Daily globe., 1881-05-17

| t4o dCpOiutluS pOWOis aSoinoo "@oU0 VI 0AA'Ao
and obstruction of public business caused by
inordinate pressure for place, and for protec-
ton of incumbents against intrigue and
wrong. shall at the proper time ask Con-
gress to fix the tenure of minor officers of the
several executive departments, and prescribe
| grounds upon which removals shall be made
during the terms for which incumbents have
been appointed"
However good the claim is which would
make major offices prey to intrigue and
wrong, and shield minor offices from like
havoc, and whether the collectorships of the
| country should belong to the exposed or pro
tected class, need not be decided here. AS
suming General Merritt to be an officer OF
average fitness and honesty, it might be rea.
sonably argued that all Senators should with
alacrity advise his displacement by a man
of obvious superiority. Possibly it might be
said that all should advise the selection to
Gen. Merritt's place of man, who, without
superior fitness, had rendered his country, or
even his party, conspicuous and exalted ser.
vice. The case in hand does not belong 10
either of these classes. The avocation of Mr..
Robertson, and his legislative and Congress.
sional experience and surroundings, do not
denote superiority In the qualities, or that
knowledge or familiarity with the revenue
laws and system Of the United States, which
might make him more competent than Gen.
Merritt to collect the vast revenues and admin
lister the vast business pertaining to the port
of New York. Certainly he cannot in this re-
spect be held an exception to the rule of right
and consistency of which the constitution and
law have placed the public service.
We know of no personal or political service
rendered by Mr.. Robertson, SO transcendent
that the collectorship Of New York be taken
in the midst of term and given him as rec.
commended. Mr.. Robertson's nomination, as
reported by the New York Tribune, was
reward for action as delegate to the
National convention. If Mr. Robertson
was Influenced in his action by sense
of duty, if he voted and acted his honest con-
victions, it is difficult to see what claim he
had for any reward. 1t is understood by this
Mr. Robertson and sixty-nine other men ac.
cepted from the State convention certain
trust. They sought and accepted the position
of agents or delegates to the national conven.
tion. The State convention declared its plainly
stated judgment and policy was to be observed
by those it commissioned. To this declaration
all selected as delegates gave implied consent,
but several of them in addition made most
specific personal pledges and engagements to
exert themselves in good faith throughout
to secure the nomination of Gen. Grant. They
made this pledge as means OF obtaining their
own appointment as delegates, and they did,
as personally known, claim their seats in the
national convention upon the faith of their
personal statements of their ear mel stness and
fidelity
The obligation thus assumed we understood
to involve integrity as much as the obligation
of one who receives the proxy of stock
holder in corporation upon pledge and
promise to vote as his principal would vote.
Whether Mr.. Robertson was or was not him
himself bound not only by honor and impli-
cation but by expressly giving his word, be-
comes quite i1amaterial in view of the clair,
made for him. It is insisted that he "organ-
lied the bolt," or as has been sometimes stated
he was the leader of the "bolt." This Is to
say that he invited, pursuaded, induced
others whom he knew had given their
word and had obtained their seats by doing so,
to violate their word and betray not only the
Republicans assembled in State convention,
but the Republicans of their districts as well,
who had trusted in their honor. Whoever
counsels and procures another to do dishon-
est or dishonorable act, must share with that
other the guilt, and should share also the
odium attaching to 1t.
We are, therefore, wholly unable, upon
whatever ground we put it, to see the justifi.
cation for ourselves, should we become parties
to using the public trusts which belong to the
people, to require such service in such modes.
But the appliances employed to effect these re-
suits set up new standards of responsibility
and invade, as we believe, the truths and
principles on which separate and coordinate
branches of the government stand. A sena-
tor has his own responsibility. He is amena-
bic to the State and to the body of which he
is a member. He is bound by his oath to ad-
wise and consent on his conscience and judg-
ment, before God. Whatever or whoever else
may constrain him, he is to be exempt from
executive menace and disfavor on one hand,
and other inducements on the other. A long
standing order of the house of commons has
been the declaration that member shall suf-
fer expulsion if he reports the wishes
of the executive head of the government
to influence members. The British constitu-
ton is not more jealous than ours in this
regard. To give advice, honest Independent
advice as to an appointment proposed is as
much the right and duty OF Senator as it is
the right or duty of the President to propose
the names. Be his advice one way or the
other, it is no more an act of disrespect or
treason to the nominating power than the
verdict of jury, or decision Of
judge The idea that the Senate is
simply to find ont what is wanted and then
do it, we cannot believe safe or admissible,
and thus far no party has dared or de
sired to setup such test of party fidelity or
allegience.
In this instance such prominence has been
given to the subject, and such distrust been
expressed of tie correctness of our
positions, that we think it is
right and dutiful to submit
the matter to the power to which we alone
are bound, and ever ready to bow. The legis-
lature is in session. 1t has a Republican ma