The New York Times/1883/12/11/No Longer an Editor

NO LONGER AN EDITOR.

CARL SCHURZ SEVERS HIS CONNECTION WITH
WITH THE “EVENING POST.”

“Yes, that is true,” said the Hon. Carl Schurz last evening, after reading the announcement in the Evening Post that he had permanently dissolved his connection with that paper “in consequence of serious differences of opinion between himself and his associates concerning the treatment of important public questions in the editorial columns.”

“Do you feel at liberty to state the nature of the differences that arose between your associates and yourself?” asked the reporter.

“It was in the matter of the relations between corporations and their employes and kindred questions,” answered Mr. Schurz, “things that I regard as of constantly increasing importance. At the time of the strike of the telegraph operators last Summer, it may have been noticed by the readers of the Evening Post that there were two different currents of opinion in the editorial columns on the general subject. After I had gone on my Summer vacation, about Aug. 1, some articles appeared involving doctrines against which I protested, and for which I informed my associate in charge that I could not take any responsibility. I have since then withheld myself from taking part in the editorial conduct of the paper.”

Mr. Schurz was not prepared to say anything regarding his future course of action. He was asked if it was true that Attorney-General Brewster had instructed the United States District Attorney to appear for him (Mr. Schurz) in the suit brought against him by Charles D. Gilmore for $300,000 damages. Mr. Gilmore was disbarred by Mr. Schurz when the latter was Secretary of the Interior. “I was informed the day before yesterday,” said the ex-Secretary, “that the District Attorney had received directions to appear for me. The questions involve the power of the heads of departments to regulate the appearance of counsel in those departments and to disbar them for good cause; and no Secretary can keep his department clear of illegitimate practices if he is obliged to permit everybody to transact business there as an attorney, no matter what tricks the attorney may resort to.”

“For what reason did you disbar Mr. Gilmore?”

“The records of the Department of the Interior will show that it was a simple performance of duty on my part to do so. Perhaps the particulars might be obtained there. I disbarred scores of attorneys during the four years of my term as Secretary. Pension attorneys and others were disbarred for malpractice; and it would be an impossibility for anybody to take charge of a department if all such disbarred attorneys could come and receive damages from him. I suppose, therefore, that this case is of considerable interest to the present Secretary of the Interior in his wrestle with the pension attorneys. Mr. Gilmore had a large practice, was supposed to be wealthy, and is a sort of representative man among them.”

• Facsimile at query.nytimes.com