Evening star., 1927-05-15
Fifty Years Ago
In The Star

In the closing Gays OIL tue fOllS-
fourth Congress an act was passed
which provided for
Appointments the equal distrlbu.
;r ~. rr..srrv ton OF appoint
AZ 'n0 A'"AJ' rnents in the Treas
ury Department between the States
and Territories. An effort was made
in the application of this new law TO
utilize it for the award of "spoils' to
partisans by causing a clean sweep of
the Treasury personnel for the pur-
pose of fresh distribution" In The
Star of May II, 1877, this proposition
was attacked as illogical and unwar-
ranted by the terms of the act:
THE whole difficulty with regard to
the proper Interpretation of the law
requiring appointments in the Treas
ury to be equally distributed between
the several States and Territories has
evidently arisen in consequence of the
word Appointments having been as
sumed to be synonymous with offices
or 'clerkships.' This is a mistake. 1t
is true that in a loose way we some
times speak of the appointment and
an Office as the same thing; but it
should be presumed that Congress. in
preparing the law, would use words
according to their strict and primitive
meaning. Now appointment is de-
fined the act Of appointing 'designa-
ton to Office A 'clerkship' is an Of
fee, and an appointment is the act
of appointing a person. or the desig-
nation of person to fill it. Clearly,
then, an appointment is one thing and
a clerkship another. To substitute the
word 'clerkships' for Appointments
therefore, in reading the law would
evidently wrench 1t from it's true
meaning. A clerkship is something
permanent, established by law. An
appointment is an act, and has no ex-
istence until the act is performed. A
law affecting clerkships would operate
at once, because 1t would find them
already existing and subject to its ac.
tions. But law affecting appoint
ments must necessarily be suspended
in its action until an appointment is
about to be made. If the law had di-
ranged as to be equally distributed,
then there would have been no alter
native but to distribute them at once,
because the law would act directly
upon the Office and dispose of 1t,
whether filled or vacant; but as the
law directs that appointments shall
be so arranged, etc., there is nothing
for it to operate upon until the act of
appointing Is about to be exercised.
Now. the act of appointing cannot
be exercised unless there is vacancy.
1t is true that vacancies can be ere.
ated, but does the law require it? 1t
only requires them to re filled by ap-
pointments, when made to be made
In a certain way. Is it a reasonable
construction to suppose that the law
carries with it an implied command to
create vacancies solely for the purpose
of having them filled? Such con-
struction would enlarge the scope of
terpolation of an additional command, |
wholly inferred, and giving to it the
same authority as to that which was
clearly expressed. Would it not be a |
more rational Interpretation to con-
slider it as meaning only what it says |
and as embodying only one command |
that directing how appointments,
when made, shall be distributed?
ut will be remembered that this law |
was passed under compulsion, as it |
were. as a rider upon an appropria- |
ton bill, in the hurry of the last days !
Of the session. 1t is believed that it |
could never have commanded the as |
sent OF Congress as an Independent |
measure, standing on its own merits. |
1t Is of doubtful constitutionality, re- |
stricting as 1t does the free exercise OF |
the power Of appointment. These cir |
cumstances. of course, would furnish |
no justification for evading its execu- |
tion; but they ought to entitle 1t to the |
benefits Of strict construction. and to |
insure that in its operation 1t Is al |
lowed no wider scope than its terms |
demand. Let the law take its pound }
Of flesh, but not drop of blood"