Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1881-05-19

uulooS QueStiOn0u III IcSdiu W H. coHc
days ago the President abruptly with
drew in-one and the same act the names
of General Woodford and Mr.. Tenney,
and of two Marshals. This unprecedent-
ed proceeding, whether permissible by
law or not, was gravely significant. The
President had nominated these officers
after they had been weighed in the bal
ance. Their official records were before
him and had been fully scrutinized and
approved. 1t must be presumed he
thought the nominations fit to be made,
and it was his duty to make them.
There is no allegation that he discover
ed any unftness in them afterwards. 1t
could hardly be that he had discovered
unGtness in all of them alike. What
then was the meaning and psrpose of
this peremptory step? 1t was immedi-
ately stated, as if by authority, and
seems to be. admitted that the purpose
was to coerce the Senate or Senators to
vote as they would not vote il left free
from Executive interference. The de-
sign was to control the action of the
Senators touching matters committed by
the Constitution to the Senate and to
the Senate exclusively. 1t has been sug-
IScol6u, III duuAlluLls Sildb UJ 1OCdIliIiS
these nominations and holding them i'm
his own hands, the President might, in
the event of failure of another nOmina-
ton, use them to compensate that fail
ure. If it can be supposed that all these
public trusts are to be or would in any
event be made personal perquisites, to
be handled and disposed Of not only to
punish independence of Senatorial votes
and actions, bat to liquidate the person
al obligations of any individual, however
high in station, the conditions are utter
ly vicious and degrading. and their ac-
ceptance would compel the representa-
tives of their States to fling down their
oath and representative duty at the foot
stool Of Executive power.
Following this sweeping and startling exscu-
tive act came oninous avowals that dissent or
failure to "advise and consent" would be held an
act of offense, exposing all senators from what
ever state to executive displeasure. Thus we
find ourselves confronted by the question vheth-
er we shall surrender the plain right and sworn
duty of senators by consenting to what we be-
lieye to be vicious and hurtful, or be assigned a
position of dislOyalty to the administration
which we helped to bring in and the success OF
which we earnestly-wish for every reason and
motive which can enter into the case. We know
no theory avowed by any party which requires
such submission as is now exacted. Although
party service may be fairly considered in max
ing the selections of public officers it can hard
| ly be maintained that the senate is bound to
remove without cause incumbents merely to
make places for those whom any individual,
even the president or a member of his cabinet
wishes to repay for being reereant to others or
serviceable to him.
QAly about two years ago the senate was sd-
vised that General Merritt be appointed collec-
tor at New York. 1t is understood that among
the senators who so advised was Mr.. Window,
now secretary of the treasury and head of the
department, whose subordinate General Merritt
is. Another senator known to have given this
advice WAS Mr.. KirkWood, now secretary of the
interior. 1t is said that, like the postmaster
from our own state, these cabinet officers were
not taken into consideration touching the re-
moval of General Merritt, but their sworn and
official action as senators is none. the less in
structiye. That the late secretary of-the treas
ury and late administration, up to its expiration
less than ten weeks ago, approved Of General
Merritt as an officer is we'll known, and it is
nowise suggested that any citizen had petition
ed for his removal, or that official delinquency
"
an experienced officer, in the midst of his term
fixed by law, it is proposed suddenly to put a
man in who has had no training for the posi-
ton, and who cannot be said to have any special
fitness for its official duties. In the inaugural
of President Garfield, delivered on the 4th of
March, stand these words: "The civil service
can never be placed on satisfactory basis un-
til it is regulated by law. For the good of the
service itself, for the protection of those who
are intrusted with the appointing power against
waste of time and obstruction to publie busi-
ness, caused by the inordinate pressure for
place and for the protection of incumbents
against intrigue and wrong, shall at the pro-
per time ask congress to fix the tenure of the
minor officers Of the several executive depart
ments, and prescribe the grounds upon which
removals shall be made during the terms for
which incumbents are appointed" How good
a dstiction is that which would make the major
offices pray to intrigue and wrong and shield
the minor Offices from like havoc, and whether
the collectorships of the country should belong
to the exposed or protected class, need not be
decided here. Assuming General Merritt to be
an officer of average fitness and honesty, it
might be reasonably agreed that all the sena-
tors should with alacrity advise his displace-
ment by a man of obvious superiority. 1t
might be said that all should advise the selec-
tion in General Merritt's place of man wbo
without superior fitness, has rendered his
country, or even his party, conspicuous and eI-
alted service. The case in hand does not belong
to either of these classes. The vocation Of Mr..
Robertson and his legislative and professional
experience and surroundings do not denote
superiority in the qualities, the knowledge,
business habits and familiarity which the rev.
anua laws and system of the Tinted States
which might make him more competent than
General Merritt to collect the vast revenues,
and administer the vast business pertaining to
the port of New York. Certainly, he cannot,
in this respect, be held an exception to the
rules of right and consistency on which the
constitution and iaws have placed the public
service. We know of no personal or political
service rendered by Mr.. Robertson so transcen-
dant that the collectOrship of New York should
be taken in the midst of term and given him
as a recompense Mr.. Robertson is reported
by the New York Tribune to have declared
that his nomination was "a reward" "re-
ward" for acting as delegate to national con-
vention! If Mr.. Robertson in his action was
influenced by sense of duty-if he voted and
acted his honest convietions-it is difficult to
see what claim he has for any reward, not to
speak of such great reward.
The action of which an estimate is thus in
vited is understood to be this: Mr.. Robertson
and si1ty-nine other men accepted from the
state convention certain trusts. They sought
and accepted the position of agents or delegates
to the national convention. The state conven-
ton declared that its plainly-stated Judgment
and policy was to be observed and supported by
those it commissioned to this declaration. But
eavarsl of them in addition made tha r,nut