The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-08-20
THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY
CARLISLE.

The rumor of an impending rupture be-
tween the President and Secretary Car
Isle on account of the latters recent let
ter to Senator Harris protesting against
the proposed placing of sugar on the free
list is doubtless an exaggeration of the
the President was nettied by the letter.
and from what is known OF his dispo-
sition IL is easy to believe that he has
conducted himself toward the Secretary
in a disagreeable way. Secretary Carlisle
is self-respecting man. and donbt he
has suffered more than once from the Pres
idents arrogant manners and his habit
OF treating the members of his Cabinet as
clerks. But political and party considera-
lions would restrain the President from
asking Mr.. Carlisle TO resign or the latter
from rendering his resignation If it were
possible TO avoid it. Such a step on the
part of either coming at this time. right
on the heels of the fractional fight over
the tariff bill, would have a very damag-
ing effect on the administration and would
probably prove the straw which would
break the back of the camel that is al
ready bending and grooming beneath it's
burden
But while it is not probable that Secre-
tary Carlisle will resign, one can easily
believe that the relations between him
and the President are somewhat strained.
In the bitter struggle between the House
and Senate in which the President almost
staked his political existence preventing
the adoption of the Senate bill, Mr.. Car
isle was so well known to be in favor
Of it that he was not called into Cabinet
consultations on the subject 1t is an
heard of thing. or was until Mr.. Cleve-
land established the precedent. that Pres
ident should take counsel of his Secretary
OF State and Secretary of War concerning
a revenue measure upon which his Secre-
tary of the Treasury, above all others,
should be the best authority. The fact that
Secretary Carlisle not invited to these
extraordinary sessions of Cabinet members
must have CALLED him, and may have led
him to write the letter i'm question in order
to show that if he did not understand
the political aspects of the new bill he
did understand its revenue aspect.
From official point of view there
was nothing improper or irregular in the
Secretary of the Treasury addressing such
letter 20 the acting chairman of the
finance committee of the Senate. 1t was
nothing like as great a departure from
tablished methods as was the Presidents
of the Treasury is expected to communicate
with Congress upon financial topics when
ever occasion requires. He makes his an
nual report to Congress. and not, like other
heads OF departments. to the President
There would have been no improperly in
his writing as he did to Senator Harris
of his own motion. but a matter of fact
he wrote in response to request for an
official statement as to what effect the
passage of the pop-gun bills would have
on the revenue. Under the circumstances
the President could have no ground what
ever for criticising the writing of the let-
ter except that 1t was not in support of
my policy" AS Mr.. Carlisle's political
future is involved in his administration of
the government finances perhaps he is
more concerned about preventing large
deficit than he is about humoring the Pres
ident's tariff vagaries.