The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1882-09-28
{ ESTABLISHED IN
! MARCH, 1S45.
IN. Y. Tribune.1
Illogical RefOrmers.

sometimes very absurd. There may
be time coming when men whose
daily bread is dependent on their sal
aries as Government officials will close
their pockets and fold their arms, and
calmly look on while the party out of
power is moving heaven and earth to
turn them out and get possession of
their places--simply because they
think it Is improper to do anything to
keep themselves in Office. We do not
expect to live to see it. The law of
self-preservation has pretty strong
hold upon the generality Of mankind.
In the present instance the law of in
dividual self-preservation is one of the
strongest bulwarks Of good govern
ment. The theorists who declare
against it are bewitched with fool
ish notion the effect Of which they
are too short-sighted to see. They
are so absorbed in contemplating the
beauties Of high-toned Civil Service
the members Of which are sublimely
Indifferent to their own retention in
office, that they do not for moment
consider what the logical result of
their fine Indifference must be. They
would enjoy the spectacle for just
about one short and decisive cam
paign. At the end Of it the high
toned civil servants who considered it
improper to do, anything to keep
themselves in office would be bundled
out head and heels, and the riff-raff,
who had no scruples on that score,
would come 'tumbling in. The mar
tyrs would look very pretty, but what
kind of public service should we
have when the other fellows came in !?
1t is one Of the follies Of the theo-
retical reformers, that they get hold
of some incidental feature of political
administration that circumstances
have brought into temporary promi-
nence, like the practice Of raising
money for political purposes from
Government officials, and harp upon
it as though it was an institution of
itself, instead of part Of a system that
needs reforming. They talk as though
it were possible and practicable to cut
out this abuse at the root and effect a
great reform thereby, when a mo-
ment's reflection would show them
that the only result would be a gen.
eral discharge from official employ
ment Of faithful and experienced SER
wants whose superfne notions of Off
cial propriety forbade their doing any
thing to keep their places, and the ir-
ruption of great horde of aggressive
place-seekers, most of whom are with
out qualifications and all without ex-
perience. The Tribune does not need
to repeat that it opposes as heartily
as any professional reformer the prac-
tice of levying assessments upon Gov
ernment employees. 1t has from the
first condemned the methods pursued
by Mr.. Hubbell's committee, some of
which it deems little less than scan
dalous. But our zeal is not so short
sig hted as to plunge into indiscrimi-
nate denunciation Of all political con-
tributions by offceholders, or to ex-
pect to remedy this particular evil by
forbidding Government servants to
make subscriptions for party purposes.
Any reform that is to be effective and
permanent must strike deeper. 1t
must have reg rd in the first place to
original qualifications, and in the sec
ond to stability Of tenure. These be-
ing fixed, the minor evils Of the sys-
tenn will in large degree disappear of
themselves.
1t surprises US to see so intelligeM
and discreet an authority upon such
subjects as Harper's Weekly discuss
ing the subject Of contributions from
offceholders in a manner that seems
to US hasty and precipitate., Premis-
ing that very large sums of money are
raised by contributions from office
holding sources, and that this is an
indication that this class is more in
terested than the public at large in
Republican success, it goes on to ask;
IF it is the oficeholders who are now
mainly interested in that success, why
should the country help to keep them
in placeP On the contrary why
should not the country feel it to be
duty to keep out Of office those who
raise an enormous fund to keep them
selves IMP" These questions are so
easily answered that we almost WON
der at their being asked. The only
offence alleged against these officials
is that they contribute money for po-
litical purposes, to keep themselves in
Office. 1t is not pretended that the
money is intended to be, or is used
corruptly. They have had experience
in their various positions, and it is
presumed that they are honest, indus
trious and faithful. The Government
gets from them full equivalent for
the money it pays them. They desire
to retain their places. Is that strange?
They contribute according to their
means toward defeating party which
if it were to succeed would immediate
ly dismiss them. Is that unnatural?
Is it improper? Shall VIC discharge
these tried and faithful servants be-
cause they have contributed money to
keep themselves in office? If so,
whom shall we put in their places? +?
Why the men, of course, who have
contributed to get themselves in office.
Is that much of reform? Would
it improve the public service much? =?
Would it promote public morality or
political purity? Would it raise the
standard of official qualifications or
elevate the tone of public life?
Would it not be better, on the whole,
for earnest reformers to give little
more thought to consequences and
act little less upon impulse. There
may be reforms that do not reform.