The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-02-27
Ar. Curtis said, had told him that he signed

Mr.. Curtis said had told him that he signed
every petition that was presented to him. But
whenever he signed such papers he wrote to the
appointing power TO say that the signature
meant nothing at all, and that If he really want
ed to help an applicant he would write in a pri-
vate way. This was not fair TO those who had
secured the signature. President Van Buren's
practice was similar. If Martin said or wrote
such and such thing it would not do to rely
upon 1t, but If Martins said or wrote it, why,
then it was perfectly reliable. These were tricks
of politicians to be sure. but they showed how
great this abuse was capable of becoming.
Mr.. Curtis said that he agreed with Senator
Sherman on the right of the Senate to see the
recommendations for appointment The Senate
was part of the executive power. The Constitu-
ton said that the President should nominate
and, by and with the consent of the Senate, APP
point certain officers. AS part of the executive
power, the Senate had the right to know what
influences, considerations and information had
decided the President in making nomination.
It's action could not be thoroughly intelligent I'M
less it had such information.
The object of the Senate in demanding these
papers was twofold. First. it wanted to defend
the character of the men who had been removed.
In the second place it wished, if possible, to
throw discredit on the President, and to show
that he had violated his pledges This latter
was its prime object The Senate belonged to
the opposition party, and it had the right to at
tack the Presidents position if its warfare was
honorable. The President could block the Sem
ate's game by furnishing it with the information
asked The Senate has said that the informa
ton was wanted as secret information. 1t was
pretty certain, however, that if anything likely
to injure the President was obtained in this way
it wouldd speedily become public. Let the Pres
ident try the Senate's secret session plan. If
the information thus given should leak out he
could thereafter reply to the Senate's demands
by saying. II shall give you the information you
ask, but shall also give it to the public at the
same time"
The President MIR. Curtis thought, had moth
ing to fear. Suppose that his reason for remov-
ing postmaster was that he was drunk, would
Would not such action deter other postmasters
from like offenses9
In conclusion. Mr. Curtis said that he was COM
PEELED to differ from the President to his pre-
rogative. Mr.. Cleveland was, perhaps right in
declining to make his action retroactive and In
refusing to turn over communications intended
as confidential, and in many cases so marked.
But his course in the future was clear. He
should place all communications on record, and
the writers should know that letters to the Pres
ident are letters to the country Mayor Lows
idea was praiseworthy He let the people know
that he felt at liberty to make anything public.
as he deemed best.
Mr.. Curtis said that demand of this sort had
never been complied with by any other Presi-
dent from Washington's time to the present. but
Mr. Cleveland was elected under peculiar circum-
stances, under movement intended to reform
politics A great step for reform would be his
putting an end to secrecy that was not support
ed by reason or the Constitution.