The Indianapolis sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1880-1904, 1885-05-05
MEETING "PERsoNAL. oBLIeATroN

MEETING PERSONAL OBLIGATION -
Governor Long, OF Massachusetts, said re-
Gently: "Thus far the new administration
has in many respects done well. There is,
OF course, enough to criticize. Tie promises
have not all been kept. Some appointments
have been made at which you hold your
noses. With some good Diplomatic sele ,tions,
others wretchsdly infelicitous have been
mingled. There has been the usual dispsn-
sstion of patronage. under departmental
stroll, for the purpose OF meeting perso0sl
obligations"
To the foregoing va will give our sprightiy
d esteemed contemporary. the Indisnapo-
lis Freeman, opportunity to reply in these
columns. The Freeman says: Mr.. Long
is mistaken when he says tha. there hSs
been the usual dispensation OF patronage
under departmental control for the purpose
of meeting personal obligations There has
been some OF this, unfortunately, bat moth
ing like the usual amount of il. Are we ID
infer from the use CT the word usual in this
connection that patronage has been habit
sally used during the twenty-four years
OF Republicsnism for the p1rpcse
OF meeting personal obligations" Mr..
Long can mean nothing Else than
this; hence the very fact that the Demo.
cratic administration is continuing ths
usual practice in this regard-a fact which
the Governor is quick 20 condemn ia an ad-
verssry-should be looked upon rather as an
endorsement Of the Republican party and
rs twenty four years than as subject for
far1lt fin tf.ora ha, 80 f-ih
ute to the Republican party and its twenty
four years than the adoption of Its method
OF distributing the offices? Bat il the GOV
ernor will think the matter over carefully
and will consent to exercise his memory a
little bit, he will find that Mr.. Cleveland
has not followed the usual practice.
His mistakes havs besn the exception
no. the rule. Civil service reform has
had fair treatment st his hands. As 20
me Pearson appointment. it is an open Sc.
crst that that gentleman would not have
teen Ieeppointed had Mr.. Blaine bsen
elected President; PearsD ms removal, not
bis retention, would have been matter
of course Mr.. Long was one of the 'dade-
along with Mr.. Curtis, Mr.. White and Mr..
Roosevelt at the Chicago Convention; this,
reIbaPs, accounts for the decsncy of his
speech. He is partisan enough to feel thai
ne must fnd fault with the administration;
he does Sd, however, with some regard for
the truth
The Freeman is correct in its criticisms.
The Republican party disposed OF It's pa
ronsge to meet personal obligations by ths
wholesale. Not a Senator, Congressman or
Cabinet officer of thu party who did not do
it. There has been but very little of It done
by the present administration. Psarson's
political salvation existed only IN case OF
Dir. Clevelands success. Blaine would have
cleared him out bag aud baggage. He was
an Offensive partisan from the Bleiue
standpoint. BE had kept too quiet in his
New York Postoffse during the campaign 30
suit the Republican bosses. and his name had
been blecklisted. With Blaines coming IN
there would have followed Pearson's going
out. Blaine would have taken no mora
stock in civil service reform than N birds
nest of last year. The more decent the Rs-
publican the less valuable would he have
been in the sight OF the Blaine crowd.
Blaines success would have brought his dis.
comfture and downfall.