Morning journal and courier., 1881-10-22
Saturday Morning, Oct. 22. 1881.
PoLsrIoAL ASSESSMENTS


 | A circular has been issued by Mr. Pearson, Postmaster of New York city, explicitly in- 1 forming subordinates in his office that they may t'refuse to pay anything" for political 1 purposes" without affecting their ''tenure of office so long as they discharge faithfully the duties imposed upon them by the laws and regulations. The Collector of the Port has not issued any such circular, but it is said l that he holds the same views in regard to the principle involved as does MT. Pearson He would leave the action of his lbordinates l wholly free, and does not consider the assess ment system the best way to raise party fund, and quite approves the opposition to it in the journals. This being the case, the New York Times frankly and truthfulIy tells him that he has made an obvious mistake in not announcing his opinion officially, and \ then goes on to discuss the general subject of l political assessments in a sensible and forci- ble way. -=zT'
 Public employment, in the minor posts, l the Tunes points out, is getting to be regard ed as something with which politics has no necessary or proper connection, but which should be managed, as other employment is,
 
 cost In this view, political assessments are at once absurd and unjust. They are absurd. because if the offices are filed by men select ed for character and capacity their tenure must be substantially independent of party politics. A good officer will not be turned out or a poor one retained because of the defeat or victory of his party. They are un- just, because the government ought not to pay more than the fair value of the officers services. It ought not to pay that value, plus the assessment levied for party purpos- es. If the government pay only what the services are fairly worth, the officer is enti- tied to the whole of what he gets. There is no possible ground on which party commit tee can suggest to him that 1925 or $37. 50 is 8 proper sum for him to subscribe to cam paign fund any more than there is why such a committee should make such suggestion to bank clerk with salary of $1 1000 or $1, ,5O0.'' Moreover, the office holder is the employe of the whole body of taxpayers. His services are due to them and to all of them. His pay is collected proportionately spectiye party connections may be. He has right to Jo1n with any party or with none, to subscribe to any party fund or to refuse altogether. On the other hand, the govern ment has no right to use Republicans taxes to pay the extra salary necessary to enable l an employe to contribute to Democratic l fund or Uice 0ersG. Nor is it fair to the par ty out of power that the influence of the su- perior officers of the government should be 1 exerted to increase the party fund of their l opponents.
 The justice of this reasoning is obvious, | and it is matter for congratulation that it is | now so generally and openly acknowledged. | It is to be hoped that the reform now in prog | ress will not be checked until it is complete. | If the political parties cannot live without squeezing money out of government en- pIoyes some new ones should take hold.