The daily gazette., 1881-10-24
Political Assessma.,.

A circular has been ,ssned hv M
Pearson, the Postmaster of ,b;s c;,a it,
explicitly informing subordirates il
ms once that they may "lefuse to paw
any.hing for "political purposes
witnout affecting their "tenure of Of
% Hc9 70 long as they discharge faith
ially the duties imposed upon themiby
the laws and regulations" Ihis
Dnngs up the whole question of the
proper means for raising funds for the
expenses OF political campaign. and
tne position taken by other Federal
9mcers In regard to it is interesting.
Inc Collector, Mr.. Robertson, holds
tne same views in regard to the prin.
G,pie involved rs does Mr.. PEARSON
NC would leave the action of his sub
ordinates wholly free, and does not
| consider the assessment system the
Dest way to raise party fund, and
quite approves the opposition to it in
tne journals. But he has not thouphr
ut to announce this view officially, be-.
cause he does not regard it as concern.
ing him officially. We regret to say
That in this latter particular Mr.. RIB
ertson makes an obvious mistake.
lhe practice of assessments is an old
one. II is only recently that it has
been criticized. 1t is much more re.
Gently that it has been DISCOURAGED.
Mr. Robertson himself has had snare
In the expenditure of great deal of
money thus raised. He will presuma.
Oily take part in the expenditure of
that now being assessed on his own
subordinates. 1t may very well be
that his personal desire is strong and
sincere that his clerks shall be entirely
Tree IN the matter, but they cannot be
Tree from the influence OF well es-
tablished presumption unless he takes
special pins to liberate them, The
inference that collector who. as a
member of a State committee. asks
his subordinates for a specified sum
Tor political purposes would be more
iiiendly to those who gave than to
those who refused is a very natural
one. lie alone can destroy its force.
and he can destroy it only by The most
distinct and formal utlerance, 1t ia
an erroneous idea of fficial propriety
which prevents him from making such
utterancs in the form already several
ZINES adopted by high officials in his
own department, form, moreover,
not only justiged, but required, by the
ca circumstances OF the case.
On the general principle involved,
there has been very decided change of
opinion Within few years. IL is COM
paratively but a short Time since assess
ments on Office holders were regarded
as quite as inevitable a mode of collect
ing party funds as taxation was ior
Government purposes. The proposition
that they should be made and paid was
conclusion from the way offices were
distributed. These given TO promote
the Interests Of the party in power. They
were rewards Tor party services, and de-
pendent on party success. The men
who got them we're directly Interested in
keeping the party in power. II ii went
out, they went out. Why should they
not aid in maintaining II by contributing
from the salary which was obtained by
party favor and conditional on party
success? Granted that the mode of
giving Offices was right, and this mode
Of keeping them was equally so. But
here is a growing conviction that neith.
Or this mode OF giving nor the copse.
luent means of keeping office Is right.
The political conception of subordinate
Government places is giving way to the
business conception.
In this view, political assessments
ire at once absurd and unjust. They
ire absurd because if the offices are
illed by men selected for character
md capacity their tenure must be
substantially independent of party
A good officer will be turned |
nut or a poor one retained because of
he defeat or victory of his party. It
8 unjust, because the Government
'ught not to pay more than the fair |
'alue of the officers services. IL ought
lot to pay that value, plus the assess
nent levied for party purposes. Ii the
Government pay only what the services
re fairly worth, the officer is entitled |
o the whole of what he gets. There
5 no possible ground on which party |
can suggest to him that S25 |
# $3.50 is a proper sum for him to
ubscribe to q campaign fund any |
more than there is why such a COM
nittee should make such suggestion
o bank clerk with a salary of 81 200
II $1,000.
Tho business idea as opposed to the
'olitical idea of the miner offices under
he Government is a sweeping one,
ut 1t is perfectly consistent with the
'rinciple of our institutions. The
ffice-holder is the employe of the
Ehole body of Taxpayers. His SER
ices are due to them and to all of
hem. His pay is collected proper
from all of them, no matter
That their respective party connec-
ions may be. He has right to join
nth any party or with none, to sub
cribe to any party fund or to refuse
together. On the other hand, the
Government has no right to use Re-
ublicans' taxes to pay the extra SAL
ry necessary to enable an employe to
to Democratic fund or
ice versa.