Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1889-10-24
why Should Two Terms Make a Can
dldate Objectionable For a Third?"
Why Should Twenty Terms Dis
qualify for the Twenty-tirst3
Why Not Create an OfRce-H Holding
Aristocraoy?

terms make candidate Objectionable
for third term? Is it not rather rec
ommendation? Has any man magnified
the Office more than the present incum-
bent?"-Ohio State journal.
The three. questions embodied in the
above paragraph l shall endeavor to an
swer in their order.
1. President Hayes in his letter of
acceptance struck the exact truth when
he said 'the restoration of the civil
service to the system established by
Washington and followed by the early
Presidents, can be best accomplished by
an executive who is under no tempta-
tion to use the patronage of his Office to
promote his reelection" The people,
however, against what is evidently their
best interest, have conceded to fair Of
dcer two consecutive terms, but this has
been almost unanimously agreed upon
as the extreme limit. No President, and
no Governor of Ohio, has been permitted
to break this record. Hayes, it is true,
held the gubernatorial Office for three
terms, but not for three terms in success
sion; when nominated the last time he
neither sought the place nor had one of
bis old appointees in Office to seek it for
him. The element of patronage, there
fore, had nothing whatever to do with
his selection. It was to all intents and
purposes new deal.
A good man, whether serving as Pres
Gnxnrnnn oh hn a4I
with two terms, for, If he happens to be
as wise as he is good, he must know that
by the destruction of this limit prece.
dent would be established which bad
men might urge to the injury of the
public service. In fact, If the limit
were once broken, we might with Ger.
tainty look forward to the beginning Of
a series Of struggles among ambitious
men to determine which of them could
hold the place for the greatest number
Of terms. In these struggles the whole
power and patronage of the executive
Office would not only be brought into
requisition, but the administration o1
public affairs would be subordinated to
personal ambitions and private ends,
and the money wrung from the tax payer
diverted from legitimate channels, and
in part used to advance the fortunes Of
party chieftains. Then we should find
In sheets like the Ohio State journal
ingeniously constructed questions like
that above quoted, to-wit:
''Why should the good service Of
twenty terms make candidate object
ionable for twenty-frst?"
The sincere and unselfish citizen is al
all times ready to make sacrifices fol
TIE common veal. He knows that 9
wise usage, like sound law, should al
ways be observed. His patriotism will
not permit his ambition to trample upo1
wholesome precedents, and he has sehsi
enough withal to know that if the ped
pie cut the bad man off with one
term, they can sufficiently emphasize
their appreciation of the good one BY
two.
= 2. Good service in the executive
Office is just what the people of the State
have right to expect. They should be
satisfied with nothing less. The man
who renders this sort of service simply
does his duty-what he promises under
oath to do, and what he is paid for do,
ing. Are we bound to continue a man
in Office because, forsooth, he does what
we elected him to do? Is honest compe.
tency so scarce in Ohio that we are re.
stricted in our choice of candidate fo1
Governor to one person? The gist OF
the Ohio State Journals argument, If it
has any gist to it, is that men should re.
main in Office during good behavior;
that we should at once proceed to estab-
lish an ofice-holding aristocracy; that
the longer man holds an office the
stronger becomes his claim to be con.
tinued in it. It is by such plausible fall
lacies as these that Governors, Consuls
and Presidents have become Emperors.
The Journals logic is that of despotism
the world over and from the beginning
Of time. It assumes that there is one
man better than all the rest, and that
he, therefore, should be king. This is
Forakerism, not Republicanism. The
Republicans Of Ohio, venture toaff1rm,
are not yet ready to commit themselves
to doctrine which would ultimately, il
not at once, fasten upon them a perma-
nent boss.
8. HAS any man magnified the Office
more than thepresent Incumbent" This
,is the Journals question, and my an
iswer to 1t is, yes. Corwin, Chase, Dem
nis6n, Brough, Tod, Hayes and Cox,
each did vastly more to magnify the Of.
fee. They did not make the Office
!rallying point for tricky politicians; the
present incumbent has. They did not
make ita Matching place for plots to
capture delegates and pack conventions;
the present incumbent has. They did
not make it place from which to ped
die out appointments as rewards for per-
sonal service; the present incumbent
has. They did not select their
own railroad commissioner, pri-
vate secretary and State librarian to
run the party machine in their own in
Itefest, and to the exclusion of other Re-