The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-10-18
ANOTHER LETTER.

On Oct. s, AttCrney-Genera1 f1drihJn
wrote Mr.. Clayton another letter, IN
which he assumed that his first letter
had not been received by Mr.. Clayton.
He repeated much Of his first letter IN
substance and concluded:
please advise me upon receipt OF
this what you propose to Go, in view
of the rule which makes your cancl-
dacy for another Office inconsistent
with the holding Of your present po-
sition."
Mr.. Clayton, on Oct. IA, replied from
Montgomery, Ala, 10 this letter OF At
torney-G General Harmon. He stated that
he was the regular nominee of the
Democratic party from the Montgom-
cry district for congress and was en-
gagged in the discharge of his duties as
district attorney; that he had heard of
no complaints as to his negiectins MS
work, but that he was making speeches
in behalf OF his candidacy. He con-
cluded as follows;
Il am not aware that any of the
duties of my Office have been neglected.
/ have thought that a man, though an
office holder, had the right of free
speech and the right TO aspire to rep
resent the people. do not believe
that nv retention of the office of dis
trict attorney should preclude me from
those rights of citizenship which are
enjoyed by my fellow citizens. l.
therefore. respectfully decline to admit
that my candidacy for congress is in
constituent or Incompatible with my
presen. position"
OFF GOES HIS HEAD.
Acknowledgement Harmon laid the
correspondence before the president,
and at o'clock today, this telegram
was sent:
Department of Justice.
(lpt
sHenry d. Clayton, office of United
States Attorney, Montgomery, Ala:
For reasons appearing in your cor
respondence, the president has today
removed YOU from the office of United
States attorney, which you now hold.
You will govern yourself Accordingly
Answer to your letter mailed today.
"JUDSON HARMON,
Attorneys General"
The letter herein referred to reads as
Department of Justice, Washington,
D. c., Oct. IL, 1896.
Henry D. Clayton, Office of United
States Attorney, Montgomery, Ala.
.aSir-Your letter of the 14th inS.ant
was received today, and after consul
tation with the president an order for
your removal was made, of which you
have just been advised by wire, and
of which | now enclose a. copy 1t
hardly seems necessary to say that
this step was rendered imperative by
your wilful and persistent disregard of
the settled rule and practice Of the de-
partment to which l expressly called
your attention in my letter of the Sth
inst, but which it is fair to assume
you knew before. This rule has been
acquiesced in with respect to nomina-
tions for congress by no less than three
United States attorneys during the
present year. namely: Andrew q. Fox,
northern district of Missouri. and Cor
nelius G. Wells, district of West Vir
ginia, both of whom voluntarily re-
signed their offices to accept nomina-
tons for office; and William B. Childers
of the district of New Mexico, who de-
clined to become candidate for Office
because of the rule. You seem from
Your letter either not to know or to
lack appreciation of the obvious reas-
/ ons upon which this rule is founded.
l attempted, briefly. to mention some
of them in a letter dated June 18th last
to the Hon. Edward C. Walthan. one
of the senators from Mississippi. who
had communicated with me on the sub
ject in behalf of Mr.. Fox. Among other
things ! wrote: Engaged as he is in
the prosecution of offenders against the
government, and in the collection CT
claims due it, some embarrassment
AOulu Idluidtly 6IlSe uuIlnS canvass
/ in which he would be soliciting the
! votes of witnesses and parties While
I in the case of an honorable and u1-
right man like Mr.. Fox, the public in
terests would not suffer, precedent
would be formed which might arise.
as. precedents have, to yex the DEPART
ment hereafter. My observation is
that the dangerous precedents would
hardly be made in bad cases. Moreover,
there is always room for the charge
that the repeated and prolonged alb
sences and the demand on bodily and
mental vigor which the making of
campaign imposes, especially in a pres
idential year. would afford ground for
criticism based upon alleged neglect Of
official duties.
While l am sure Mr.. Fox would
not, in fact, neglect any duty for the
sake of his canvass. it is sometimes
necessary for officers connected with
the department of justice to avoid APP
pearances as well as realities.
In second letter to Mr.. Lassiter,