St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-06-11
VEST ON PATRONAGE.

VEST ON PATRONAGE.
Senator Vest writes to an applicant
for consulship that he will not ask the
president for any patronage; that he
would rather retire from public life than
do 1t. because the president, i'll making
certain Kansas City appointments, ig-
nOred the senator and the delegation in
congress 'in the most offensive manner"
The senator is one of the most virulent
opponents of civil service reform. He
insists that the incumbents of all fed
eral offices should be in sympathy with
the party. We heard him in 1855 grow
fairly indignant as he pictured his feel
ings IN going through the departments
and seeing fat places held by Republic.
cans under Democratic admlnistra-
ton.
The trouble with this conception of
the federal service is that 1t has an
ever-increasing set Of definitions and
limiting applications. 'rhe offices be-
long to the party. That is, they belong
to some members of the party, for
clearly all the party can't have
offices. If they belong to the party,
then the party should decide who
among the number should have
them. But it doesn't. In fact.
it would be deemed presumptuous
should the party OF any subdivision of it
demandi it. II not to the party, then to
whom? Some to the senator's; some to
the representatives; all to the boss il the
state have neither senators nor repre-.
sentatives. So it comes at last that what
is meant by the Offices belonging to the
party is that they belong to one, two or
handful of men who are 1.-the party"
Another reason given why the offices
should belong to the party is that those
men should transact the business of the
government who are in sympathy with
its policy. This. too. has its limitations
and divisions. Sometimes. as now,
party is not unanimous in opin-
ION as to what its policy is.
We recently saw the president de-
elaring it to be the policy of the party
to stop buying silver bullion, and hav-
Ing the support of the declaration of the
national convention of the party. And
we saw numbers Of the representatives
of the party, Senator Vest and the Mis-
souri, delegation among them, opposing
the president and resisting the passage
of the act and embodying the policy.
Who is the party in this case, the national
convention and the president or those
who went with Senator Vest and Rep
resentative Bland? Now we see other
senators and representatives hostile to
the policy adopted by the party in its
national convention on the tariff qdes-
riOn.
In both these cases there is radical
difference between the administration,
which makes appointments to office,
and the senators and representatives
who. in selections of officers, esteem
themselves the party. as to the policy of
the party. Manifestly, applying their
own doctrine to their cases, the adj
ministraton is bound to see that men
sharing its views of policy, and opposing
those of these senators and represent
atives, are appointed to place nuder it.
II the president does this, these gentle
men should be the last to get hu fly,
stand on their dignity and imagine that
they have been affronted. They should
take their own medicine with bland
equanimity. Ii the president shares
their belief i'll the efficacy OF post
masters in sustaining the policy of the
party, how could he appoint to office III
Missouri men who believed with the
senator in the free coinage of silver at
a ratio of sixteen to one? Wouldn't he
be guilty of treaehery to his and the
party's policy should he do it?
The fact of the matter is that, when
this silver fight was on, the Kansas City
Times was the one paper in Missouri
that stood by the president. In the face
of the Missouri delegation in congress
and the local popularity of free coming
it fought, day in and day out. for the re-
peal of the Sherman act. If. then, when
it came to be question of appointing a
postmaster and other officers IL that
city. the president accepted the recon-
mendations of the editor of the Times
and ignored the delegation with Senator
Vest at its head. did he do anything but
follow the doctrines Of the senator and
his fellows on the dele2ation2 Did he
not prescribe to them their own medi-
. cine? And when the senator airs this
act of the president as personal griev-
ance, all ignoring of his rights, denial
of his prerogatives, is he not, in fact, re-
pudiating his own doctrine of the prop
erty rights of a party in the federal
offices? What is sauce for the Republi-
can geese is also sauce for the Demo-
cratic ganders.