The New York herald., 1876-07-12
Tn. Tr.e Meaning OF Civil Service Re-

reform in the civil service has been
asked and indorsed in the national platforms
of both parties, and the republican candi-
date in his letter Of acceptance has laid
great stress and emphasis on this part of the
Cincinnati platform. Neither Mr.. Hayes
nor the ST. Louis declaration leave any
doubt as to what they intend by reform in
the civil service. They alike mean exemp-
tion Of the subordinate federal officers from
removal for reasons merely political they
alike protest against the present system of
wholesale and indiscriminate removals on
party grounds We rejoice that both of our
great political organizations have been forced
by public sentiment to take this sound view
oven in theory, and we trust that the growth
of the same wholesome sentiment may force
them to pay some regard to their pledges af-
ter the election. We are sorry to witness in
any intelligent quarter attempts to belittle
and discredit this important reform.
1t is impossible to discuss this subject
without confusing it. unless we draw dis
tinct line between officers who are clothed
with large discretion in the discharge of
their functions and officers whose duties are
merely ministerial or administrative and
who have no option but to obey the laws and
the directions of their superors Short
tenures are indispensable for the former, in
order that the people may retain their con-
troll over the government. Long tenures
and irremovahility are necessary for the lat
ter, in order that the government may have
federal patronage may not be welded as a
party engine. The military and naval SER
vice furnish the proper model for that part
of the civil service which is merely minis
terial. In our government the military is
subordinate to the civil power, and, being
will-bound to strict obedience-we rem
der that instruments efficient by giving
our military and naval officers o tenure dur
ing good behavior, dismissing them only for
incompetence or misconduct so long as
Congress sees no necessity for reduction
of the force. It would be absurd to declaim
against this system as IAN aristocraSy;" it
is only means of securing experience and
q high order Of trained capacity in that part
of the service which is devoted to the public
defence. It is attended with no danger 30
long as the army has no will of its own and
is mere instrument in the hands of the
civil authorities. The army would be as
badly smoralized as our civil service is if
every party President could fill it with his
creatures, and if a clean sweep were made
for party reasons at every change Of admin
istration.
The distinction we have adverted to may
be further illustrated by reference to one of
the great departments of the civil govern
ment- the judiciary. All the federal judges,
whether OF the Supreme Court, the Circuit
courts or the District courts, hold by the
tenure of good behavior; but it would
be absurd to denounce them as an 'arstoc-
racy" because their tenure is practically for
life. 1t is safe to give the judges this secure
tenure, because they have no discretion but
to administer the law as they find it. They
are not Legislators but expounders and
suitors have better chance tor justice when
the impartiality Of judges is measurably
secured by protecting them from party
caprice and exempting them from depend
ence on the i'll Of either the President or
Congress. Congress, with the approval Of
the President, makes laws, and the courts
are bound to administer the laws as they
find them in the statute book, unless they
are in conflict with the constitution. But
even in declaring an unconstitutional statute
void the Judiciary has no discretion or
choice it is bound to decide in accordance
with fundamental law which it had no
agency in making The will of the people,
in their just control over the government
can be exerted only in choosing Congress
and the President, all the other branches of
the public service being bound to enforce
the laws which Congress enacts and the
treaties which the President negotiates aud
the Senate ratifies.
Now, the same line of reasoning applies to
the subordinate officers Of the civil service as
to the judiciary and to the army and navy.
The civil service subordinates have no discre-
ton and no tito to exercise an independent
judgment They are as strictly subordinate
and as fully bound to obey the orders of their
superiors as the officers of the army and
navy, and they ought, therefore. to be
equally exempt from removal for mere
party reasons. When a change of policy
is thought expedisnt by the country it can
be fully accomplished by the election OF a
no more necessary to change the subordinate
civil officers in order to enforce q new policy
than it is to change the personnel of tho army
on a transition from peace to war or war to
peace Tho army. being passive instru-
ment, can be controlled with equal ease for
war for peace, and the civil service sub
ordinntes are equally pliable having no moro
discretion than the officers of the
army. and being as strictly bound to