The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1904-11-18
POSTOFFICE
APPOINTMENT
Letter From the President Bearing
On Question


presidents attitude toward appoint.
ments and reappointments will be of
general interest.
Congressman Gardner of Massachu-
sets, son-in-law of Senator Lodge,
wished the president to appoint a
| friend of his to the Haverhill post
Office in his district. He wrote and
published spicy letter to the presi-
dent, claiming that the congressman
should control the appointment.
White House, Washington,
October 2S 1904.
My dear Congressman:
| have received your letter concern
ing the appointment OF a postmaster at
| Haverbill where Attorney Genera
| Moody, your predecessor, who has
| served in my cabinet successfully as
secretary of the navy and now as at
| torney-general, has recommended chat
the present incumbent be reappointed,
this present incumbent being a man
admitted by every one t. have the
character and capacity which tit him
for the place, ana being, from all can
| find out, entirely satisfactory to the
people of Haverhill He was appoint
ed by President Mckinley, at the sug-
gestion of Mr. Moody, then congress.
man from that district.
You speak of your privilege OF
naming the Haverhill postma ster.
| You say, lit is not parallel case in
Massachusetts to those other states
where senators select the postmasters.
| In M assachuse is it has been under
stood that a congressman shall select
the postmasters. To clear up any
possible misapprehension would like
at the outset, TO say that the senators
| do not select postmasters in any
state while | am president, | consult
| them always aud in the vast majority
| of cases act on the recommendations
they make; but the selection is mine,
| not theirs, and time aud again during
| the three years have been president
| have positively refused to select in.
dividuals suggested to me for nomina
| ton as postmaster by various senators.
| If ! am not satisfied with the character
and standing of the man whose name
is suggested TO me, | never nominate
him.
understand perfectly that under the
first article of the constitution the sen.
ators are part of the appointing power
and they have the same right to reject
that ! have to nominate, and that
therefore the appointment must repre-
sent an agreement between them and
me; and as the acquaintance of the
senator with his state Is always much
greater than the knowledge of the pres
ident can possibly be, II is the normal
and natural thing that should listen
to his advice as to these appointments
| and | generally do so. But ] stop lis
tening to it as soon as | realize that
he is advising me wrongly.
While it is impossible o. avoid mis-.
takes in nominating thousands of can
didates to local offices on the advice
of hundreds of different advisers, yet
| never knowingly nominate candi-
| date whom | think unfit, or to whose
candidacy think there is good OBJ
lection: and the question of uniitneSs
regard as one to be determined by my
judgment and not that of the senator
Ny practice during the last three years
has been exactly that set forth in this
statement: and | may add hat repeat.
eddy have refused TO nominate at the
req est of some senator, a man to sue
coed some public servant who | felt
had particular claims to be renomna-
ted or whom | regarded as markedly
superior TO his proposed successor.
So much as to my relations with my
constitutional advisers. But the rela-
tion of a congressman "a these apr oint
ments rests not upon the law, but pure
~ upon custom. II has been found
in the actual working of our govern
ment that, as a rule, the congressman
is the best man to consult about the
appointments which come under his
special ken. Some one must be con.
suited and as rule the congressman
is the man whose advice is most apt TO
he that which can be followed with ad-
vantage to the community, and there
fore to the party.
But this is mere custom and ! have
never hesitated for moment to devil
ate from IL whenever circumstances
arose that satisfied me it was wise and
proper and in the interest of the com
munity to do so. In scores of cases
] have been obliged to dis egard the
recommendations of congressman for
all kinds OfreaSons. Usually ! have |
disregarded them because | have be- |
lieved that the man recommended to
me was unfit. Occasionally | have |
disregarded them because | felt that
the man who was in Office was so con-
spicuously fit that he ought to be re-
tanned.
After carefully considering all the |
circumstances, | feel that the wise an
proper thing is to nominate Mr. Pink |
ham IN Sucpeed himself I intend IN |
nominate him because heis athorough- |
ly fit man, who has been an excellent |
postmaster, who is of good standing in |
the community, whose retenti n in Of |
flee will undoubtedly be agreeable to |
the bulk of patrons of the Office, and !
whose reappointment is asked for by |
the attorney general, himself citizen |
of Haverhill, who, when in congress |
as your predecessor, secured the APP !
pointment of this man TO officeby Pres |
i1apt Mckinley