The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1910-04-21
THE "sPoILs T E

N@sE ~ 10 uOG uGCGSSdly 10 QuSSllOu lu6
sincerity of Mr.. r. o. Richards, just
o manager of the campaign of one
of the republican factions in South
Dakota, in order to disagree with
him on the personal spoils" issue
concerning which he has had so much
to say.
The Republican believes Mr.. Rich
ards to be a genuine friend of good
government and therefore one of the
citizens Of whom South Dakota
should be proud. He may be over
idealistic and impractical, but this
casts no cloud upon the purity of his
purposes.
BY the personal spoils" system,
Mr.. Richards refers to the advantage
which office-holders find in the APP
p%ointments placed in their hands.
Certainly 1t is disgusting to the peo-
pie to find congressman giving more
thought and attention to the selec-
tion Of postmasters than to the fur
therance of legislation in which their
constituents are interested. Such of
1cials, of course, think to assdre their
reelection by using patronage for
the purchase Of supporters. We are
inclined to believe that the influence
Of appointees in support of the ap-
pointing officer is considerably over
estimated, but that does not lessen
the u~nworthiness of the motives of
officials who seek to perpetuate them
selves in Office by misusing their con-
troll of patronage.
There Is no question that this evil
exists, although now and again we
md an office-holder, like Hughes of
New York, who distinguishes him
self by the conscientiousness with
which he makes appointments.
But It is n thing to agree with
Mr.. Richards that the appointive
power is abused and another thing
to endorse his scheme for correcting
the evil. He proposed a year ago to
transfer the appointive power to a
hody Of private citizens. presumably
the state committee or some selected
from the state committee. The rem
edy seems to us far worse than the
disease. Some chances are taken when
elected officials are allowed to name
appointive officers, but a great deal
more chance is taken in delegating
the appointive power to citizens who
were not authorized by the voters to
exercise any such power. To whom
would they be responsible? What re-
lief would the public find If they
should select for appointment men
VIGOROUSLY unfit for their places? If
an elected official should do such a
thing. the public at least could find
recourse in defeating him for re-elec-
ton.
In spite of the resolutions passed
ut n of the Huron conferences, we
do not believe any legislature could
be elected in South Dakota that
would approve any plan to give the
appointing power to irresponsible
private citizens.
Another remedy, proposed by Mr..
Egan, is to give it to the people to fill
all of the offices. In other words. he
would make longer a ballot alreadN
too long to receive the careful and
intelligent consideration it should
receive from the voters. Rather let
US follow the plan proposed in Massa-.
chusetts to ask the people to alccl
only a very few public servants and
then hold them strictly responsible,
for appointments. 1t is argued, anG
with reason, that voters do not know
much about the candidates on a long
ticket except a very few at the hea
and that unworthy officials make
their way into minor office because
the light is not turned upon them.
Whatever differences there may be
s to a remedy, all ought to agree
that the disposition of too many pub
lie servants to consider patronage as
their legitimate political loot is all
wrong. It would not have hurt the
stalwarts to have gone at least that
Tar IN endorsing Richards proposals
III their Huron conference.
Fortunately. South Dakota does