Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1853-07-14


from office:
1T Is enough for US to know that the admin
istrarion has the right To administer The govern
ment through agents appointed from the ranks
of its friends rather than It's eRemies-for the
obvious reason, that almost every officer. how
ever humhle.has necessarily in the performance
ofhis official duIies.to exercise some discretion
ary power, which without suhjeciing him TO
any oseri violation ofthe laws Of the govern
men OF regulation of the department, may be
very naturally usel 10 tbwa-t rather Than for
ward the fishes of the administration, which
is alone responsible to The country for bis acts.
This covers the Mole ground and jnstfes
unlimited and indlscriminaie prescription
IL requiresevery officer olthe government how
ever obscure and unimportant his posi.to shape
his political views into conformity with those
of the Administration, or else give place 10 one
ofits followers II establishes an intolerance
OF opinion which like Judaism in England is to
operate a total civil disability. No freedom of
thought is TO be lolerated-no question oil the
infalIibility OF the administration to be submitted
to--but the Office holder who has the manli-
ness TO entertain independent sentiments.what'
ever may be his qualifcations.is TO be degraded
from the public service as unworthy Of trust
Were Washington livinghe could LOT hold the
humblest office under the present admlnlslra
tion-nor Madison-nor Henry. nor Marshall,
il this rule Of the Republican is TO govern it
And yet we live in n country that boasts of civ
j freedom and political equality! Can it be
possible that the doctrine laid down by the al.
ministration's organ here is approved by the
administration Luckily for us, its head has
LET US know what he once thought upon this
very subject. In speech which he delivered
in the L. S. Senate in 1871. speaking Of the
system pursued by Gen. Jackson, he said:
We stood before the nation and the world
on the naked, unqualified ground that we pre-
ferred our friends to our opponenlsl That to
confer place was our privilege which we chose
to exercise ought not to say aoe chose SIR,
for will say what hose friends best aealain.
ted with me know--hat there was nothing in
the administration of General Jackson v hich
/ so aayormlHfd,ied TO 5uaiIy as the removal
of one worthy officer 10 give place 10 anoth
err"
Here then the President aud the Republic
can are at issue; or, Otherwise, the President
has changed us view and raised an issue with
himself The Rcpublican thinks The President
has "a rghlY 10 aduinister the government
Through The agency of bis patty friends and
ought to do it, VIE the Pfesideut declares
that he uniformly flied % jns,iiy" the as
sumption by Gen. Jackson and bis Importers
He even went farthersha tbs and Explained in
detail the circumstnuccs which justify the re
moval of public officer Here they are:
"There is bat one sensible. practical rule
upon this subject. il the discretion of the Office
holders " i'll not observe il lei them feel The
effects Of il. It is this When public officer
meglects the duties ofh,s o8ice TOR politcaI puy
poses prostitutes II for political ends,or in any
way abuses the trust conided To him. 10 pro.
mote the objects ofa party heshould be remoe.d,
and SO far as know. my party yield TO thai
principle their cordial assent. But when You
transcend this, you aSsai the pubHc oficor IN
Metree and unembarassed ere,c else oliaaliena-
6te rights, secured to him By tie Constitution, as
man and citieen"
Now the question is whether the late Mail
Agent on the Va. & Tenn road (ior it is in
relation to him that the Republicans remarks
are made) neglected the duties Of his office
for political purposes prosluted it for politi
Cal ends or in any way abused the trust
coniidcd To him 10 promote the objects Of a
party. We challenged the Republican, in the
firtt article we wrote on the subject, 10 say
Why he had been, removed;-we defed it TO
show that one syllable of complaint had ever
been uttered against the manner in which he
had discharged his official duties What is
tie replyl We give it in the language of that
journal: "Now We shall not attempt to black.
en- his reputation by alleging that he was in
competent, negligent or unfathfal. SO far
as we are concerned, we are perfectly willing
to concede that he was a good officer" If
this be so, We demand to know neither we
Were not justified in pronouncing his removal
ga miserable act of petty tyranny''-wheth-
er The strong arm of the federal executive has
not assaulted citizen in the free use of "inal-