The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-11-19
MAKES IT PLAIN.
President R0oseVelt's Letter to
a Massachusetts, Congressman
Throws Light Upon Matter Of
Political Appointments.
MAKES THEM HIMSELF.
Congressman Have No Rights i'm
the Matter, He Says.
Suggestions from Senators Are
Entitled to More Weight.

washington, Nov. 19.-The publica-
ton of the presidents reply to Repre-
sentative Gardner's letter regarding the
Haverhill pOstoffice, in which his dis
agreement with Attorney General
Moody was expressed, has caused some
what of a sensation. From other parts
of the country requests have been sent
to the president, on the assumption that
his position was like that of a referee
between cabinet officers and congress-
men, and in other cases of disputed
authority regarding appointments The
president desires to check this idea at
once and to that end makes public his
reply to Mr.. Gardner. 1t reads as fol-
lows:
White House. WASHINGTON. October %
1904.
My Dear Congressman have re-
ceived your letter concerning the ap-
pointment of a postmaster at Haver-
hill, where Attorney General Moody.
your predecessor who has served in my
cabinet successfully as secretary of the
navy and now as attorney general, has
recommended that the present incum-
bent be reappOinted; this present in
cumbent being a man admitted by ev-
cry one to have the character and ca
Paclty which mt him for the place. and
being from all can find out, entirely
satisfactory to the people of HaVer-
hill He was appointed by President
Mckinley, at the suggestion of Mr..
district.
You speak of your privilege of nam
ing the Haverhill postmaster" In your
letter to Mr.. Moody you say: TT is not
a parallel case in Massachusetts to
those other states where senators Sc
lect the poStmaSterS. In Massachusetts
1t has been understood that a congress-
man shall select the postmasters in the
cities and towns in his own district"
To clear up any possible misapprehen-
sion, would like. at the outset, to
say that the senators do not select
postmaSterS in any state while 1 am
president. I consult them always, and
in the vast majority of cases act on the
recommendations they make; but the
selection is mine and not theirs, and
time and again during the three years
I have been president I have positively
refused to select individuals SuggeSt ted
to me for nomination as postmaster by
various senators. If I 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
senators are part of the appointing
power, and that they have the same
right to reject that I have to nomi-
nate, and that. therefore, the appoint
ment must represent an agreement
between them and me; and as the ac-
quaintance of the senator with his
state is always much greater than
the knowledge of the president can
possibly be, it is the normal and nat
ural thing that I should listen to his
advice as to these appointments, and
generally do SO. But 1 stop listening
toN it as soon as realize that he is
advising me wrongly. While it is i'm
possible to avoid making mistakes in
nominating thousands of candidates to
local offices on the advice of hun
dreds of different advisers, yet never
knowingly nominate candidate
whom 1 think unfit, or to whose can
didacy I think there is good objection;
and the question of unfitne 1 regard |
as one to be determined by my judg-