Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1882-07-15
THE ASSESSMENT CIRCULAR

great deal OF indignant protest. We
have two or three times Of late al
luded to it when it has bcen brought
to our attention by persons mere who
have received its cool demand for
just 80 many dollars aud cents of
their hard earned wages to keep the
republican party in power. To what.
ever comments We nave made our
contemporary. the Register, replies
"Our 'virtuous' neighbor has had
several abdominal COMMISSIONS because
the Republican National sExecutive
Committee has issued printed circular
to every government eInpluye asking
for contribution of 2 per cent. Of
their salary as q campaign fund.
There is nothing wrong about il at
all. 1t is necessary, absolutely neces-
sary to use more or less money in the /
conducting Of campaign. IL done |
successfully. A great deal may be
used and legitimstely. TOO. Now from |
whom should this money be procured2
Undoubtedly iron, those who are in- |
terested In the succr 90 of The party. |
They know they will lose their posi- |
tiOns il the party goes out Of power.
Beside. there is no compulsioi about
it. No threat nor im-inu alton Of die.
missal or refusal to contribute; neith- |
er has there ever been . person dis |
missed from the service for such
cause. There is nothing III that cir.
cular that needs any explanation or
apology from rrpubiicsns." tss
Passing ever the witless impolite-
ness of the first two lines we call % .
witness that there is something to be
ashamed Of in Mr.. Hubheli's black
mailing circular. Mr.. Geo. Wm. Cur
tis, a prominent and able republican,
who says iu last weeks Harper's
Weekly: @ ..zs4.
The circular is addressed exclus.
lively, we b. lieve, to persons in the
employment OF the government. :. 1t
asks for specific sum, ami for y
prompt and favorable response. Ii is
sent out by members Of congress who
are known to represent those who
an influence removals. It. declares
that the appointing aud removing Of
ficers approve the demsud. q And all
while the words voluntary contribu-
ton are used, they will, bs under
stood 10 mean de'nsnd for specific
sum which eau not be ssfely disre-
gsrd.d. Agents follow. the circular
hite public Offices with books in which,
the names Of clerks with the sums
demanded are recorded. aud they are
unmlstakably threatened should they
decline TO 'subscribe.' We know in-
stances OF written warning to clerks
that IL they dO.not pay they will be
reported to the head Of the depart
ment as delinquent. At the came
time the local mead of an office or
bureau is curtly told how large sum
has been levied upon his clerks, and
how far tue payment falls short. The
congressional circular may use more
carefully evasivs language, but it
means the same thing. 1t Senator
Allison does not know this. and real.
" suppOses that voluntary contribu.
ton means voluntary contribution,
let him reflect why such circulars are
not sent to private citizens. aud con-
slider whether, if they were sent and
disregArded. such citizens would be
meuaced with report of their de.
| nquency to some authority for dis.
clpiins. TIE congressional circulars
have been sent TO poor women aud
children i'll the public service. Does
the senator suppose that they have
been sent to any women or children
who are not in the public service. or
that those to whom they are address
cd feel ut perfect liberty 10 refuse to
take notice Of them? As the senator
knows, the kings invitation is q COM
mand. The senator says that no case
can be cited OF removal tor declining
to pay. But all that can be said upon
this point is that the rcfasai 10 /, OF
alleged as reason for removal. or
course not the Odiun would bo too
great. The senator produces figures.
One hundred thousand 'invitations'
were sent out III 1880. and only about
IL 500 of the office holders responded
favorably. But what then !? Among
those who did not respond. We orr
selves know many who refrsined. not
because they considered giving or
Withholding voluntary. but because
they decided TO take the risk. And iu
how many instances of removal this
refusal was the decisive considera.
ton nobody can know. Senator Al.
lison might, as plAusibly assert that no
clerk III the public service had ever
been removed for want of suffi ieutly
powerful hacking. Such reasons are
nevtr alleged. but we know such re-.
movals 10 have been msde. And IL
there be general and logical c0nvic.
LiOm that the alternative VI the circu.
lar is that OF the highwaymam, your
money oryour place, IL is practically
precisely the same as'if il were OK.
pressed. The conclusion 10 ju:titi fed
by every circumstances. and to say
that nobody eau be shown TO have
been -rem,ved tor refusal. when the
general cnviction 10 that removal will
follow refusal, lis all idle play OF " Ords.
| Why does Assist ant p Osi M as er. u Gu.
eral llattOn write letter TO say that
he shalt give or not give At his pleas
ure. aud that il ia not his business 70
dictate to others? Simply because he
kn"ws, as everybody knows, that the
summons Is regarded as threat. His
letter has in one aspec, the air OF re-
assurance to persons in danger; but
in another it is plain imtinatiOn that
in any case those who pay are not in
danger. What else is the meaning OF
tie remark in the congressional cir
cular that there will be no objectf ion
IN any official quarter to voluntary
contributions = Would such . re-
mark bo made in circular sent TO
any private citizen? No; aud il is iu.
serted i'll the circular because the em-
ployes are not in this matter regard
ed Ms private citizeus. but as place
men appointed by the favor of a
party. who ought to be willing to
make way tor those who are ready 10
pay cheerfHliy any a-sees,ment levied
for the ALL ged benefit OF the party"
We have another witness in Mr.. Carl
Schuiz who says In the last week y
edition OF the Evening Post:- .
'Some correspondence has passe Il
between the counsel of the civil service
reform LEAGUE and the attorney general
on the subject of Mr.. liubbslrs black
mailing circular. Messrs. Wheeler and
Whitridge cali Mr.. Brewster's attention
to the fact that the revised statutes pro-
hibit such contributions AS MIR. Hubbell
demands when made by officers or em
ployes to ANY other officer OF the
government, and say that the term
Officer must include members Of con.
gress, as is shown not only by common
usage. but ny the employment OF the
same term in the test oath act of 1874
repeating the increase of salaries OF
members OF congress aud other officers.
They also call the attorney generals 9
attention to Mr.. Hubbelrs statement,
which they refer to as significant aud
which they might fairly have called as.