The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1886-07-14
ceptable to the civil service reformers.
The New York Herald SAYS.

ceptable to the civil service reformers.
The New York Herald says:
The strong demand of public opinion ali
over the country that the senate shall no
longer discuss and decide upon appoint
ments to office in secret sessions seems to
have caused Senator Edmunds to fall into
so furious rage that he has lost his head.
In his anger he proposes scheme which is
nothing less than a deadly attack on the
present system of civil service reform-a
scheme which if it could be executed into
law, would lead to hopeless decentralization
and corruption in the federal government.
The bill can never pass; 1t is only
bull against the comet" But every
friend of Mr.. Edmunds must regret that
in a fit of petulance he should propose so
wrong-headed and fatal a measure, and one
which, as he has the reputation of being
a civil service reformer is sure to bring dis
repute upon that reform. He proposes, in
fact, to make the old Tweed charter part
of the federal system.
The Springfield Union (republican)
says "The more Senator Edmunds'
plan for appointments and removals in
the civil service is examined, the more
unbusiness-like it appears" The Phil
adelphia Telegraph thinks that Senator
Edmunds ought to be ashamed to make
the pretense that this bill is in the in
terest of civil service reform. The
Telegraph alleges that the fact that it
is an attack on reform is visible on the
very face of it," 1t strikes the st.
Louis Globe as plan to " transform
the President of this country into a
car or mikado." We have space for
only the following additional press
opinions. The Boston Advertiser SAYS:
1t is well known that earnest civil service
reformers have long regarded the four years
term, as established by existing laws, OBJ
noxious, for the reason that it presents an
opportunity which invites partisans to make
changes for partisan reasons and enables
an entire change to be effected in any
presidential term of four years without
single technical removal. The evils of this
definite-term system are in no respect di-
mnished by this bill. Possibly they are
augmented. Why have any definite term?
Or if one is to be had, why not make it
seven years, as once suggested by Mr..
Blaine, which would secure that proper
ton of officers would hold over any presi-
dents term, thus preventing clean sweep?
The Philadelphia Record, after re-
citing the provisions of the bill, thus
comments:
Unlimited energy as to appointments, but
practical paralysis as to removals, is the
panacea offered by Mr.. Edmunds to allie
viate and finally drive away the evils that
are supposed to flourish in the atmosphere
of offcalism at the capital. 1t is difficult
to imagine how the people are to be bene-
flied by measure which removes an execu-
tive appointee from the swift supervision of
the appointing power and refers all re-
sponsibility for the continuance of an inef-
ficient or dishonest official to the ponderous
and sluggish machinery of the courts. If
popular feeling as well as legislative prece-
dent be arrayed in opposition to Mr.. Ed
munds project for improving the civil
service, neither is it likely to find favor
among the practical politicians of his own
party, who will be slow to surrender the
tangible advantages of senatorial super
vision over appointments for the shadowy
promise of some uncertain good that may
follow abolition of the presidential power of
| removal