The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1889-01-18
clvIl.sERvIcE REFORM.
Why the Law Now in Force Can Not h
Considered . Failure.

l Why the Law Now in Force Can Not h
Considered . Failure.
Opposition to the Civil-Service Re-
form law is not q new thing in Con-
gress, and it can hardly escape any
ones attention that there is now ap-
parently much more and stronger OPP
position than at any time since the
law was enacted. In the House debate
the other day the act was denounced
by at least one member who gave it a
cordial support when it was passed in
1888. Democrats are not alone in this
attitude. Republicans of prominence
have declared the law a failure, and
in both parties the feeling is unde-
niably much grecter than the express
sion of it.
Under the circumstances this Is not
80 unnatural. but it is wrong to charge
the failure to the law. There has not
been any such reform as was contem-
plated by the act and which could
have been secured by it. The difficulty
has been in the failure to enforce the
law in its spirit and purpose. MIR.
Cleveland came into Office with pledges
on the subject which led all who trusted
him to believe that lac intended to go
even farther than the law in the direc-
ton of reform. He had substantially
pledged himself not to use the offices
of the people as rewards for party
service. and to keep the civil estab-
lishment free from offensive partisan
ship. On these promises he received
support outside his own party, which
made his election four years ago pos
sible.
What has he done? 1t is not worth
while to go over again what has be-
come familiar ground to almost every
one in the country. Nobody needs to
be told that Mr.. Cleveland has not
kept his promises. The Civil-Service
refOrmers themselves have been COM
PEELED to make the mournful
confession that he has utterly
disappointed them. He has kept
a man Of his own appoint
ment on the commission who has
throughout his whole term treated the
law with contempt and aided to defeat
its purpose. Mr.. Cleveland has acted
with this member and against the
other commissioners in refusing to
approve one Of the most important
rules proposed for advancing the re-
form-that requiring reasons for dis
missal.
1t may easily be charged that a re-
form law which enabled Mr.. Cleve-
land to use the office-holding machin-
cry as he has done is failure, but i:
would not have been a failure had he
been sincere in his pledges. 1t has been
said for him that he could not
enforce it against the adverse
sentiment of large proportion Of his
party. This will have small influence
with those who have seen him fasten
his tariff policy upon the party against
the adverse sentiment of quite as
large a proportion Of it as ever OBJ
jected to Civil-Service reform. He
found power enough when he had any
use for it, but while he was dickering
in Federal patronage as a means of
driving his party into acceptance of
his tariff policy and his denomination
he was dealing reform its deadliest
blow.
We do not believe the people regard
the law as failure merely because
the administration of it has Gone so
much to injure and discredit it 1t is
undeniably faulty in that it does not
require reasons for removals; but that
was something which could have been
remedied in day by the commission
ers and the President. AS matter of
fact when two Of the commissioners
did propose a rule for this purpose
Mr.. Cleveland rejected it. If those
who denounce the failure of Civil
Service reform will put the response
bility where it belongs the law will re-
ceive much less criticism and Mr..
Cleveland much more.-Philadelphia
Press.