The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-06-10
THE STRUGGLE FOR OFFICE.
Effort of the Democrats to Practically
Nullify the Ciyil-Service Rules.
Mr. Randall Denounces the Law as Fraud
and a Cheat, and Desires that President
= Cleveland Make Note of His Remarks.

WASHINGTON, June 9-Mr. Willis, OF Ken
tueky, from the committee on rivers and har
bors. reported back a resolution directing the
Secretary of War to report whether the right OF
drainage into the Louisville and Portland canal
should be conceded to the city Of Louisville.
Adopted.
The House then went into committee Of the
whole (Mr. Blount, of Georgia, in the chair) on
the legislative, executive and judicial appropria.
ton bill.
Mr. Compton, 'of Maryland, did not propose to
answer the speech of ill-omen made by his col
league mr.. McComas Time would show that
the prophecy made by that gentleman was not
correct When the administration had done its
duty, and when the House had done its duty, it
would be seen that the figures presented by his
colleague were not correct. He proposed to ad-
dress himself to the civil-service reform provis-
ion of the bill, and he expressed his admiration
for the courage of the committee on
on the pending bill In ANNOUNCING his oppo.
sition to the rules adopted by the Civil-service
Commission, he gave voice to the sentiments of
the people he represented. He yielded to no
man, high or low, in Office out of Office, in the
entertainment of an honest, earnest and sincere
desire for the thorough economical and honest
administration of the civil service of the govern
ment but this, he argued, was not accomplished
by the existing civil-service law The law had
been case of ''heads win; tails you lose" In
case of Republican success that party was to
have the law and the Offices; in case OF Demo
cratic success, that party was to have the law
without the Offices. That law was. he contended,
m anti democratic and anti-republican usurpa-
hon of the peoples rights. He was against the
law as it Stood radically and irreconcilably.
Mr. Hit, of Illinois, commented on what he
termed the extraordinary provision which had
been forced upon an appropriation bill to nullify
the civi-service law. If it were not ruled out on
o point of order he hoped that the House, repre-
Benting the country and the advanced thoughts
of the day, would defeat it with square vote
The law had been tried; 1t was no longer spec
nlation, and ithad, upon the most thorough trial,
been found to be conducive to the efficiency, hon
esty and purity of the civil service. The COM
ipittee on appropriations did not refuse to ap-
Dropriate money for the ivil-servce Commits
sion, but it coupled the appropriation with a pro-
viso which broke down the barrier which pre-
vented spoilsmen from appointing their workers
to Office. He believed that the response of the
country to the provision would prove quietus
to the attacks upon the civil-service system. He
reviewed what he asserted to be an indirect vio-
Iation of the law by the Postmaster-general and
the Commissioner of Pensions, and commended
the more direct course pursued by the Secretary
of the Treasury IN the appointment of Higgins.
He also criticised the action of the President in
appointing Mr. Oberly as Civil service Commits
sioner, declaring that that gentleman was the
very type of party boss.
Mr. Bayne, of Pennsylvania, protested against
the provision and called attention to the fact
that the change proposed to be made could be
made by the President. To put this proposition
IN the bill was to vote want OF confidence IN the
President and his Cabinet He believed that
the President was doing his best to carry out
civilservice reform and that most, If not ALL of
his Cabinet were endeavoring in good faith to
execute the law. The only gentlemen who were
complaining of the civil-service rules were the
members of the Kitchen Cabinet" Who they
were he did not know.
Mr. Price, of Wisconsin, criticised many items
of the appropriation as being extravagant. In
every place you put your finger there was rot
tenness-petit larceny in every provision and
grand larceny in the aggregate.
Mr. Springer, of Illinois, defended the Com
missioner of Pensions from the charge of having
violated the civil-service law, and declared that
every appointment made by that officer had been
strictly in accordance with the letter and spirit
of the law. He went on to show that many of
the special examiners appointed had been Re
nublicans, and called attention to the fact that
Commissioner Black had retained eight Repub-
iican heads of divisions who were not protected
BY the civil service law.
Mr. Reed, of Maine. while doubling the cor
rectness of this statement sugges ted that Mr..
Springer would make Mr.. bfaek very unpopular
with the Democratic party if he continued his
znesch.
ployes Of the Pension Office not protected by
the law, half of them were Republicans. The
printing office still presided over by Mr.
Rounds, with 1900 employees not protected by
the law. History would show, and the facts
would demonstrate, that Mr. Clevelands admin
istration was the most comparison administra-
tion since that of George Washington. The
President had endeavored faithfully and honest
" to execute the civilservice law. The Demo
cratic party was in favor of the execution of the
law in letter and spirit, but the law was not in
tended to put it in the hands of cabal to regu-
late appointments to Office.
Mr. Butterwortb, of Ohio. said the gentleman
from Illinois seemed happy that the Commission
or Of Pensions could point to few spared men.
Gentlemen on the other side conceived it to be a
mistake TO have spared anyone The provision
in the bin was an attempt neither wise nor
ananly to nullify absolutely the law which men,
Ders were sworn to observe and enforce
Mr.. Springer-While you were Commissioner
Of Patents did you appoint any Democrats
Mr.. Butterworth--I did. / never knew the
politics or religion of any individual I appointed
to Office when Commissioners of Patents. And
say further, there never was time when the in
fuence of Democrat whom l knew did not
weigh as much with me as my party friends
All wanted to know was. was he competent.
crat you appointedf
Mr. Butterworth-No; nor can I name Re-
publican. l do not carry the roster in my head.
Mr. Morrison-I can name Democrat the
gentleman appointed. He is nephew of Gen.
Merritt and he appointed him for me- and /
have had a good deal Of trouble to keep him in
Laughter.
Mr. Butterworth then went on to criticise the
provision declaring that man whose capacity
ranged above that of an oyster could think the
provision had any other object than to remove
the barrier which protected the partisan appi-
cant Cleveland had come into power under a
promise, expressed and not implied. that he
would observe in all respects not merely the
letter but the spirit of the civilservice law. He
read with expressions of commentator, the
ivil-service message of the President, and de-
elared that the majority in the House was under
mining to overthrow the President and induce
aim to break the pledge he had given to the
people There might be difference of opinion
as to the propriety OF the law but if SO. why did
not the Democrats come forward in O manly
wav cd ~aDe al III They did not do M