The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1877-10-04
ANDREW j."
Civil Service and The Canton P. 0.
RegtelCinO Congressman NJ
KtnJey'S Gnd Tom. Sac
TOMS Statements.

Editor Stark Co. Dem0cyat-A letter
from H, D, Shaffer, late P. NJ, of Can.
ton, in the Repository, confirms the
statements made in a former letter to
you regarding the civil service reform,
much more completely than the most ar
dent lover of truth and justice could de-
sire and Major Mckinley should know
that it is not his personal or official rec
ord, or Mr.. Saxton's, that gives interest
to this matter. 1t is of more important
character, showing as it does, the fallacy
of the reform in the civil service, which
those in power undertook to bring about
with such a flourish of trumpets, and
which it is falsely claimed they are eff
fecting.
Major McKinley's vindication in the
Repository is an absurdity. 1t is de-
Mai only, and not vindication. A man
does not lift himself over the fence by
his own boot straps. The criminal who
rises up and says, Il am innocent" is
not told by the Judge to depart in peace.
The only vindicaton possible must come
from H. D. Shaffer. Three lines from
him would have availed more than the
three columns in the Repository. Nc
Kinley tried to get those lines and failed!
The three statements of importance to
this case in my former letter are, that
both the McKinleys had assured Mr.
Shafer that he would be. retained in Of
fee under Hayes's civil service reform
platform; that the office was offered to
Shaffer ifhe would pay over $1,000
year in the manner specified by McKin-
ley's uncle, under circumstances that in
90 cases out of 100 would involve Nc
Kinley's knowledge and consent, to the
corrupt bargain, and that Shafer was
kicked out by Mckinley because he re.
fused to pay the money demanded by
his uncle.
The first of these charges is denied by
Mckinley, But the truth thereof will be
fully confirmed to him who seeks testi>
mony in the right quarter. The essen
tial part of the second charge is admit
ted, with little difference in detail, over
Mr.. Saxtons signature in the Repository,
and fully corroborated in Mr.. Shaffer's
letter. AS to the third charge, McKin-
ley tAkes upon himself the responsibility
for having removed Shafer; but he
carefully keeps out Of view the fact that
he went to Washington the very day that
Mr.. Shafer's petition was forwarded to
the Postmaster General. Did he 60 there
to promote reform in the Civil Service ?
Does any one doubt that it was rather to
make sure work, and put out of Office
the man who had refused to pay Mr..
Saxton the 81 900?
He says the Postmaster. General asked
him to give his views in relation to the
respective candidates! Such, then, are
the methods of this pure and undefled
administration! Will some ardent sup.
porter of Hayes tell us wherein this diff
fers from the corrupting tendencies that
have characterized past administrations
Congressman still have the power and
patronage at their disposal, and the
President is mere fgure-head and
signer of commissions. Every one knows
that had only the interests of the public
service been at stake, the member of
Congress would not have gone to Wash
ington. Neither would he have been
asked for his opinion. Neither would
any change have been made, be-
cause a man had held office four or
eight years, or because he was a,Repub-
lican or Democrat, but only the ques>
ton of the public good would have been |
taken into account.
The letter of the present P. NJ, has
nothing to do in the case. He fees
when no man pursueth. His and Saxton's |
letter are desperate attempts to white
wash outrageous improprieties in the
conduct of the Representative of this dis.
trict. The only regret is, they succeed
ed no better. Saxton is willing togo any
length to exonerate Mckinley. He says
he asked Mr.. Shafer for the 81 900 a
year for Mr.. Slanker. Now this propo-
sition presumed Shafer's continuance in
office. Saxton said that he and the MAJ
jor had been in close confab the two |
previous Sundays" Why did he men.
ton this at such a time. No wonder
that he Impressed" Shafer that he spoke |
by authority
Afterwards, the 81, 900 a year having |
been refused, Saxton goes on to admit that |
he told Shafer that he proposed mas
king it hot for him." Why this threat |
Had Shaffer done any wrong7 No one
claims that. But he had refused to pay the
81, 1000 demanded for the office by the
uncle of the member of Congress. And
there were other Sunday" talks where
in Shaffer was resolved out of Office by
these apostles of reform. No other in
ference can be drawn from Saxton's own
language. After these admissions by
Saxton, no questions of veracity remain
between him and Shaftr. Even if it did |
i would not help McKinley's case par
icle,