.宝石，珠宝；受爱戴的人 [同]jewel | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
aphoristic
|
|
| 警句（似）的，格言（似）的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
folly
|
|
| n.愚笨，愚蠢，蠢事，蠢行，傻话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
extolling
|
|
| v.赞美( extoll的现在分词 )；赞颂，赞扬，赞美( extol的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
genial
|
|
| adj.亲切的，和蔼的，愉快的，脾气好的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
bent
|
|
| n.爱好，癖好；adj.弯的；决心的，一心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
illiterate
|
|
| adj.文盲的；无知的；n.文盲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
rebuked
|
|
| 责难或指责( rebuke的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
scathing
|
|
| adj.（言词、文章）严厉的，尖刻的；不留情的adv.严厉地，尖刻地v.伤害，损害（尤指使之枯萎）( scathe的现在分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
ridiculed
|
|
| v.嘲笑，嘲弄，奚落( ridicule的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
levies
|
|
| （部队）征兵( levy的名词复数 )； 募捐； 被征募的军队 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
wither
|
|
| vt.使凋谢，使衰退，(用眼神气势等)使畏缩；vi.枯萎，衰退，消亡 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
taxpayers
|
|
| 纳税人，纳税的机构( taxpayer的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
brigands
|
|
| n.土匪，强盗( brigand的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
plunder
|
|
| vt.劫掠财物，掠夺；n.劫掠物，赃物；劫掠 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
bishop
|
|
| n.主教，（国际象棋）象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
noisome
|
|
| adj.有害的，可厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
gulf
|
|
| n.海湾；深渊，鸿沟；分歧，隔阂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
fumes
|
|
| n.(强烈而刺激的)气味，气体 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
reeked
|
|
| v.发出浓烈的臭气( reek的过去式和过去分词 )；散发臭气；发出难闻的气味 (of sth)；明显带有（令人不快或生疑的跡象） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
permanently
|
|
| adv.永恒地，永久地，固定不变地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
abounds
|
|
| v.大量存在，充满，富于( abound的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
abound
|
|
| vi.大量存在；(in，with)充满，富于 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
outfit
|
|
| n.（为特殊用途的）全套装备，全套服装 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
aggregating
|
|
| 总计达…( aggregate的现在分词 )； 聚集，集合； （使）聚集 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
acquitted
|
|
| 宣判…无罪( acquit的过去式和过去分词 )； 使（自己）作出某种表现 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
insanity
|
|
| n.疯狂，精神错乱；极端的愚蠢，荒唐 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
brutal
|
|
| adj.残忍的，野蛮的，不讲理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
commissioner
|
|
| n.（政府厅、局、处等部门）专员，长官，委员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
anecdotes
|
|
| n.掌故，趣闻，轶事( anecdote的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
dealers
|
|
| n.商人( dealer的名词复数 )；贩毒者；毒品贩子；发牌者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
disturbance
|
|
| n.动乱，骚动；打扰，干扰；(身心)失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
inquiry
|
|
| n.打听，询问，调查，查问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
scuttle
|
|
| v.急赶，疾走，逃避；n.天窗；舷窗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
squealing
|
|
| v.长声尖叫，用长而尖锐的声音说( squeal的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
squeal
|
|
| v.发出长而尖的声音；n.长而尖的声音 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
dreaded
|
|
| adj.令人畏惧的；害怕的v.害怕，恐惧，担心( dread的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
ascending
|
|
| adj.上升的，向上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
repulsiveness
|
|
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
penitentiary
|
|
| n.感化院；监狱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
nominal
|
|
| adj.名义上的；(金额、租金)微不足道的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
adviser
|
|
| n.劝告者，顾问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
eloquence
|
|
| n.雄辩；口才，修辞 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
minatory
|
|
| adj.威胁的；恫吓的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
flux
|
|
| n.流动；不断的改变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
pending
|
|
| prep.直到，等待…期间；adj.待定的；迫近的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
annoyance
|
|
| n.恼怒，生气，烦恼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
inconvenient
|
|
| adj.不方便的，令人感到麻烦的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
vexing
|
|
| adj.使人烦恼的，使人恼火的v.使烦恼( vex的现在分词 )；使苦恼；使生气；详细讨论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
impulsiveness
|
|
| n.冲动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
bribing
|
|
