New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-02-23
at Austin on the second Monday in December.
The vote in Convention on the Declaration"
anhmittinr the Constitution as aforesaid stood
TENURE OF OFFICE.
1he Ne,r. York Times SAWS:
81 to24.

TENURE OF OFFICE.
The Ne,c- York Times says:
"senators seem be OF the Interest taken ~
the people In their action Tor rather nacloh de-
the repeal OF the law that will obsruct
Grants course in reforming the awful corrnrT Years
the administrative service Inc h lex t,onrfor cor
ruption II not arrested. spreads with feara rnInf
II they are worse we Will no re,arm and this is I'm
possible while the Tenure Oce law remains esoDie
must know this, and they must kno" tna' VIZ
know IT," ror,
If Gen. Grant were to be President forever;
if it were impossible ever to have anotner
Andrew johnson if there were no good plih-
ciples involved in the Civil Tenure-of-Oince
hill. then we might accept the theory OF me
Times. Sometimes its theories have an absurd
onnlication. In The Times of Sunday, we have
a long article severely censuring the Senate lor
presnming to entertain the amendment OF oeha-
tor Edmends that no military OF naVai oIlcer
should hold additionally civil Office. Accofu-
ing to The Times, the first evil Oh thac Ia"
would be to prevent the appointment OF zen.
Sherman in the Cabinet! Then we should
have ipnumerable frauds upon Naval ana NH
i.ary DEPARTMENTS, and general rascality every
wberel In other words, oil oiiiceholders
that don't come from the army and navy are
thieves!
We repeat this summary of The Iimess former
article to make a comparison with the extract
here quoted. There is a naughty tone about
this paragraph which is amusing. Senators
seem to be unaware of the interest taken by
"the people in their action (or rather inactlon),
Gin regard t0lthe repeal of the Tenure once
law We see little interest in this subject. The
III wit debate
Uouse II was whirled through under some Par
liamentarv rule. The influences which accom-
plisbed that sudden repeal stand hammering and
battering at the doors OF the Senate ihe
4" country does desire tho demolition of every
"barrier that will obstruct Grants course IN
reforming the awful corruption OF tho admin
"istratiye service.r But does the Civil Tenure
of Office law prove to be such " barrer1"
Does The Times imagine that II Gen. Grant
were TO send to the Senate on the 9th oil March
names for every revenue place in the country,
and say he had made the removals for 1.-THE
"public good" they would not be con-
frmed7 Is it wise to say that the Civil Tenure
of Office bill was passed merely as an annoy
ance TO President JohnsOn9 Arc we to put
upon the record that all legislation OF the past
few years was temporary and triyial-mere ex-
pedlency, without craftsmanship or purpose
OF course, the Editor of The Times would be
clad to have this admission made, because he
opposed these measures in the outset. But Is
it prudent to surrender this bill without hav-
ing something in its paceH We don't insist
upon the Civil Tenure-of- Office act. We think
some of its provisions cumbersome. We
should like to sec the statute in reference TO
n. Inl
the President should be permitted to take
prompt responsibilities when sudden
necessity arises, but we regard this
bill as forever destroying tho vicious
principle that "to the victors belong the spois,'
and as leading the way TO thorough reform
of our whole civil service. We have not the
least fear about Gen. Grant. AT the same
time, we think the Civil Tenure Office
bill will be, in many respects, convenience
and a comfort to him. 1t will save him from
the overwhelming tide of Office getting, which
seems about to oyerwhem his Administration.
After Adams we had Jackson. After Taylor
we had Buchanan: after Lincoln we had John
son. Now we have Grant. After Grant, what
| Who knows but even worse than johnson
may come-a President with more tact and
higher courage. Give such man this trc-
mendous civil power, unchecked by the Senate,
and we give him imperial strength.
We therefore trust the Senate will be eau
tious about entirely surrcndering this bill. II
must not be controlled by the foolish argument
that the repeal is necessary for the success OF
| Gen. Grants administration. We have yet to
hear from Gen. Grant any expression
of his desire that it should be repealed.
These angry, inpatient, petulaat clamoring
| politicians who stand at the Senate
doors and address it in the language of
| The Times represent nothing but their own
desires. We care little for this particular bill.
| We are Indifferent as to the number of amepd-
ments it may receive. We are perfectly willing
it should be reformed; but We do implore an
| American Congress not to surrender to the
uncertainties of future politics the great
principle that public Office shall only be given
| to public worth.
| THE PARAGUAY PRISONERS