National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1884-02-18

ported by powerful combination of cheek
and demagogism"
Seriously, Senator Voorhees, mover appeared
in more ridiculous light than when he in
troduced the bill above referred to. Aside
from tho fact that he has been known as an
open opponent of civil service reform, dc.
nouncing ID on all occasions as device to
keep republicans in Office and to prevent
democrats from getting in, tho proposition
to prohibit officers and employees of tho
United States from contributing money for
political purposes is one of those crude aud
indcfonsible suggestions that emanato only
from dsjointed or illogical mind.
OF course neither Mr.. Voorhees, nor any ono
else can give any reason why persons in
Office should not aid in disseminating and
unfolding tho political principles which they
believe to BIO right. But If it wero right to
apply this prohibition to United States Off
GERS and employees, why not to state officers
and employees also, and to those of counties,
towns, and cities as well? This would ex-
clude the democratic state officers in Indiana
and q large number of democratic county
officers in that state from contributing to the
success Of the democratic party next fall,
through which Mr. Voorhees, hopes to be re.
elected to the senate. More, it would exclude
Mr.. Voorhees, himself from taking the
stump in favor of his party, for if
it is wrong for clerk to contribute
to tho circulation of political literature it
is at least equally wrong for United
States senator to preach political propaganda
ism from the stump. Perhaps Mr.. Voorhees,
thinks he can do this without being injured
or demoralized. He would protect United
States officers and employees from wicked
and dangerous practice to which he is per-
J fectly willing to expose himself.i He should
} be careful. Better and stronger men than he
have fallen through rash and fatal overes-
innate Of their powers Of moral resistance
Senator VOORHEES, may be man of extraor.
binary moral stamina and rare political
chastity, but he has no right to assume that
no could tread with safety in any do.
|
clerk either male or female, was prohibited
by law from entering. Indeed, the very
generosity and impulsiveness of the senator's
nature, qualities admirable in Themselves and
degree, would BIO apt to make him an easy
victim to any demoralizing practice which
seemingly weaker man or woman would
successfully resist. We conclude that if it is
unsafe or wrong for government clerks to
contribute money for political purposes it is
equally so for United States senator, es-
pccially for ono of Mr.. Voorhees, generous
and impulsivo nature.
OF course, Mr.. Voorhees, did not know when
he introduced his little bill that the demo-
cratic party originatedah e practice of assess
ing government officials and employees for
political purposes, and that it was time.
honored usage Of that party up to the last
days of the late lamented Buchanan's admin
istration. There is record evidence of this
fact. In tho report of tho Covode invostiga.
ting committee, published in 1S59-'60, is the
testimony of many witnesses showing how
money was raised under Buchanans admin.
istrstion by political assessments on demo.
-, cratic Office holders Ono witness, j. l.
Cramer, clerk in the general land office
testified that he levied the contribution in
> that Office. We quote from the report;
O. Did you collect in 1858?
. A. / collected on two occasions. 1t strikes mt
= that one was in 1856, and the other was in 1858.
). @. Do you know for what state or for what pur-
pose that money was collected, either in 1866 o.
IN 1855?
A. think the money in 1856 was collected L
l. | be appropriated 10 pay some balance TO be sup
y piled IN Pennsylvania, II remember right the
u democratic state committee had got into deb
o quite sum of money, and it was with view o.
=, liquidatng that debt that the money was raised.
II was just after the october election, think.
i @. We're not there two assessments made tina
il year-one before the election, and another after
ward to make up deficiency
" A. That is what spoke OF. think one was be
10 fore election and the other TO make up de1
% cheney
@. By whose authority was It done? Who wa
it that requested or directed you TO perform thi
y duty2
Ia A. took the paper around at the request Of tn
commissioner of the general land office.
l. Q. Who told you what amount was 10 be raised
rs A. think II was the commissioner
q. Did he tell you what the amount was?
A. / think so.
81 @. How much vast?
ia A IL strikes me that 1t was So 500 or 81, CO.,
- CJuode report, pD 5G0.6l.
, The commissioner of the general land offic
:. at that time was Hon. Thomas A. Hen
bricks, of Indiana, the candidate for
vice president on tho democratic reforr
ticket in 1876.
-, Another witness, Nicholas Vodder, testife
- that ho also was clerk in the general Ian
Office and circulated the assessment paper /
- the division Of which ho was head
30 @. BY whose direction9
A. Well, was requested-I was not dlrecte
O. to do soto carry the list around in my division
"a O. By whom2
=. A. by Mr.. Hendricks believe, who was the
10 commissioner; 1t was request ouode Report
l 56i.
Is, There is big volume full of such test
tn mOny as this, Perhaps Senator VOorhe