| 贿赂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
evade
|
|
| vt.逃避，回避；避开，躲避 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
specified
|
|
| adj.特定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
detailed
|
|
| adj.详细的，详尽的，极注意细节的，完全的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
proprietor
|
|
| n.所有人；业主；经营者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
decency
|
|
| n.体面，得体，合宜，正派，庄重 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
license
|
|
| n.执照，许可证，特许；v.许可，特许 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
intoxicating
|
|
| a. 醉人的,使人兴奋的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
premises
|
|
| n.建筑物，房屋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
champagne
|
|
| n.香槟酒；微黄色 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
technically
|
|
| adv.专门地，技术上地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
nominee
|
|
| n.被提名者；被任命者；被推荐者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
entrenched
|
|
| adj.确立的，不容易改的(风俗习惯) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
brace
|
|
| n. 支柱,曲柄,大括号; v. 绷紧,顶住,(为困难或坏事)做准备 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
notably
|
|
| adv.值得注意地，显著地，尤其地，特别地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
mansion
|
|
| n.大厦，大楼；宅第 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
harped
|
|
| vi.弹竖琴（harp的过去式与过去分词形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
outrageous
|
|
| adj.无理的，令人不能容忍的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
intimacy
|
|
| n.熟悉，亲密，密切关系，亲昵的言行 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
gambling
|
|
| n.赌博；投机 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
livelihood
|
|
| n.生计，谋生之道 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
blackmail
|
|
| n.讹诈，敲诈，勒索，胁迫，恫吓 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
dummy
|
|
| n.假的东西；(哄婴儿的)橡皮奶头 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
crouching
|
|
| v.屈膝，蹲伏( crouch的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
uproar
|
|
| n.骚动，喧嚣，鼎沸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
dabbling
|
|
| v.涉猎( dabble的现在分词 )；涉足；浅尝；少量投资 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
mediocre
|
|
| adj.平常的，普通的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
appropriation
|
|
| n.拨款，批准支出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
precedent
|
|
| n.先例，前例；惯例；adj.在前的，在先的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
chamber
|
|
| n.房间，寝室；会议厅；议院；会所 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
moss
|
|
| n.苔，藓，地衣 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
commissioners
|
|
| n.专员( commissioner的名词复数 )；长官；委员；政府部门的长官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
tariff
|
|
| n.关税，税率；(旅馆、饭店等)价目表，收费表 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
elicited
|
|
| 引出，探出( elicit的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
inspector
|
|
| n.检查员，监察员，视察员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
excise
|
|
| n.(国产)货物税；vt.切除，删去 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
earnings
|
|
| n.工资收人；利润，利益，所得 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
steamship
|
|
| n.汽船，轮船 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
cargoes
|
|
| n.（船或飞机装载的）货物( cargo的名词复数 )；大量，重负 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
embarrassment
|
|
| n.尴尬；使人为难的人(事物)；障碍；窘迫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
annually
|
|
| adv.一年一次，每年 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
grafting
|
|
| 嫁接法，移植法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
climax
|
|
| n.顶点；高潮；v.(使)达到顶点 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
practitioner
|
|
| n.实践者，从事者；(医生或律师等)开业者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
abortion
|
|
| n.流产，堕胎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
conniving
|
|
| v.密谋 ( connive的现在分词 )；搞阴谋；默许；纵容 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
guilt
|
|
| n.犯罪；内疚；过失，罪责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
bravado
|
|
| n.虚张声势，故作勇敢，逞能 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
recesses
|
|
| n.壁凹( recess的名词复数 )；（工作或业务活动的）中止或暂停期间；学校的课间休息；某物内部的凹形空间v.把某物放在墙壁的凹处( recess的第三人称单数 )；将（墙）做成凹形，在（墙）上做壁龛；休息，休会，休庭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
pretentious
|
|
| adj.自命不凡的，自负的，炫耀的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
authorized
|
|
| a.委任的，许可的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
fickleness
|
|
| n.易变；无常；浮躁；变化无常 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
