The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1895-03-07
The TINSLEY APPOINTMENT
PostOffice Case with Only One or
Two Parallels.
SENATOR'S WISH DlSREGARDED
President Cleveland Makes Recess Sc.
lection That Will Never Be Confirmed.
Presidents Grant and Harrison
Exercised Like Power.

Washington, March 6.-The action of
the president yesterday in making q
recess appointment of Alfred ID. Tins
ley, to be postmaster at Sioux Falls,
S. D., has caused much comment
among such senators as happened to
be about the capitol today. This
nomination was made during the Sec
ond session of the Fifty-third congress,
and was permitted to remain unacted
upon until that session adjourned.
This was due to the opposition of Sena-
tor Pettigrew, who resides at Sioux
Falls, it being an unwrtten law of the
senate that the man named for post
master of the home town of a senator
must be acceptable to the senator.
In the debate on this case Mr. Petit
grew made some plain statements
chief among them, it is alleged, being
one that Tinsley was a political enemy
with whom the Dakota senator said he
would be unwilling to trust the care of
his mail that might pass through the
office. The fight against Tinsley was
quite hot in the second session, but no
action was taken, and Immediately
upon the adjournment he was again
nominated. The opposition of Mr..
Pettigrew was renewed, and on almost
the last day of the session Tinsley was
rejected by very large majority of the
votes cast.
Having been rejected, this was sup
posed to be the end of Tinsley. but no
sooner had the senate adjourned than
he was again given a recess appoint
ment, which will stand good until his
case is again acted upon by the senate.
| Senators who have looked into this
case say that it has but one or two
parallels in the history of congress.
Examples of Grant and Harrison.
| 1t has always been held that the re-
lection of a nomination was the with
holding of the senate's consent. and but
few presidents have ever over-ridden
that decision. Grant did it once, and
so did Harrison. during the first part
| of his term. Senators claim that by
carrying the matter to the point to
which 1t has been carried in this case
the executive is able to nullify the
provision of the constitution providing
! for the consent of the senate-a con-
struction the constitution. they assert
does not justify. One very prominent
Democratic senator said this afternoon
that while the letter of the law had
not been violated, its spirit had, and
that the whole thing was simply a
question of taste, so far as the presi-
dent was concerned. If he saw fit tC
disregard the wishes of the senate there
was no power in the senate to restrain
him.
One thing may, however, result, and
that Is, rupture at the beginning OF
the next session of congress and Wig
orous demand for the recognition OF
that courtesy that senator's contend be.
long to the consenting power in the mat
ter of appointments. If the senators
remain, after the nine months vaca.
ton, of the mind they appear to be in
now, the Tinsley case will be made q
precedent for their future guidance II
the matter Of confirming or rejecting
nominations sent to the senate. II
promises to become n celebrated cas-,
in the annals of this congress.