New-York tribune., 1875-09-01


There was never a better time to establish
once for all as settled fact in onr politics
the principle of absolute official responsibility.
Recent occurrences invite us to it, and public
sentiment as well as tine public safety demands
it. BY absolute responsibility, we mean the
holding public officers accountable not merely
for the honest discharge of their immediate
duties but for the efficiency, thOrOughncss,
and ability of their own work and that OF
every one of their subOrdinates-in short, for
the complete administration OF whatever
trust is committed to them. Our politicians
and public men have got so much III the way
of dividing responsibility and shifting it from
one officer or one department to another, that
il has sometimes seemed as though there was
really no responsibility anywhere, whatever
welt wrong. Only when a public officer was
caught in the very act of theft was he held
blamable: in all other cascs-as, for instance,
when he had blundered at the expense of the
Government, or scandal had been raised by bis
laziness, inefiicency, or neglect, or some us
honest subordinate of his had cheated or robbed
the GOvernment-he has been judged with the
utmost leniency as being personally not III iatlt.
"He is personally honest" public opinion has
said and so dismissed the matter. We have
carried this loose notion of responsibility to
such an extent during the past five or six
years that intelligent, sensible men, who mean
to be patriots so far as they can be consist
emily with partisanship, have not bushed to
he driven to say, as last resort III defense OF
the President of the United States, "Well, |
"belieye he is personally honest" As though
we had ever had an Executive who was not !;
or as though personal honesty was so rare a
quality among lis as to entitle its pOssessOr to
immunity for all other failings and faults, and
TO the most conspicuous place in the Govern
meIt.
In such a state of things it is easy to see
how the public service would naturally and
inevitably become corrupt. Nothing but utter
decentralization could come from such low esti-
mates of duty and responsibility. 1t is not
strange that with such a slack grasp of the
true conception of what belongs to faithful
and honorable service, loose and irresponsible
methods, and careless and corrupt admInistra-
ton, should be so largely in vogue. It's graft
flying indication Of an improvement in this
regard that in the recent investigations, official
incOmpetency and negligence are begin
ming to be judged with less leniency
than formerly. and principals are beginning to
acknowledge their responsibility and to be held
accountable for the acts of their subordinates.
When Secretary DelanO, in his sharp CORE
spondence with the original Indian Commits
sion, asserted SO broadly his responsibility for
the acts of his subordinates in the Department,
whatever may have been his motive, there can
| he no doubt of the correctness of his position.
Il was much more creditable to him than
| the recent effort by persons in his interest
to saddle the responsibility for Indian frauds
upon the religious denominations which
recommended the agents. Messrs. Beach and
Richmond were equally strong in the position
first assumed by them with reference to the
Canal frauds perpetrated while they were menu
bers of the Canal Board, though it may be
doubted if either of these gentlemen would
have been so eager to assume responsibility
had they known little earlier the facts as they
appeared before the Governors Investigating
Commission. The principle is a correct one.
1t holds public officials to a rigid accOunta-
bility for the honesty and faithfulness of every
detail of the service they have contracted to
give the State. No other rule is possible If
the State is to be fairly and honestly served.
The present is good time to take new
departure to settle beyond controversy this
whole business of official accountability. Let
it be understood that the man who accepts an
Office like those by virtue of which Messrs.
Beach and Richmond held supervisory rela-
ton to the canal contract awards, holds 1t not
merely to draw a salary or serve political
party, but under an express contract himself
| to do the work the State is entitled to. The
man who accepts an Office for which he is unfit
and knows he is unfit commits a crime against
the State, and draws from its treasury un-
earned money. lie who neglects the
duty for which the state pays him
is equally criminal with those who
draw unearned money on unbalanced bids or
by any of the Ring methods. Sinecures are
robberies; and incompetent public officers
through whose incflicency or negligence the
State suffers are as much criminals as they who
take advantage of their remissness to plunder
the Taxpayers and rob the State. The impulse
in favor of administrative reform will have
accomplished little of permanent advantage
unless it establishes as rule of political action
the principle here laid down, that official in
competency is crime; not mere weakness,
but positive and pronounced crime.
|