The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-02-17
The Tcnure.Of-Oflce Law.

From he NJ Y. Times.
General Grant has made public proolama-
ton of his purpose to clear the civil service of
the thieves and imbeciles who have failed to
collect the revenue, or have put it into their
own pockets instead of the Treasury. He has
declared that he will make removals from
Office TO accomplish this result.
But by himself he cannot do this. The law
forbids it. He has no power to remove any
Office holder, no matter bow fligrant his dis
honesty or his inoapacity he can only suspend
him and await the approval OF the Senate. In
his speech the other day all he could do was
to promise reform, with the concurrence of the
Senate. AS things stand now, Mr., Summers
assertion is true; the Senate is the Govern
ment. II has taken upon itself some of the
most important of the functions OF the Execu-
tive, ana especially its control over the sub
ordinate officers of the civil administration.
Will the Senate aid General Grant in re-
forming the civil service, or will it obstruot
him in his efforts No one thing tended more
strongly to defeat Senator Morgan's reGeo-
ton than the belief that lie would keep in
office the Federal ofice-holders of this city
and State, who have secured their appoint
nents through his influence, and who have
proved their uniitpess for their positions
Governor Fenton was sent in his place. very
largely because be was a new man, much
more likely to aid General Grant in making
oppose and obstruct him.
The experience with the Senate, thus far,
in its control OF Executive appointments, has
not been encouraging. We believe that there
has not yet been single case in which the
Senate has approved" the removal or sus.
pepsion OF single Office holder, If he hap.
pened to be q member Of the dominant party.
Revenue officers have been con yicted by the
Counts OF crime, have been sentenced and
have actually gone to the penitentiary and
have yet been kept in Office by the refusal or
failure of the Senate to approve their re-
moval. 1t is impossible that a numerous
body like the Senate should perform exeou-
tive duties of this kind with vigcr, energy,
and proper sense of responsibility. And,
as our experience proves, the chances are
ten to one that party sympathies and party
interests will control its executive action in
all cases where the removal Of party favori .es
is concerned.
The Tenure Of Office law ought TO be re-
pealed. 1t can serve no other purpose now
than to prevent General Grans from making
the removals which he may deem essential to
the public service. The Senate has full con-
troll over his appointments. They must be
submitted to its consent and approval; what
more do Senator'S require? If the President
can make no removals-if in every case of
suspension from Office he must send his rea-
sons to the Senate, and they must be submit
ted TO the investigations of committee, and
then to the ordeal of the Senate itself, 1t is
clear that practically his power of removal
amounts to nothing. The delays and uncer-
tainties surrounding 1.-THE chances Of
thwarting his action by the Senate's vote
will be SO great as to deprive it of all terror
and all effect.
Ii the Senate intends to aid General Grant
in his efforts for civil reform, let it repeal the
Tenure-ot. Office bill, by which it has tied his
hands.