Morning journal and courier., 1885-09-24
CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.
A Reply to Hon. Lynde Harrison'
 Open Letter.

Open hebGeTs
 NEW HAVEN, Sept. 23, 1885.
 HON. LYNDE HARRISON,
 Chairman of the Republican State Cen
 tral Committee.
 DEAR SIR:
 Your letter of September 2d was received during the absence of one of us in the far Vest or it would have had an earlier reply.
 After recalling the position of the Repub- lican party on the subject of civil service re- form, and assuming that our separation from it in the last campaign was owing to our de- votion to this cause, you ask whether our
 'alliance with the Democratic party was temporary, or is to be permanent" In reply to this we simply say that, as we have never allied ourselves with the Democratic party, it is impossible to answer your question. You imply, however, that in view of our interest in the reform of the civil service, of the record of the Republican party on that subject, and of the policy of the new Democratic admin istration, there was certain inconsistency in our support of the Democratic presidentiai candidate You state that in it's recent plat forms the Republican party has declared it. self in favor of the principles of civil service reform; that for many years the federal ad- ministration had reappointed faithful officials at the expiration of their terms of office; that the efficiency of the service had been i'm proving; that the civil service law had been passed by @ Republican Congress, and enforced by 8 Republican President. All this is perfectly true. We beg to remind you, however, that it was also a Republican Congress which de ! feated the original civil service bill of MT. Jenckes in 1868; that after the passage of the civil service law of 1871 it was Republican necessary to carry the law into effect; and | that the difficulties which President Hayes met with in enforcing civil service reform were due quite much to his own party as l to the Democratic; that the very Congress | which passed the Pendleton bill had, in its previous session, consistently neglected and delayed it, and that it was only after the Re | publican party had been overwhelmingly de feated in the election of 1882 that the Repub Iican Congress changed it's mind and passed the bill Finally, as regards the declaration ot 1 principles in the platforms of the Republican | party. we would remind you that the Demo cratic party has since 1872 adopted in it. national platforms civil service plank witf as great regularity as the Republican party ! We think that when party declines to, pass | 8 measure which is likely to be embarrassing ! to itself, but passes it as soon as it is likely | to be embarrassing to its opponents, that | party's motives are fairly open to criticism
 and we think that in view of the shortcom l ings of the Republican party with regard to I civil service reform during the twenty-fo years of it's rule it's promises are hardly en l titled to greater consideration than those o1 the Democratic party with regard to the same ! subject.
 | Further on you ask if by the removal oi Messrs. Sperry, Beers, Selden, Dickinson, Mer ] ritt and Packard, or by the failure to recon l has not dealt deadly blow to the cause of ! civil service reform. We do not think that it | has. All of these gentlemen were among | the most active managers of the Republican party. To that cause mainly they owe their ! original appointments. Their distrust of | @ Democratic administration and their ap- prehension of the financial evils that would l be likely to befall the country should such an administration come into power had been frequently and publicly ex- | pressed in various political campaigns. The ! time of each of them had been freely given l to party services, to an extent which no busi- ness man would tolerate in one of his enl- | ploves. It is not such men that the civil service reform movement has aimed to pro- | tect. With reference to the manner in which I these and other places have been filled, it ix perfectly true that we do not approve all the l appointments of President Cleveland. We l did not expect to be able to do that In vot- 1 ing for him we believed him to be honest,
 but we never imagined him to be omniscient. You ask us again if recent changes in cer-
 tain subordinate positions would have oc- l cured if these gentlemen had been continued ! in office. We presume they would not. Sev- | eral such removals have been made for inefd- ciency or misconduct which had apparently escaped the observation of the former au- | thorities and were brought to light by | their successors. Others have been made for no cause except to make room | for a party friend. Such removals we believe to be contrary not indeed to the
 civil service law, but to the maxims of good government. We are not, however disposed to hold the President of the United States responsible for every act of each local off cial. In other words, we judge the admin istration as whole, and, while not over