The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-05-06

val from Office, except in the most fragrant cases of
peculation or corruption, had become obsolete and
such was the Difference of the Executive to public
sentiment, which then watched the exercise of the
Executive prerogatives with the utmost Jealousy,
that of the important Offices in every part of
the country were in the hands of negligent, imbe-
cile, or otherwise inefficient and incompetent per-
sons. II was supposed that law limiting the term
of Office TO four years would remedy this abuse, by
leaving the President free to appoint fit and COM
petent successor at the end of every official term in
all cases of delinquency in the preceding ncum-
bent, without subjecting himself to the charge Of
tyranny and prescription.
That, sir, is the history of the act of 1920 The
operation Of it beneficial in many respects un-
til period commencing about ten years after its
passage when the interests of party interposed TO
prevent its operation and to make il the source of
increased abuses. Under the system of political
and party prescription introduced in the practice of
the Federal Government during the administra-
ton of General Jackson, the act of 1920 has become
nothing more than a convenient instrument to en-
able party President to carry out the proscrptye
policy under circumstances less obnoxious to popular
clamor And the general result has been, that when
an incumbent however inefficient or negligent hap
pens to be the friend and partisan of the Executive,
he is reappointed; and, the other hand, however
faithful and competent he may be, he is dropped,
this evil Of the last twenty years, growing out of
the proscriptive policy is not the result of the act
of 1920 alone. Unfaithful or incompetent office
holders, whether they get their places by direct
relnOval Oh u lOTHeT or come III Dy
pointment on the expiration of a former term,
while they continue faithful to their party ale-
glance, are never dropped or removed until their
defalcation becomes fragrant and the general voice
demands their dismissal The President in such
cases is naturally reluctant to friend;
the party leaders come to his protection and de-
fence; they urge his influence as partisan, and
insist that his faults shall not be harshly dealt
with and the common result is that he is con-
tinued in office. This, sir, is great abuse
one of the most prominent of the brood connected
with the policy OF prescription; and believe it has
been felt to be so by all the business classes of the
community This is the abuse at which the senti-
ment pointed to by the Senator from Maine in the
inaugural address intended to redress. i un-
derstand General Taylor, when he says that the
want of "honesty, capacity, and fidelity" shall be
sufficient ground for removal in all cases, to mean
that he win remove for this cause whether the in
cumbent of Office subject to his control be Whig
or Democrat, friend or opponent; whether he re-
ceived his appointment from himself or from any of
his predecessors.
But the Senator still insists that the sentiment of
the inaugural of General Taylor was pledge that
for no other would he remove an official in
eumbent than the want of the particular qualfca-
tions he therein specified; and, to ortify his inter
probation Of the language Of General Taylor, the
honorable Senator has referred to a statement al
legged to have been made during the late canvass
by the present Governor Of Kentucky; for many
years distinguished member of the Senate, Gov
ernor Crittenden.) That distinguished gentle
man, known to have been the particular and conf
dental friend of General Taylor, is said to have
declared in public speech, or in some letter to
friend, afterwards made public that of his own
personal knowledge he could undertake to say that
General Taylor was opposed to the odious policy Of
prescription for opinions sake and this statement
of Governor Crittenden il triumphantly appealed
to proofconcusive not only that Gen. Taylor was
pledged by his letters and the language Of his
inaugural address against the policy Of party pro
scription, but, when these pledges are considered
in connexion with the number of officers actually
removed by General Taylor, that he has grossly
violated them Does not the Senator know that the
distinguished gentleman of Kentucky referred 10,
known he and is, as the decided enemy Of the
proscriptve policy, when he a member of this
body regarded the interference of Office holders in
elections gross abuse that he introduced
law, and 10 compel the President 10 remove all such
offenders against official propriety? And is il for
moment 10 be presumed that Governor Crittenden
ever dreamed Of pledging that his friend General
But, aside from the authority of Governor Criten-
den this subject, General Taylor, in assuming
officious intermeddling in elections as good cause
for removal, might well rely upon the doctrine Of
Mr.. jefferson, the boasted father Of Democracy.
That great man opposed in principle 10 the pras
tce OF removal for opinions sake, yet he held all
active interference in elections Just cause Of
moyal General Taylor, then, has taken the ground
that Jefferson took, and be may safely stand upon
such platform. / need not remind the Senator
frem Maine that the Democratic party at this day
goes far beyond and contrary To the doctrines Of
jefferson upon this subject. Can the Senator from
Maine really believe that General Taylor, either in
his numerous letters his inaugural address, really
meant TO pledge himself that he would not remove
public officer on the ground Of intermeddling in
elcctions' cannot perceive even aplausible ground
for such belief; but il seems the honorable Sena
tor has worked himself up TO that conclusion.
The Senator has instituted a comparison between
the number of removals during the administration
Of General jackson and the administration, far,
a. 4. 4.
Justice in such parallel. When General jackson
came into office he found the Office holders ALL or
nearly all, Republican Democratic. The old
party lines had been nearly quite obiteratcd for
The preceding twenty years. General jackson
came into power protesting 10 disregard the old
party distinctions in appointing 10 office; and Il IL
well known that I'm his election he supported
by great number Of the old Federal party. How
ever true II may be that there were a few incum-
bents in the Executive departments, and through
out the country, who had received their appoint
ments under the administration Of the elder Adams
and Of General Washington, yst the mass Of them
had been put in Office by Mr.. jefferson, by Madi-
son. and Monroe all democratic and republican in
their principles. The practice Of removals from Of
fce had fallen almost into dissss after the com
mencemcnt Of Mr.. Jefierson's administration; and,
with but few exceptions the offices Of the Govern
ment were filed by persons who held TO the princi-
ples Of the party which triumphcd in 1900 Gene
raj Jackson, IL IL well known, did not make reno
walls on the ground that the incumbcnts were Fed
cralss, Dut because tncy were anti jackson men.
Mr.. BRApBURY II the Senator will allow me,
stated that had reference 10 those who were in
favor Of, and those whs were opposed to, General
Jack kson.
Mr.. BELL. The distinction between Democrats
and Federalists neither made regarded !;
at every step In his progress Of removal nc was
probably turning out Democrat. The Senator
from Maine, an evidence Of the greater forbcar-
ance Of General jackson in making removals,
states that, of the three four hundred oce-hold
ers then in the Executive Departments he only re-
moved forty; and he now admits, he did in his
speech, that these removals we're made in refer
cnce tuiiic question Svhether thev were jackson
men or anti Jackson men. These forty removals
then, were made on the ground Of anti-Jackson
feelings and sentiments; what is the presumption
that srses 10 the political sentiments Of the re
mainder Of three or four hundred ofice-holders in
Washington' Why, they must have been Jack
son men or, at all events, willing 70 be oonsid
cred. And General jackson would not think Of
removing his own friends. Well, sir, see the con-
trast. There had been fierce struggle for final
ascendcncy between Mr.. Adams and General
Jackson---only forty Of the three OF four hun
dred officers in the Executive Departments were
understood 10 be friendly 20 the administra-
ton Of Mr.. Adams. The distinguished senator
from Kentucky (Mr. CAV formed a part Of his
t..t.f