The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-03-20
PLATTS LOST OPPORTUNITY.
Might Have Prevented SaBger's Ap-
pointment by Remaining Firm.


| has bothered the heads of distinguished
statesmen and high executive officials
since the American Republic was yong
! 1t was practically fought To a finish Just
about twenty years ago, when Senators
Conkling and Plat resigned their seats
! in the Senate because President Garfield
refused to be dictated to by them in the
| appointment of Federal officials in the
State of New York
A burnt child breads the fire, and evil
! IDENTIFY Senator Platt hesitated 10 oppose
President Mckinley and Secretary Root
to the extent that he opposed President
Garfield and Secretary Blaine in 1881.
The late Benjamin Harrison, before he
became President. and perhaps afterward'
had some very decided views as to the re-
lations of the Senate and the Executive.
The most noteworthy speech that Mr..
Harrison delivered while he was in the
Senate was in support of the resolutions
reported from the Committee on the Jul
dietary February Is. 1886, relative to the
refusal of President Cleveland to trans
nit to the Senate the papers in the case of
the removal of George NJ. Duslin, United
States District Attorney at Mobile. Ala.
This resolution did not deal directly with
the power of the President to appoint
against the wishes of the Senator's but
it did discuss the right of the President
to remove an officeholder without the
sanction OF the Senate.
Indeed the point of Mr.. Harrison's
speech which was delivered March 70,
1886. was that President Cleveland did not
dare to remove MIR Duskin or any of the
numerous officials "decapitated" by him
in the early days of his first Administra-
ton, but that he was careful to say In
all cases that he suspended" them. The
resolutions from the Judiciary Committee,
which were signed by Senators George +.
Edmunds Chairman J. j. ingalls,, S
Q. r. Mcmillan. George f. HoaT, James
F. Wilson and William NJ. Evarts, con-
demned the refusal of the President to
give his reasons for removing Mr.. Duskin
declared it to be the duty of the Senate
to withhold its sanction under the cir
cumstances, and denied the right Of the
President to remove an official, especially
a soldier or sailor, for political reasons.
claiming that such action would be
violation of section 1861 of the Revised
Statutes, which gives preference In the
matter of Federal appointment TO honor
ably discharged soldiers and sailors.
In the early days of the controversy
over Colonel Sangers appointment, Sen
ator Depew repeatedly stated for publ
cation that he had no personal animosity
to Colonel Sanger, and no desire to op-
pose Secretary Root in his choice of
assistant, but that he stood on the broad
ground of Senatorial perogative and
not having been consulted by anybody
with regard TO the announced purpose of
Secretary Root to have Colonel Sanger
appointed, he was naturally opposed TO
the selection. After the appointment had
nd irF
ulaly announced Senator Depew was
consulted by the President at White
House conference suggested by the New
York Senators.
When the appointment had been official
~ made Senator Platt took occasion to
explain at some length that he had been
opposed TO Colonel Sanger $ selection
largely. if not altogether, because of the
~ attacked his (Platt's) public and pri-
vate record in a speech made to the leg
islative caucus at Albany, in urging the
nomination of Joseph II, Choate to the
United States Senatorship Mr.. Platt let
II be known, furthermore, that during
the conversation which he had with Colo
mel Sanger In New York, when the latter
made il clear that he did not make the
speech alluded to. the colonel convinced
the Senator thai hereafter he would be
a good organization or machine RepuD-
Iican, no matter what his record may
have been in the past for independence
Of spirit.
In return for consenting to Colonel San
gers appointment the New York Senators
were allowed the privilege of recommend
ing persons to be appointed to various Of
fees which viii become vacant in the
near future by death. resignation: or
otherwise and which they would have
been asked TO fill as a matter of course
had the question of Colonel Sanger's APP
poutment as Assistant Secretary OF War
never been raised
In view of the foregoing facts the ques-
ton of what would have been the result
had the New York Senators sought the
aid of Senatorial prerogative'' and op-
posed Colonel SGnger's appointment to
the extent of making a fight against con-
firmatton IN the Senate is interesting. OF
Course. there is no method of determining
this now, and the most natural basis for
forming q conjecture is found in the re
membrance of what happened when
Conkling and Plat opposed the appoint
lector of the port of New York twenty
years ago. Mr.. Robertson got the office
and the Senators retired to private life
But what happened in 1881 might not have
happened in 1901, and In this connection
the opinion OF a Senator who has had
twelve years experience in studying pol /
itics as well as statesmanship in Wash
ing is interesting, and, in a way impor-
tant This Senator said day or two
ago:
Senators Plat and Depew had invoked
the power Of Senatorial prerogatIve and |
carried their fight against Colonel San
ger to the Senate they would have won, !
and ! form this opinion merely In my !
Judgment of the present political situa- !
ton President Mckinley is now serving |
his second and last term, and everybody |
is casting about to decide the all-im- |
pOrtant question of his successor. In the |
Senate there are various gentlemen in |
whose bOnnetS the bee is buZZing but IL is (
evident that the Senator who at present /
has the best chances of being nominated |
is Mr. Fairbanks, of Indiana. OF course |
it is too early yet to attempt TO pick out |
a winner. But of the Senatorial candi- |
dates Fairbanks seems To be the coming
man. He is generally regarded as the F.,
Administration candidate, just his wife |
was when she was so easily elected to /
the office Of President OF the Daughters !
Of the American Revolution. Everybody !
who has political axe To grind has an
eye on Fairbanks. and is trying to get |
next to him Now suppose the New York |
Senators should have gone to FAIRBANKS
and appealed to him TO stand by them
in opposing the confirmation Of an anti
machine New York Republican 20 a high
executive office. Would the Senatorial
candidate for the Presidential nomination
have turned them down. or would he
have attempted To make such an ar
with them as would give him
the support of the Republican orgauiza-
tion In New York State with it's se,,apt,- |
And would not Hanna or Lodge or Rev |
eridge, or any one of the Senators who |
have been spoken Of as Presidential can !
didates think twice before declining ia |
New York machine? | tell YOU In my |
opinion Platt made a mistake if he de- |
sired to prevent Colonel Sanger's appoint
ment.'
The Courtesy Of the senate
(From the Boston Transcript
The courtesy Of the Senate is a growth. and