The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-05-04


That sir is the history Of the act OF 1890 The ope.
ration OF il was beneficial in many respects until period
commencing about ten years after its PASSAGE when the
interests Of party nleposed TO prevent its operation and
to make the OF increased abuses Under the sys-
tenn Of political and party prescription introduced in the
practice OF the federal during the admiHistra
uon OF General Jackson, the act Of 1870 has become
nothing more than convenient instrument TO enable
party President to carry out the prosciptiye policy
under circumstances less obnoxious to popular camor
And the general result has been, that when ncum-
bent however inefficient Or negligent happens to Be the
friend and partisan OF the Executive, he is reapponted
and, the other hand however faithful and competent
he may be, he is dropped and noisy partisan Is appoint
ed In his place. But this evil OF the last twenty years
growing out u the ptoscrptye policy Is not the result
of the OF 1890 alone Unfahfnl incompetent Of
holders whether they get their places BY direct
mova OF former incumbent, come in by appointment
on the expiration OF former term, while they continue
faithful to their party allegiance, never dropped or
removed until their defalcaton becomes fragrant, and the
general voice demands their dismissal The President In
such is naturally reluctant to friend the
party leaders come TO his protection and defence; they
urge his influence partsan and insist that his faults
shall not be harshy dealt with and the common result 10
one oil The most prominent OF the brood connected with
the policy OF proscnption and believe i has been felt
to be SO by all the business classes OF the community
This is the abuse which the sentiment pointed to- by
the senator from Maine in the inaugural address in
tended to redress. understand General Taylor, when
he says that the want OF honesy, capacity, and fidelity"
shall be sufficient ground Tor removal in all cases, TO
mean that he will remove for this cause, whether the in
cumbent OF 6ce subject 10 bis control be whg or dem
ocTat friend opponents whether he received his ap
polntment from himself from any OF his predecessors
But the senator still insists that the sentiment OF the in
augural OF Gen. Taylor was pledge that for no other
cause would he remove an official incumbent than the
want OF the particular qualifications ne therein specified;
and, 10 oly bis Interpretation Of the angage Of Gen.
Taylor, the honorable senator has referred to statement
alleged 10 have been made during the late canvass by the
present governor Of Kentucky tor many years dslin-
guished member OF the Senate lGoy Crittenden That
distinguished gentleman, known to have been the par
tictlar and confidential friend OF General Taylor is said
10 have declared in public speech OF In adme ettet to
friend afterwards made public that OF his own per-
sona knowledge he could undertake 10 say that General
Taylor was opposed to the odious policy Of prescription
for opinions sake and this statement OF Goyetnor Grit
tenden is trmphanty appealed to proof conclusive.
not only that General Taylor pledged by his own
letters and the language OF his inaugural address against
the policy OF party prescription, but when these pledges
actually removed by General Taylor, that he has
grossly violated them. Does not the senator know
that the distinguished gentleman OF Kentucky referred
the proscriptve policy, when he was member OF
this body, regarded the interference Of Office holders
In elections 80 gross all abuse that he introduced
and advocated the passage OF bill TO prohibit it by law,
and 10 compel the President 10 all such offenders
against official propretyi And is il for moment TO be
presumed that Governor Criltenden ever dreamed Of
pedging that his friend General Taylor would not re-
for any such But aside from the authority
OF Governor Crttenden this subject, General Taylor,
in assuming ocious niermeddling in elections good
Mr. jefferson. the boasied father Of democracy. That
great opposed in principle to the practice OF
moval for opinions sake. yet he held all active inter-
ference In elections just cause OF removal General
Taylor then has taken the ground that jefferson took,
and he may safely stand upon such platform. need
not remind the senator from Maine that the democratic
party At this day goes L.. beyond and q ae aoo
from Maine really believe that General Taylor either IN
his letters in his inaugural address, really
to s II BE aG
perceive plausible ground for such belief
but il the honorable senator has worked himself
up TO that conclusion.
TIE senator mas instituted comparison between the
number of removals during the administration OF Gene
raj Jackson and the administration, far. OF General
Taylor Sir. there is no fairness, no justice IN such
parallel, When General, Jackson came into office be
found The oce holders ALL or nearly all republican or
democratic. The old party lines had been nearly or
quite obeated for the preceding twenty years General
party distinctions in appointing TO oce and i Is well
known that in his eeciion he supported by great
number Of the old federal party. However true Il may
be that there few Incumbents IN the executive
departments and throughout the counry, who had re.
ceived their appointments under the administration OF the
elder Adams and OF Gen Washington, yet the mass oil
them had been put in Office by Mr. Jefferson, by Madison
and Monroe all democratic and republican, in their pr-
cples The practice OF removals from Office bad fallen
almost into disuse after the oil MIR Jeer
sons administration and, with but few exceptions, the
officers OF the government were filled by persons who
held the principles OF the party which hiumphed IN
1900 Gen jackson, il is well kown, did not make re-
movas on the ground that the ncumbents were federal
lists, but because they were ant-Jackson men
Mr.. BRADBURY. II the senator will allow me,
stated that had reference TO those who were in avof oil
and those who were opposed to, Gen Jackson
Mr.. BELL. The distinction between democrats and
ederasts neither made nor regarded; al every seT
in his progress OF removal he probably turning out
democrat The senator from Maine, as an evidence o
The greater forbearance oil General Jackson in making
movaIs, states that OF the three or four hundred ofce
holders then in the executive departments, he only re
moved orty and he admits, he did in his speech
that these removals made in reference TO the ques
ton whether they were jackson men or anii-Jaeksor
men. These forty removals, then, made on the
ground OF anti Jackson feelings and sentiments What
the presumption that arises 10 the political sentiments
OF the remainder OF the three four hundred office
holders in Washington Why, they must have been
Jackson mem or, al all events willing TO be so consid
cred And General jackson would not think of remov
ing his own friends Well, sir. the contrast Therg
had been fierce struggle for final ascendency beweer
MIR Adams and General Jacksonony forty OF the thret
or four hundred officers in the executive department.
were understood 10 be friendly TO the administration
Mr.. Adams. The distinguished senator from kentuck,
Mr. CLAYl formed part OF his Administrations and 4
any had just TO indulge proscrptve feel
ngs. he might find in the circumstances and incidents
OF the contest then going but not single removal
all the olceholders in Washington known to be favor
able 10 the election Of General Jackson made BY
and the abest we ever had, was known TO favor th'
election of General Jackson still he was retained il
office But General jackson into power
he proceeded TO remove every Office holder in Washing
ton and throughout the country who, in the preceding
canvass had made himself obnoxious to him by declar
under his administration and that Of Mr. Van Buren
said 10 have been about twelve hundred and a the clos
OF Mr.. Van Buren's administration il may be fairly pre-
sumed that they were all, nearly all, Jackson o