defense
|
|
| n.防御，保卫；[pl.]防务工事；辩护，答辩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
grievance
|
|
| n.怨愤，气恼，委屈 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
hierarchy
|
|
| n.等级制度；统治集团，领导层 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
indirectly
|
|
| adv.间接地，不直接了当地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
ridiculing
|
|
| v.嘲笑，嘲弄，奚落( ridicule的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
retention
|
|
| n.保留，保持，保持力，记忆力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
intrigue
|
|
| vt.激起兴趣，迷住；vi.耍阴谋；n.阴谋，密谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
sniffed
|
|
| v.以鼻吸气，嗅，闻( sniff的过去式和过去分词 )；抽鼻子（尤指哭泣、患感冒等时出声地用鼻子吸气）；抱怨，不以为然地说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
concoct
|
|
| v.调合，制造 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
enactments
|
|
| n.演出( enactment的名词复数 )；展现；规定；通过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
brazen
|
|
| adj.厚脸皮的，无耻的，坚硬的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
170
adorned
|
|
| [计]被修饰的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
171
anticipation
|
|
| n.预期，预料，期望 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
quagmire
|
|
| n.沼地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
173
mustered
|
|
| v.集合，召集，集结（尤指部队）( muster的过去式和过去分词 )；（自他人处）搜集某事物；聚集；激发 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
174
demonstration
|
|
| n.表明，示范，论证，示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
175
conspicuously
|
|
| ad.明显地，惹人注目地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
176
creeds
|
|
| （尤指宗教）信条，教条( creed的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
177
invaluable
|
|
| adj.无价的，非常宝贵的，极为贵重的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
178
regains
|
|
| 复得( regain的第三人称单数 )； 赢回； 重回； 复至某地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
179
missionary
|
|
| adj.教会的，传教(士)的；n.传教士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
180
vanquished
|
|
| v.征服( vanquish的过去式和过去分词 )；战胜；克服；抑制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
181
industrious
|
|
| adj.勤劳的，刻苦的，奋发的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
182
prosper
|
|
| v.成功，兴隆，昌盛；使成功，使昌隆，繁荣 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
183
wrought
|
|
| v.引起；以…原料制作；运转；adj.制造的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
184
decrepit
|
|
| adj.衰老的，破旧的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
185
implements
|
|
| n.工具( implement的名词复数 )；家具；手段；[法律]履行（契约等）v.实现( implement的第三人称单数 )；执行；贯彻；使生效 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
186
predecessor
|
|
| n.前辈，前任 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
187
procure
|
|
| vt.获得，取得，促成；vi.拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
188
superintendent
|
|
| n.监督人，主管，总监；(英国)警务长 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
189
magistrates
|
|
| 地方法官，治安官( magistrate的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
190
cramped
|
|
| a.狭窄的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
191
metropolitan
|
|
| adj.大城市的，大都会的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
192
audacity
|
|
| n.大胆，卤莽，无礼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
193
persistence
|
|
| n.坚持，持续，存留 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
194
obstinacy
|
|
| n.顽固；（病痛等）难治 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
195
pastor
|
|
| n.牧师，牧人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
196
privately
|
|
| adv.以私人的身份，悄悄地，私下地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
197
gratitude
|
|
| adj.感激，感谢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
198
persistent
|
|
| adj.坚持不懈的，执意的；持续的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
199
vigor
|
|
| n.活力，精力，元气 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
200
subscription
|
|
| n.预订，预订费，亲笔签名，调配法，下标（处方） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
201
consolidation
|
|
| n.合并,巩固 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
202
premature
|
|
| adj.比预期时间早的；不成熟的，仓促的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
203
legislative
|
|
| n.立法机构，立法权；adj.立法的，有立法权的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
204
stunning
|
|
| adj.极好的；使人晕倒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
205
antagonists
|
|
| 对立[对抗] 者，对手，敌手( antagonist的名词复数 )； 对抗肌； 对抗药 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
206
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
207
ammunition
|
|
| n.军火，弹药 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |