The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1886-12-22

pose, and has ceased to have any salu-
tary effect. There was an interesting
debate on the question of repeal. Mr..
Edmunds opposed the bill. He said if
there was any value in that constitu-
tional power of restraint invested in
the senate, that value was to be en-
tirely destroyed by the repeal of this
statute; and there would be turned
over Gas if in affirmative language) to
the President the power of immediate
removal of every one of the public
servants whose appointments were con-
firmed by the senate. Its passage
would be the greatest practical step
backward on the theory of the reforma-
ton of the civil service of the United
States. 1t would be affirming that
congress was willing and DESTROYS that
the President should exercise the power
of selecting persons to fill offices,
whether the senate advised and con-
scented to it or not. Mr.. Hoar advo-
Gated the repeal. He said the question
was on returning to the ancient policy
of the government, to the rule which
had existed from 1889 to 1867, and
which notwithstanding the condition
of the statute book had practically eX-
listed since the accession to power of
General Grant in March, 1862 The
question had never been raised that it
had not been decided in opposition to
the views expressed by the senator
from Vermont. The house of repre-
sentatives, in the very first congress
after the passage of the tenure-of-oflice
law, had passed bill to repeal it by a
vote of one hundred fifty-nine to twenty
five, and again in 1872 without a di-
vision. Every senator who had then
been member of the house had voted
for its repeal. President Grant had
recommended its repeal, 1t seemed to
him to be totally inconsistent with the
constitutional theory of the government
for President, in whom the executive
power was expressly lodged by the
Constitution, to be compelled to answer
to that responsibility, when instruments
were forced upon him against his will
or in whom he had no confidence.
While expressing himself in full SYM
pathy with the principles of civil serv-
ice reform, he still declared his convic-
ton that the people of the United States
expected and demanded that no man
shall be kept in an executive employ
ment who had not the confidence of the
person responsible for the success of
these executive functions. On Thurs
day Mr. Edmunds again opposed the
repeal on the same grounds as before.
Mr.. Evarts favored the repeal on the
ground of expediency. If removals
from office, he said, were to turn on
two concurrent judgments (where the
President and the senate might be OPP
posed in politics) it would follow that
the repugnance of the senate might
keep man in Office whom the Presi-
dent desired to dispense with and by
whose action the President could not
accomplish his duty. Mr.. Evarts' views
are sound. The contingencies of the
future should not be disregarded. If
the republicans should elect the next
President, but at the same time the
democrats should secure control of the
senate, the tenure-of- office law might
be made serious embarrassment to
the republican administration, as also
in case any republican malcontent in
the senate should seek, for personal
reasons, to harass and obstruct the
executive in the exercise of his consti-
tutional power of making appointments
and removals.