Richland beacon. [volume] (Rayville, La.) 1869-1890, 1885-06-20
GIBSON TO GAYARRE.
THE LOUISIANA SENATOR oAP!AINs TUE AP-
POINTNENr OF KEENOCHAN.

POINTNENT OF KEENOCHAN.
T Washington, d: G., June ), 1885.
To ;he lion. Charles Gavarre
Dear Judge have this moment
read your letter III the 7iniee Uenlo-
c,'at addressed to me and submitted
to the public concerning your appli-
cation for the naval office. You have
two grounds of complaint:
First-That your application was
not considered personally by the
/ President at the time or before he
made the nomination for this Office.
| wrote to YOU that the President
was notified long before lie made
any nominations that | had nuner-
on, applications for this and other
offices from my constituents, and
that il it was his pleasure would at
the proper time lay them before him
for his personal examination and
consideration; and that he desired
me to keep them until called for or
to file them with the departments.
saying that it was utterly impossible,
on account of the vast number Of
such applications received Just al
that time from all parts of the coun-
try, for him &c giTe them personal
attention. When he came to nomi-
nate a naval officer for New Orleans,
50 far from expressing any desire to
lof,
he appointed Mr. H. p. Kernochan.
whom he personally knew and high
ly esteemed.
If the President had desired to
consider the names Of the applicants
for this Office and examine,the papers
sent forward by them, il would have
afforded me pleasure to have laid
them all before him, but expressing
his wish 1t the time not to examine
them. owing to the iiEposibility of
his doing so. and desiring me TO
recomeld some one. ] recommended
Hon. H. /. kernochan, whose n1me
was agreeable to all but two of the
members Of the Louisiana delegation
who joined in the recommendation,
and in whose behalf no written rec
omendations were offered nor had he
made any application for the Office
himself.
In the second place YOU assume to
be at loss to know who could have
recommended the Hon. H. p Kerno-
chan, and that the sentiments of nv
letter of the 18Th of April to you
excluded ne from doing so. You
say: Il exiiact only what relates
to the point in question" The let
ter, as | remember it, related to only
one subject and was not long. 1
submit that your quotations from it
should lave 10 weight among fair
minded nen whilo any part of it was
omitted The whole or none of that
letter should have been published.
But the extracts which YOU make
are very far from justifvin9 the con-
clusion you reach. Your opinion
appears to be based upon the fol-
lowing extract; II would be glad if
the President would receive all
applications for Office directly, and
relieve me from all responsibility
with respects to all appointments,
leaving me only my constitutional
duty as Senator to consult or
reject
If the President would adopt this
rule now it would be gratifying to
me, but the President has not adopt
ed it: on the contrary he requested
me to make recommendations to him
and did so. | submit there is
nothing SO consistent with the above |
sentiment and my compliance with !
any request from the President and |
heads of departments respecting
appointments. 1t is one thing for a
Senator to tender advice when !
requested and it is very different
thing to he a solicitor for patronage.
l hope the day is not far distant
when Senators and Representatives
shall he entirely relieved from any
duty respecting questions of patron
age, and that they may be enabled
to devote their whole time and ser
vices to legislation for the benefit of
the people.
Complying with request I reco-
mended ex-SenatoiJOnas to be collec-
4 L, L.