New-York tribune., 1886-03-11
DEMOCRATS IN THE PILLORY.

UEMOtHAIS ~ 1HE IILLch1.
One fact is established beyond dispute by
Senator Edmundss powerful speech, SO that it
shines out like a lighthouse over the dreary
waste of Democratic pettiiogging. The power
which the Senate now claims has been exercised
for many years, and the abest and best men Of
both parties have deemed it indisputable.
When Senator Thurman, as chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, demanded from
Attorney General Devens "any papers or in
formation touching the question of the pIo-
priety OF the rcm0rGi of an official, he was sus
tanned therein by Senators Bayard, Garland,
Lamar and Mcdonald, Democrats, and by
Senators Edmunds, Conkling and Carpenter
Republicans, and also by Senator and eX-Jus-
tice David Davis Independent. The legal
knowledge of these men no Democrat now IN
the Senate can well dispute. Not one of them
has Senator Thurman's reputation; not one of
them can deny that the Democratic party
passed the Electoral bill in 1877 because it be
lieyed that Judge Davis would have the con-
trolling vote in determining whether Hayes or
Tiden was elected President. II these two
men are not entitled to Democratic confidence,
what present Senator can claim that conf
dencc If they did not know the law, is the
But what is the predicament of Senators Bay
ard, Garland and Lamar? They now deny, as
Cabinet officers, the right of the Senate to de-
mand the very information and papers which
they then demanded as Senators. Indeed, they
then went further than the Senate has chosen
to go now; they demanded papers and infOrma-
ton touching the question OF the prOpriety Of
the removal Of an officer. Mr.. Edmunds
makes iC plain that the Senate has thus far only
insisted upon information as to cases of SUS-
peRSiOn because the suspended officer is legally
still in Office until the Senate consents to his
removal by confirming a successor. Much has
been said of late and much disclosed that is not
to the credit of Messrs. Bayard, Garland and
Lamar. But it may be doubted whether any
other thing has gone so far to impeach their
honesty Of purpose or uprightness of conduct as
this disclosure that they as Senators personally
insisted upon and exercised the very right, and
even more than the very right, which they now,
as Cabinet officers, fatty deny. Such changes
of front among cheap dema gOgues are not un-
known. But a man who is fit to be lifted to tho
Senate, and to serve in that body OH the Judici-
ary Committee, and then to be selected as mem
Der of the Cabinet is expected to have some
self-respect and regard for the law and for
public opinion. The reputation of these three
men for uprightness and worth of character re-
ceives blow, in this disclosure from which it
can hardly recover.
What is to be said of the President Is it to
be held that he is comparatively ignorant of
law, and has had no experience in public
affairs, and neglected to search for precedents
in the conduct of the Government, and so en-
gagged in a grave conflict with the Senate,
knowing nothing of its rights or his duties No
defence could be more damning. If that is true
of Mr.. Cleveland, he is less fit to be President
than his worst foes have ever imagined. Is it
to be said, on the other hand, that he is a head
strong man who cares nothing for precedents
and little for restraints of law, but intends to
administer the Government according to his
own ideas of right That is to say that he is a
usurper, who is liable to require impeachment
before all is done. These defences are suicidal.
President Cleveland has been pushed by dis
honest advisers into fatal and lawless atti-
tude. They knew it was lawless. His first
duty is to put them out of his Cabinet, his
counsel and his confidence, and then to open
those "glass doors" and let the public know
how the Government has been conducted