Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1881-05-11
COnkIiug VS., Garfield.


From whatever point it is viewed, the con-
fict between Senator Conkling and Presi-
dent Garfield must be regarded as an ex-
ceedingly unfortunate affair. The public
usefulness of either Of these eminent func-
tionaries cannot be enhanced by this quar-
rel, and party harmony, always desirable, but
especially so when power is held by bare
majority, is seriously imperiled by its exist
ence. The absence of any sufficient cause
for contest that can bring no substantial
benefit either to the principal antagonists or
to republicanism, adds a feeling of impa-
thence to the natural regret that an unseemly
wrangle over the appointment of an official
should be precipitated upon the party on the
very threshold of an administration which
it was hoped would restore national harmony
and sink out of sight factional party di-
visions.
1t does not appear that contest would
have been forced by Senator Conkling over
the retention of the collectorship of the port
of New York by General Merritt, staunch
political opponent, appointed and very prop
erly confirmed in the face of Mr.. Conkling's
utmost opposition. The president has
taken the initiative in reopening an old
fight, which had been once well and salts
factorily decided, by removing, without
shadow of cause, in the midst of his term of
office, an official who has discharged his du-
ties with marked and universally conceded
efficiency, and who has faithfully and sue
cessfully applied the principles of civil SER
vice reform as interpreted by its best and
most practical opponents. The unsettling
of an old controversy whicAthis act involved
was completed by appointing to the colec-
torship the man who was not only Senator
Conkling's active political opponent, but the
partisan, the recognized champion, of his in
veterate personal and political enemy and
rival, and there are not ungrounded suspi-
cions that the hand of that rival himself is
directly concerned in this movement and
that it is blow designedly aimed at Sena-
tor Conkling. 1t seems to be entirely per-
sonal quarrel, in which the president has de-
scended dangerously near to that low plane
on which it is the delight of Senator Conk-
lings critics to affirm that he conducts his
political wars,-the president is struggling
to promote the confirmation of purely per-
sonal and political appointment, Conkling
to defeat it for personal and political rea-
sons. The senator's right to oppose the APP
pointment is as broad as the presidents
right to make it.
Independence on the part of the president
of senatorial dctation is most commendable,
but it does not seem to be necessary for him
to 60 out of his way to create case in
which to exhibit his "splendid spinal COL
umn." Opportunities for the legitimate ex-
hibition Of that portion of his anatomy will
doubtless be sufficiently numerous before
the close of his administration. A good
deal of flippant nonsense is exploded about
Mr. Garfeld's demonstrating by the Incl
dents of this controversy the fact that he is
president of these United States. If there
is any doubt about the fact that he was
elected president last November, those |
doubts will hardly be cleared up by appoint |
ments that look very much like retrograde
movement towards the old spoils system.
The controversy is not one which republi- |
cans can view with any degree of complai- |
sancy or satisfaction ON either side. So far |
as circumstances enable one to Judge, Gen
eral Merritt's removal and Judge Robert |
sons appointment was warranted by no ne |
cessity, sustained byno principle, and justi-
fed by no good reason. 1t is to be regretted
that false Interpretation of the issue, as
involving the political life or death of the
parties to this quarrel, has been placed upon
its final outcome. Senator Conkling has
been unsuccessful in opposing the confrma-
tons of nominations and has still main
tanned wonderful degree of political as
well as physical vitality and untarnished
loyalty to his party. President Grant had
some of his favorite nominations rejected,
but his influence was not thereby apprecia-
bly, affected. So will it be with either SEN
ator Conkling or President Garfield in the
present case.