The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-02-20
THE APPOINTING POWER.

1t is not in spirit of disputation, bat
of friendly counsel together, that the
Journal feels moved to state why it re-
CARDS the action of the Republican eau
Gus relative to the appointing power and
the control Of the State institutions as
unwise and probably fruitless. The
Journal has no voice in the Legislature,
and claims no other right to influence
legislation than that begotten by long
and faithful service to the party, but it
would be false to it's convictions Of duty
if it failed to protest to the last moment
against the contamination of what, from
it's point of view, seems to be an aban-
donment of principle and betrayal of
party pledges. If what is here said shall
have no weight as argument, let it be
pigeon-holed as prophecy.
Every honest and intelligent Republic
an will admit that the action of the eau
Gus is in direct opposition to the party
record on two questions. For more than
ten years past the party has demanded
that the control of the State institutions
be removed entirely from partisan poll
tics, and for more than thirty years it
has contended that under the Constitu-
ton the appointing power to offices Gre
ated by the Legislature rested with the
Governor. To both of these positions the
party is fully committed and solemnly
pledged Now it is proposed to abandon
both positions by taking the appointing
power out of the hands of the Governor
for the manifest purpose of giving the
party, if not the political control, at
least larger political influence in the
management of some if not all of the
State institutions. The Journal has no
doubt that the management of some of
the State institutions needs reforming,
and that under the caucus plan it prob
ably would be improved, but that does
not alter the fact that the plan itself is
inconsistent with the party record and
pledges, and that it's primary object is to
gain what is enormously supposed to be
an immediate party advantage. Ii the
plan should succeed in accomplishing
the political result aimed at it would be
none the less an abandonment of party
pledges and a departure from a consti-
tutional construction in regard to the
appointing power maintained for thirty
years. But the plan is not likely to have
even the merit of success If coming
Governor will fight the proposed removal
of the appointing power from his hands
as vigorously as Governor Morton or
Hovey did. Suppose that, as he has al
ready announced his intention of do
ing, he refuses to act with
the State officers as an appoint
ing board that he refuses to issue COM
missions to their appointees; that he
takes the question to the Supreme Court.
and. as is altogether likely, that it holds
Republican party stand then? It cam
not even say that it has saved all ex-
cept honor, for it will have sacrificed its
honor and gained nothing. 1t will have
repudiated it's pledges fer the sake of
little paltry patronage, and will not even
have gained the patronage. 1t
will have to bear the odium
of having passed an unconstitu-
tional law for a temporary party
advantage, without even having gained
the advantage. If the Supreme Court
should render decision on this line it
would not have to look beyond the veto
messages of Republican Governors for
arguments to sustain it, and if the Re-
publican party at the end of the contro-
versy which is sure to follow the action
now foreshadowed should find itself
placed in the embarrassing position here
indicated, no blame can attach to the
Journal