The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1882-12-30
CANTON. OHIO, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 80 1882

son should be permitted to remain in Of
flee longer than twelve years. Lost.
Mr.. Brown tried to have the bill amen
ded so to appOrtiOn the offices equally
between the political parties. The Re-
publicans voted it down.
Mr.. Brown offered an amendment pro-
Viding explicitly that when a vacancy
occurred, the selections should not be
confined to persons in office at the time.
but should be open to other citizens
desiring the position, and that an outside
competitor should receive the appoint
ment If superior in qualifications to
those in office. LOst-ayes 20, nays 25.
Mr.. Jones said he favored the reform
of civil service, and he had waited pa
tiently in the hope this bill would be
put in such a shape that he could sup
port 1T, but he was disappointed. If the
amendment offered by Mr.. Pugh, apply
ing examinations to those in office as
we'll as those outside, had been adopted,
he would have voted for the bill, but as
1t now stood, it was a mere pretense and
sham. He did not oppose the bill as a
party man or as an enemy to its profess
sed objects. He believed the civil SER
vice was, in great measure incOmpe-
tent, if not corrupt; that it needed to be
reformed. In his own city, New Orleans,
there was a custom house, which was
used as vast house of refuge for pOlit-
ical Outcasts, and he could not vote for
a bill that proposed to subject the new
applicant 8 for appointments to an ex-
animation, whilei it left those gentleman
untouched.
Mr.. Voorhees, said the bill was sham
and he could not vote for it.
MIR. Brown said his amendment pro-
posing approximately a fair division of
patronage" between the parties, before
the era of nOn-partisan civil service
should cOmmence,and other amendments
tending towards fairness, had been yOt-
ed down by the Republican party vote.
This seemed to show very clearly that
the Republicans did not intend there
should be a fair distribution of offices,
but intended to hold on to them, so that
they might be prepared for any misfOr-
tune that might befall them hereafter.
He could not vote for bill that was de-
signed to give monopoly of offices to
the minority party, nor could he see how
the Democrats could support it.
Mr.. Coke regarded the bill as an ut
terly worthless response to the popular
demand for civil service reform, meas
ure which was binding on nobody, and
which would leave the question still to
be the fool bill of party politics. Never
theless he vote for the bill in the hope
that by its passage the authority of it
might be encouraged to stronger and
more practical efforts in the same direc-
tiOn.
The bill then passed, the vote being
as follows:
Yeas --Aldfch, Allison, Anthony, Bay
ard, Cameron of Pennsylvania, Cameron
of Wisconsin, ChilcOtt, COekTell, Coke,
COnger, Davis of Illinois, Davis of West
Virginia, Edmunds, Frye, Garland, Cor
man, George, GrOome, II lrrison, Hnw
ley, Hill, HOaT, jackson, Jones or FlOri-
da, Jones of Nevada, Lamar, Lapham,
Logan, Miller of California, Miller of
New York, Morrill,, PendletOn, Platt,
Plumb. Rollins, Sewell, Vest, Walker
and WindOm-39.
Nays-BrOwn, Call, Jonas, MCPHERSON
and MOrgan-5.
The following pairs were announced:
Blair with Barrow, Hale with Beck,
Ferry with Farley, Maxey with Dawes,
Saunders with Williams, Butler with
Pugh, Johnston with Voorhees,.
The following Democrats voted for
the bill: MessTs. Bayard, COckeTell,
Coke, Davis of West Virginia, Garland,
George, German, GrOOme, jackson, Jones
of Florida, PendletOn, Vest and Walker.
The five negative votes were all cast by
Democrats.
1t is believed the bill will pass the
House, but in an amended form.