The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1872-03-28

| rrrdItabl6 10 the iitinp'iS
denomination to bring the session 10
'r.od, conclusion by combining their actich
81 ;ndsncnsable measures. This looks like
rising superior to the pests which have SO
hesct their course, and maintaining the Dug
nity and consistency of the Government.
"------.--------- -
Rv EASY steps it has been made plain
what our civil service reformers cannot 40,
and therefore what it is folly in them to
undertake, and that is to resist the universal
application of the doctrine OF rolatloh III
office. These views but express the now
almost unanimous sentiment OF puolc men;
This conclusion has been generally reached
bv them without the trouble OF reasoning
themselves into it. The debates III congress
have been usually vague ana superncal,
vet the judgments expressed nave peeh
none the less clear and decided. LOOK,
inc, then, upon the argument adduced
as decisive, it beng sustained by expo
rience in the past, by the judgment oi
nublic men, and by the reason Of the thing, 1t
may he concluded that we arc to have here
after, rs we have had hitherto in our frequent
elections. frequent changes of parties, and
frequent wholesale redistribution of offices,
in all the departments of the Government.
Ina word, rotation in office is to DE, us it has
been, the law and the practice; and If we do
not mistake the tendency of events, instead
of its being less and less, it is to be more and
more the habit of our politics. We are not
to have, for the people will not endure, any
life tenures, or any body of fixed and per-
lrancnt oftice-ho]ders in the general admins
tration of affairs Washington correspond
gnce of The Ner York Tribune.
The foregoing statement gives the right
view of the question of civil service reform
and what has been the usage heretofore and
what will probably be the usage hereafter in
this country. There can be no reform in
PRODUCED now save that one Administration
NAV appoint better class Of men than that
which preceded it.
The Constitution puts the power OF al-
rointment in the hands Of the President,
and that settles the question beyond the hope
of real reform as long as the Government is
republic IN a free country men must be
taM for their services; and how are men to
be rewarded for working to elect President
if they are not to lave the public Offices !?
The Presidents small salary does not give
him the means of paying his supporters, and
the Government must do that. We suppose
that this is the logic. If it is not, we can
not imagine what is. 1t may be asked,
How are the supporters of the defeated
candidate to lie rewarded for their
k,bors? The answer is, they deserve no
reward because they had no better sense
than to get on the wrong side, and that not
ONLY does not entitlc them to rewards, but,
on the contrary, to punishment for having
cspoused the defeated side. The logic on
one side is as good as that on the other, and
the action Of the Government certainly gives
approval to the correctness of both, since
every benefit in its power to bcstow is given
TO the victorious side. while it not only de-
MES to the other everything, but deprivcs it
of even that it hath. The contrast between
the treatment of the one and the other is as
wide as that between rewards and punish
mcnts, and the policy is happily illustrative
of the spirit Of the Government as now adj
ministered the employment of the public
wealth of the whole nation to elevate ambi-
tious men to power. 1t is a system Of wrong
and corruption which has become us lase as
it we'll can be.
But how is it to be changed? 1t cannot be.
Oflicc-holderS are opposed to change and as
pirants to Office arc equally opposed to it;
for they have no idea of blocking themselves
out of office by a revolution in the tenure
| and mode of filling office before their party
victory which is to open to them the sweet
| pastures of public patronage. What the cor
respondent of the Tribune says about "rota-
ton" in Office and its being demanded by
the people is mere fudge. The people demand
no such thing. Only the party hacks demand
it, and only the "outs" among them. Does
any man in office talk about rotation in office?
Not bit Of it.
The phrase "rotation in office" was first
used, we believe, in the JACKSON campaign
Of '2S. One of the adroir politicians ell
listed in that canvass we, think, spoke
of the healthy influence of "rotation in
Office" 1t became quite popular. 1t was
decorous term for pitching the men JACK
SON found in Office out of their places and
putting the partisans of Old Hickory in their
places. When that was done "rotation :"
| was heard Of no more during the JACKsoNIAS
era. The man of iron will then in Office
knew what was what, and who was who,
about as well as any other man that ever
lived in this land. He very quickly dismissed
men he did not like, or thought incompetent,
but he never turned out any of his paltisans
who did his will or discharged their duties
His opponents used to say that he practiced
n sort OF "rotation in Office by rotating a
man out of one Office into better one.
But the phrase is only one Of those inge-
NOUS ones with which the artful politicians
are ever deceiying the people. They are not
enlisted at all in this scramble for Office, which
is great national evil entailed by the Con-
stitution and ineradiable. 1t may subvert
the Government, but it cannot be cured. 1t
is a cause of official incompetency and inf
deity, and the greatest source of national
corruption and deprayity.
| --------------------------
Is the New Assessment Bill Consti-
tutional?
! The fourth section of the fifth article OF the
Constitution is in these words: