The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-02-24
Tenure of Office.
From The ~. Y. Tribune.
The New York Times says

The New York Times says:-
Senators seem to be unaware of the interest
taken by the people in their action Tor rather
insction) regarding the repeal OF the Tenure. Of
Once law. The country desires the demolition
Of every barrier that will DISTRACT Grants
course In reforming the awful cOrrup ion of
The administrative service The next four years
will either be better or worse tnan the last four
-tor corruption, II not arrested, spreads with
fearful activity. If they are worse, we will be
threatened with ruin-if better, it must be by
peremptory reform, and this is i'm possible
while the Tenure-of- Office law remains. Sena-
tors must know this, and they must know that
the people know It,"
If General Grant were to be President for
ever; if it were impossible ever to have an
other Andrew Johnson; if there were no good
principles involved in the Civil Of
Office bill, then we might accept the theory of
the Times. Sometimes its theories have an
absurd application. In the Times of Sunday
we have long article severely ceDsuring the
| Senate for presuming to entertain the amend
ment of Senator Edmunds that no military or
naval officer should hold additionally civil
office. According to the Times, the first evil
of that law would be to prevent the appoint
| ment of General Sherman in the Cabinet
| Then we should have innumerable frauds
upon naval and military departments, and
general rascality everywhere In other words,
all office. holders that don't cOme from the
army and navy are thieves
We repeat this summary of the Times
former article to make a comparison with the
extract here quoted There is ahaughty tone
about this paragraph which is amusing.
Senators seem to be unaware of the interest
taken by the people in their action Cor rather
inaction) in regard to the repeal OF the Tenure
Of Office law.' We see little interest in this
| subject. The bill was not even honored with
debate in the House. 1t was whirled through
under some parliamentary rule. The infu-
ences which accomplished that sudden repeal
| stand hammeripg and battering at the doors
| of the Senate. ''The country does not desire
the demolition of every barrier that will OBJ
struct Grants course in reforming the awful
corruption of the administrative service"
But does the Civil Tenure of Office law prove
to be such 'barrier ?" Does the Times
imagine that if General Grant were to send to
the Senate on the 9th of March names for
every revenue place in the country, and say
he had made the removals for ''the public
good" they would not be confirmed Is it
wise to say that the Civil Tenure-of. Office bill
was passed merely as an annoyance to Presi-
dent Johnson Are we to put upon the record
that all legislation of the past few years was
temporary and triyial-mere expediency,
without craftsmanship or purpose?
OF course, the editor of the Times would be
glad 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 place We don't insist
!
some of its provisions cumbersome. We should
like to see the statute in reference to the
Cabinet stricken out. We think the Presi-
dent should be permitted to take prompt re-
sponsibi ties when q sudden necessity arises,
but we regard this bill as forever destroying
the vicious principle that 'to the victOrs be-
long the spois," and as leading the way to a
thorough reform of our whole civil service.
We have not the least fear about General
Grant. At the same time we think the Civil
Tenure. OF. Office bill will be, in many respects,
a convenience and a comfort to him. 1t will
save him from the overwhelming tide OF Office
getting, which seems about to overwhelm his
administration After Adams we had Jackson.
After Taylor we had Buchanan: after Lincoln
we had Johnson. Now we have Grant. Atte'
Grant, aohdt? Who knows but even worse
than Johnson may come-a President with
more tact and higher courage. Give such 9
man this tremendous civil power, unchecked
by the Senate, and We give him imperia
strength.
We therefore trust the Senate will be
cautious about entirely surrendering this
bill. II must not be controlled by the foolish
argument that the repeal is necessary for th'
success of General Grants administration
We have yet to hear from General Grant any
expression Of his desire that 1t should be re
pealed. These angry, impatient, petulant
olamoring politicians who stand at the Senate
doors and address us in the language of the
Times represent nothing but their own de
sires. We care little for this particular bill