The New York herald., 1874-11-21
why Presidsnt Grant Ought tc
Change His Cabinet.

I
denials to prove that it is not very uncom-
mon practice among public men. The legiti-
mate possessors OF official secrets feel bound
Ito guard them, especially in cases where they
relate to projects merely under consideration
but not ct fully decided upon, and Intended
to be kept entirely from the public knowledge
if the projects should not succeed. The Won
Arnim prosecution is signal instance OF the
resolute jealousy with which government
secrets are protected and If the documents III
question should be recovered We presume
Prince Bismarck would make no scruple Of
contradicting the awkward parts of their con-
tents if they should afterwards gain cur
rency on the wings Of rumor. Whether
our government would feel at equal
liberty to deny facts which nobody possesses
documents to prove is a point we will not dis
cuss tor purpose that has miscarrled Is OF
as little public consequence as II 1t had never
been formed. The recent emphatic denials at
Washington make it certain that General
Grant has no present intention OF calling Mr.
Washburne home, and it is all the same to
the country whether he had such purpose
and abandoned it, or whether the step was
never in contemplation. In either case, it is
equally matter OF regret that SO wise
course is not to be adopted
The reasons for reconstructing the Cabinet
are so solid that President Grant ough to
weigh them. The democratic party naturally
deprecates such change, as it does every
movement calculated to lift up the republican
party after its prostrating defeat. The demo-
cratic press has accordingly attempted to
show that the President would gain nothing
/ by changing his advisers and has
| tried to blunt the force of the
arguments founded on English analogy.
1 1t is said that in our political
4 system the Cabinet officers are mere secre-
taries of the President, subject to his direc-
ton, and that, as their duties are all pre-
\ scribed by law, it makes no real difference
who performs them But are not the British
Ministers also secretaries of the Queen and
subject TO her orders? Are not their duties
prescribed by acts OF Parliament! Is she not
as free, by the laws of the realm, to appoint
and dismiss them at pleasure as our President
is TO appoint and dismiss the members of his
Cabinet? 1t is not true that our heads of de-
part,nents are personally responsible only to
the President they are responsible to the
laws, to Congress, subject to prosecution and
penalties by the action of the judiciary, and
to impeachment and removal from Office by
the two houses. 1t is only custom and not
law which forces a Ministry to retire when
it forfeits public confidence, the strictly legal
authority of the Queen to continue them
atterward being as perfect as that OF the Pres
ident to continue his Cabinet. If the
British practice had nothing but custom
to recommend it it would deserve little
respect; but it is o custom founded
| on good sense, and is, therefore, worthy of
attentive study. The art of governmen. in
free countries is the art of controlling public
opinion; public opinion, through forms more
or less circuitous, being the governing iorce
| in all countries really free. Yet it is not wise
TO let a government drift at the mercy Of sud-
den gusts of popular passion, which needs to
be checked by elements Of permanence and
stability. In Great Britain the elements of
stability are the hereditary throne and House
OF Lords; in this country the fixed tenure of
Office of the President and Senate. When q
new party carries the elections in England its
sphere of influence is limited by the fact that
no law can be passed or repealed without the
concurrence of the irremovable Lords any
more than it can in this country without the
concurrence OF the Senate; and yet it is expe-
dent to pacify public sentiment by changes
in the personnel OF the administration which
evnce respectful Difference to the public
will and recognition of its right to ultimate
control. Such changes operate as q safety
valve to abate the explosive force Of
popular passions. Everybody must see that
the violence of opposition would be greatly
intensified in Great Britain if the people were
not afforded the visible evidence of their power
which IS given by an immediate change of the
Ministry when the country has recorded its
verdict against it. 1t is no wonder that the
democratic party of this country is un wiling
the President should weaken and disarm hos
tile public sentimen by such concessions as
would be implied in a prompt reorganization
OF his Cabinet. But opposition from demo-
cratic sources should convince the President
that such change would be for his own in
terest and that of his party.
He is adroIy told that he would merely
''plav President if he had stronger Cabinet
But did Washington merely ''play President"
when Jefferson and Hamilton held the two
chief places under him? Did Lincoln "play
President" when his Cabinet consisted of taa
foremost statesmen of the republican pazty3
II is absurd, or rather in the present case it
is invidious to fatter the President with
the idea that his official advisers ought
to be mere instruments, like the staff
officers OF general. 1t would doubtless
be good thing for the democratic
l party tor President Grant to continue to act