The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-08-07


defend the measures of the administration.
Upon which our luminous contemporary
the Son breaks out with the exclamation,
''Thus aping the monarchical government
of Great Britain
Not at all. we reply. In England the
Ministry rule and are Irresponsible )" when
they fail to carry their measures through
Parliament custom obliges them either to
resign and allow the Queen to form o new
Ministry from the opposition party, or else
| to dissolve the House of Commons and ap-
| peal to the country for its verdict. Nothing
| of this kind is proposed here, at least by the
HERALD What we suggest and desire Is That
the mem bers of the Cabinet shall by law have
seats. without votes in both houses, in or
der that they may be called on, by proper
notice, to defend on the floor OF either
house their past acts or their proposed
policy. The plan recommends itself to us
because it provides q more direct and con-
venient way to transact the public business.
At present when Congress wishes to know
the reasons for an act of the administration
it adopts O resolution asking for informa-
ton This is answered at the convenience OF
the Cabinet Minister concerned; answered
in dry and cumbrous manner; and usu-
ally before the reply is printed public in
terest in the question has ceased, and If
wrong has been done it is no longer posi-
BILE effectively to expose it; or, If the
policy was right the defence comes too
late and in an Ineffective shape
In fact. under the present system Con-
gress and the administration work at cross
purposes, and waste great deal Of time
merely in the effort to ascertain what each
has done or is doing, and it is common to
see days flung away in debate about mat
ters which would be settled without the
slightest delay if the Cabinet could be
| called on for direct information by word Of
is the present way that usually the admin
istration is compelled to take few Repre-
sentatives and Senators privately into its
confidence, and enable them to give the
information ut second hand and with
out authority, which any Cabinet Minis
ter, supposing him fit for his place,
could give much better and far more
decisively at first hand, and which he
would greatly prefer to give himself Take
for instance, the ridiculous dispute about
the protection of government timber lands
at the last session. 1t suited several Sena-
tors to misrepresent the acts OF the admin
istration in the matter, and some other
Senators thereupon made q perfunctory
and for the most part ineffective explana-
ton, which was all they could do, having
other matters pressing upon them and not
being thoroughly informed. But if the law
had allowed the Secretary Of the Interior to
defend his policy in the Senate, either he
would have made his defence good, or he
would have been shown clearly in the
| wrong, and that in much less time than the
actual and sterile debate consumed.
! But we need not hunt for illustrations,
because our contemporary has supplied
two very good ones. ''Think Of John
Sherman" the Sun says, ION the floor
Of Congress explaining the history Of
Grants administration in Louisiana, which
he says reads like the history of hell +!
Think of William M. Evarts there explain
ing and defending-he is q pretty good
criminal lawyer-the administration Of
| Hayes" We do not require better instances
to justify the change we desire. The events
| of 1867 in Louisiana have taken up an
endless amount of valuable time and news
paper space, and still the public mind is
muddled about them but if Mr.. Sherman
could have been questioned on the floor Of
Congress about them by men determined
to know the truth the people would
long ago have been thoroughly in
formed. As to Mr.. Evarts, his appear
ance on the floor Of either house to an
swer proper interrogatories would at least
make the debates read, which they are not
now. We are surprised that the Sun, which
has always with true journalistic sense de-
manded the utmost publicity in public
affairs, should object to IN expedient which
would directly and mes. effectively secure
that important end. Woald it not like, for
instance. to see Secretary Sherman called
to his feet in the House of Representatives
to explain upon what theory of civil service
reform he keeps in important federal Offices
such persons as Madison w ellis, Tom Ander-
sou, Marks, and dozens of others Of the
same kind?
| TO give the Cabinet seats and voices in
Congress and oblige them to defend their
acts would in the first place force an admin
istration to greater vigilance and better
work it would prevent President calling
into his Cabinet mere personal favorites
and oblige him to select the ablest members
Of his party, and it would almost certainly
prevent improper removals or scandalous
appointments in subordinate Offices, be-
cause such acts would be at once questioned
and exposed. Thus the public service
would be improved and made more efficient
in every way.