Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1885-09-06

Attacking the Civil Service Law
1t seems that at last the constitutional
ity of the civil service law is to be tested.
James A. Hinkley, Of New Iork,has fled
petition in the United States Court re-
curing Dorrman B. Eaton and the other
Civil Service Commissioners to show by
what authority they undertake to say VINO
shall be appointed to certain offices OF the
government.
u is probable that this WIN be very
interesting suit. There are very able
lawyers who think that the civil service
law is unconstitutional. The argument
against its consrttutionality is GER
tainly very strong. The constitution
SAYS that the President "shall nominate
and by and with the advice and con
sent Of the Senate, shall appoint Ambas-
sailors, or other public Ministers and Con-
suls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and
all other officers Of the United States
whose appointments are not herein other
wise provided tor, and which shall be
established by law; but the Congress may
by law vest the appointment Of such in
feror officers as they think proper IN the
President alone, in the courts Of law, or
in the heads of departments"
The powers OF the executive and legis-
latiye branches OF the government appear
be very clearly defined. OF course no
one would pretend TO say that Congress
could by law direct the President whom
to appoint.
1t is the Presidents right to appoint
whom he pleases, aud Congress cannot
deprive him of that right by pointing out
those from among whom appointments
must be made, The only restraint on the
President, in filing the important offices,
is that the consent of the Senate must be
obtained. But the Senate has nothing to
do with determining who shall be nomi-
mated.
Under the constitution Congress may
by law vest The appointment of inferior
officers in the President alone, IN the
courts Of law, OF IL the heads OF depart
ments, but 1t is not seriously claimed that
it can do anything more than say who
shall make the appointments. AS far as
the constitution is concerned the power
Of the President, or judge, or the head OF
a department, TO make an appointment,
which law OF Congress authorizes any
one Of them to make, is absolute and I'M
restrained in any way. The cOnstitu-
ton gives Congress no power to say that
only those shall be appointed TO the infe-
rior offices who are decided by commits
sion to be qualified to fill them.
It can be readily seen that the Civil
Service Commission limits the power OF
the President, and it is, therefore,
claimed that the law which authorizes the
commission is unconstitutional. When
Mr.. Arthur vetoed the bill which directed
him to appoint Fitz John Porter to
position in the army, there was some talk
about passing the bill over the veto. The
talk came to nothing, however, because
it was doubted by some of the mos
earnest advocates of the measure tina /
Congress had any power to direct the ap-
pointment Of any one 10 an office.
The discussion of this question before
the courts will doubtless be followed by
the public closely. There is, of course, a
good deal to be said in favor of the cOnsti-
tutiOnallty Of the civil service law. The
whole matter was debated pretty tho
roughly when the civil service bill was be-
fore Congress. 1t is evident, however,
that the plan adopted to reform the civil
service is not yet thoroughly established,
and that the battle tor civil service reform
is not yet over.