The national Republican., 1869-02-04
THE TENURE.OF.OFFIcE ACT

We observe that several OF our exchanges
take for granted that the Senate will not re-
peal or essentially modify the tenure-of-
office act.
1t is assumed that power, once enjoyed,
bewildcrs and intoxicates those who possess
IL, and that those who once get II are never
willing to surrender the advantages which Il
confers; hence 1t is argued that the Senate
will hold on to the law, and reject the House
bill which provides for its repeal. This
supposition is purely hypothetical, for no
one knows as yet what the Senate will do in
the premises. We think it fair to conclude,
from certain indications in the Senate, that
though the House bill may not, as 1t Is, pass
that body, yet important notifications will
be made in the law, and such notifications,
too, as will very generally satisfy the country.
The substitute to the House bill, reported
by Senator Edmunds from the Committee
on Retrenchment, 1t strikes us is worthy of
consideration, and the question arises, is not
the proposition of Mr.. Edmunds all that
ought to be adopted at this timel
This substitute amends the original act,
"hu fAo'AhN5 tihb NNNlN HtlbOu HOt u
of the Cabinet, holding any civil office to
which he has been appointed by and with
the consent Of the Senate, and every person
who shall hereafter be appointed to any
civil office and shall become duly qualified
to act therein, is and shall be entitled to hold
such Office till q successor shall have been in
like manner appointed and duly qualified.
Under this bill the President can suspend
an officer during the recess of the Senate
and appoint successor until the assembling
of that body, when, If the Senate confirmi
the suspension, the officer is removed, but 4
otherwise, he is reinstated.
1t will be seen that the principal difference
between the act and the substitute of Mr.
Edmunds Is that the members of the Cabinet
are exempted from the provisions Of the law
Every one will see that this is just and
proper distinction, as the members of the
Cabinet are the Presidents confidential ad.
yisers, and he should therefore be allowed tC
select and to reject these officers; but in the
case Of other and subordinate officers tn
public interests do not require that tn
almost unlimited power which the Prcsiden
has heretofore been allowed to exercis
should continue to be lodged in his hands.
The increasing power of the Executive, an,
particularly his influence over the disposal o
civil offices, have been alarming to tn
thoughtful and rejecting men Of the oountr
for several years, and 1t had become Ques
tion whether or no so much patronage shoul,
remain almost exclusively in the hands o
one man, even though he be a man of un
doubted patriotism, governed by the puros
motives, and devoted to the highest interest
and the welfare of the nation. If power
intoxicating when placed in the hands of tn
United States Senate, II is none the less 3
when lodged in the hands of one man. VIII
should 1t not be shared in by both the Pres
dent and the Senatel Will not tho publ
interests be better subseryed in this way
1t is argued that this civil tenure act wa
passed to limit the power and influence {
Mr.. johnson, and that as his term is no.
about to expire there Is no Longer any occa
sion for the act to be continued. We submit
that this might have been the principal me
tive which inspired this law; but 1t does NJ
follow, therefore, that the act does not hay
many important ends to accomplish, or thi
it is not a necessary preCautiOn against
growing evil, viz: too much power in Il
hands of one man over the disposal of Go
ernment patronage.
We know that, so fur rs the next Pres
dent is concerned, there would be no har
done If this law were repealed; but Congre
cannot legislate upon matter Of this SO
with reference to the next four years,
even the next eight years. If this tcnure-C
office act be now Internationally repeale
and the country thereby is given to undo
stand that it was only to have tcmpora
existence, and was designed to prevent VIII
was alleged to be the mischieyous inhuen
of one man over Office and place, and mu
be repealed when his political life expire
it can never be renacted whatever m
happen.
We incline, therefore, to the opinion tn
this act should be modified, and we see u
why Mr.. Edmunds' substitute for the Hou
bill, or something like ii, may not
adopted