Litchfield enquirer., 1880-07-22
Garfeld's Acceptance.

Mr. Gardeld's letter is not very well received
except by the purely partisan Republican
press Ii il very carefully written; SO care
fully written. in fact. that there is no inspira-
tion In II. The trumpet blast with which
Sam. Tilden opened the Cincinnati Conven-
ton, which we cannot but admire while we
doubt its sincerity the noble frankness OF
Hayes letter in '76 were examples that Gen.
Garfield might have followed to excellent
purpose. He did not do this. His view of
Southern affairs strikes us as excellent His
tariff theory is that of protectionist He is
sound on finance He opposes coolie emf
grafton from China; and he believes in river
and harbor improvements as some offset to the
Overgrown power and wonderful extension OF
our railroad system, though he Is careful to
not quite say so.
OF all parts of Gen. Garfeld's letter, how
ever, the paragraph referring to evil service
reform has been most criticised. 1t closes as
follows: ...
s'To select wisely from our vast population
those who are best fitted for the many offices
to be filed requires an acquaintance far be-
yond the range of any one man. The Execu-
tive should. therefore, seek and receive the in
formation aid assistance of those whose
knowledge of the communities in which the
duties are to be performed bess qualities them
to hid in making the wisest choice.
The Springfield Republican independently
remarks upon the foregoing as follows:
Perhaps Garfeld's greatest opportunity was
to repair the insult offered by the Chicago con-
vention to President Hayes work and good
purposes, to recognize that leadership of the
party which began in Gov. Hayess letter of
acceptance and by the partial fulfilment of its
promises has given the republicans their hold
upon the independent voters of the country.
Candidate Garfield has allowed himself to be
Overborne by the short-sighted policy of trim
ming in politics Weak discretion is not the
better part of valor for a man in his position.
The highest craftsmanship and his own best in
telligence are not voiced in the letter of the re-
publican candidate. But Mr.. Hayes did not
need Endorsement from Mentor, o., half as
much as Candidate Garfield does the support
of the people who applaud the present admin
istration. This cannot prove to be Mr.. Hayess
funeral. When compared with Gov. Hayess
letter of four years ago. Gen Garfelds CON-
munication is a disappointment.
This criticism, though severe, is natural Con-
gressiona interference with appointments is
the chief evil of the present system. Yet Gar
field seems to approve of it. So do we, to
certain extent. Our idea is this that a GER
lain proportion of the appointments; especially
cabinet officers, foreign ministers-what we
should call the administration" proper-should
be chosen from the party to which the presi-
dent himself belongs, on consultation with the
principal men of his party both in and ont of
his cabinet This is the administration for
which the president and his party should be
held responsible. The Senate, though of op-
posite politics, should not reject appointments
of this character, nor has it ever done so.
Consequently there could be no objection to
Senators consulting with the President about
them. ..
Where civil service reform is needed IS in
the mode Of appointing all the lower civil Of
hcers, and in their tenure of Office. None of
these appointments should be made for politi-
cal reasons; promotion should 60 for services
rendered in Office, not in caucus or convention;
removals should be solely for unitness in
means, when, in the paragraph preceding the
one we lave quoted from his letter. he says:
The convention wisely demands that Con.
greSS shall cooperate with the Executive de-
garments in placing the civil service on
better basis. Experience has proved that
with our frequent changes of administration
no system of reform can be made elective and
permanent without the aid of legislation. APP
nnin Anto tf%f no mil
are SO regulated by law and custom as to leave
but little ground for complaint. 1t may not
be wise to make similar regulations by law
for the civil service; but, without invading the
authority or necessary discretion of the Exec
utive, Congress should devise method that
will determine the tenure of Office and greatly
reduce the uncertainty which makes that ser.
vice so uncertain and unsatisfactory.
If we interpret the foregoing correctly. Gen
Garfield says, that while it might be going a
little too far to give the civil servant of the re-
public the same tenure of office which is grant.
ed the military servant, yet that Congress
should unite with the president to put the civ
il service on much the same basis of perma.
nency with the military service. A fair con-
sideration of this part of the letter would seem
to remove much if not all of the objection
taken to the later clause.
We are not a little surprised to find the New
York Times joining the Independents in their
criticism of this portion of Garfield's letter:
The portions of Mr. Garfeld's letter relating
to the reform of the civil service are below the
level OF the platform adopted of Chicago. He
calls for legislation from Congress which would
certainly be desirable, if il were of the right
kind, but he ventures no definite suggestion as
to what such legislation should be- nor does
he pledge his personal support to the princi-
pies of the system which has been, in places,
applied with perfect success by Mr. Hayes,
without any aid whatever from Congress- On
the contrary, he distinctly takes stand less
elevated than that of the platform-which de.
clares that Fitness determined by practical
tests, should admit to the service"-by an.
bouncing the necessity of consulting members
of Congress, whom heindicates plainly, though
he describes them in roundabout fashion, as
to appointments. .....
We confess that this style of criticism from
a thick and thin supporter of Gen. Grant,
strikes US as something worse than inconsist-
ency. 1t indicates determination to make
trouble with or without excuse, now that its
special candidate has been defeated. Those
who took note of the Times attack on Sher-
man, will look for little fairness in its treat
ment of anyone to whom it has personal ground
of objection, and will be inclined to suspect
that Garfield has been so unfortunate as to in
cur its personal dislike.
We do wish that our esteemed Republican
contemporaries and friends would drop the
practice of saying 1.-THE United States lis
nation" They may say, if they please, ''The
United States is Hotel" or 1.-THE United
States is Steamboat" and not offend against
the rules of grammar and the teaching of the
fathers, but if they 60 on using plural nom-
NATIVE with a singular verb shey will soon get
to saying Garfield are a weak candidate,s
and the like. The line should be drawn at the
Constitution. Let the laws of the language,