Year: 1869

Senate. 1t Is the matter OF all absorb
ing interest in Washington, and pend
ing its consideration there is pause.
The President announces that he con-
strues the law as forbidding him to
make removals even during the ses-
sions without preferring charges, and
he declines to make any changes until
the obnoxious law is repealed. The
Democrats all favor the repeal of
course, because it would be confession
that it was enacted for purely parti-
san purpose. The Republicans who
favor repeal are very free in denouncing
those that oppose it as hostile and dis
trustIul towards Grant, forgetting that
they are equally open to a charge of
tondyism and obsequiousness. We
agree with Senator SchurZ that men
should be allowed to have their views
for or against, without being subject to
either charge.


The more the matter is discussed the
more apparent it becomes, we think,
that this law ought not TO be wholly
repealed. Its constitutionality is no
longer denied by the best lawyers in
Congress. The power of removal Is
logically part of the appointing power,
and when the Constitution confers on
ment "by and with the advice and con-
sent of the Senate" it follows that his
authority 10 make removals Is subject
to the same Limitation as his authority
to make appointments. The fact that
the principle has never before been


distinctly embodied in II statute is no
evidence TO the contrary.


The repeal is urged as a matter of
personal compliment and favor to the
incumbent President, and as fresh
evidence of the almost unbOunded con-
fidence reposed in him. We are sorry
to see that the President himself ap-
pears TO take this view of it and to
press it on this ground. 1t can
not be denied that the amazing
ton was the occasion OF enacting this
law; but it does not follow that the OC-
casion having passed the law should
be undOne. That administration uncov-
cred weak place in the law governing
the disposition of the enormous patron
age of the Government. The law was
good enough for an honest President;
but laws are for rCgues, not honest
men; and if it were not for these we
should not know what laws are really
needed to make us secure. Nor does it
follow because this was necessary for
the administration of Andrew Johnson,
that it will be miSchievOus or unneces-
sary hereafter. On the contrary, we be-
lieve, with slight modification, it ought
to be as permanent as any statute on
the books. Had it been enacted at an
earlier period, we have no doubt
the average purity of the Govern
ment service would have been much
greater than it has, and some evils
growing out of the wholesale rotation
system would hnye been avoided. And
for the future, if there is to be refor-
nation OF the civil serVlcC, AS everybody
hopes, II law like this, rendering sweep
ing changes for mere political reasons
nearly impossible, and making import
ant changes mt the will and pleasure OF
Il single man quite SO, would play an
important part in elevAting tho grade
OF official service and in saving the
government from being degraded to
mere partisan machine


1t happens that the mischief wrought
by Johnson'4 unscrupul0ns use OF the
appointing power was mainly done be-
fore this law was enacted. The service
Is still rotten with the corruption OF
that administration. 1t is necessary,
therefore, before this law can have its
legitimate and wholesome operation,
that Johnsons rnscals be weeded out, and
1t can only be done successfully by Civ
ing the President II fair cance at them.


TO this end we should be very will
ing to see, what the Senate Judiciary
Committee proposes, IL temporary sus-
pension of this law. Between now and
the next meeting of Congress the work
can be done. Then the law should re-
sumo its force, to serve as safeguard
against like abuses and like evils in the
future. For these are always possible.
Presidents are only men; and as exper-
ience has shown not always the best,
though of course they are always pre-
sumed to be when elected. The patron
age of this government has grown so
great, and the power of an uncontrolled
or unchecked disposal of 1t is so vast,
that tho temptation to make improper
use OF 1t is almost Irresistible. 1t is
possible one President in a dozen may
use it rs honestly and as advantageous
ly for the public interests without re-
straint as with it. But such possi-
bility is no reason for throwing away
the safeguards altogether. 1t is pro-
bable the restraints of this law will not
be needed during President Grants
term. But many other useful and ne
cessarv laws are only needed at rare
intervals; yet we do not therefore aboI'


ish them.


The laws to govern a nation should


be enacted on their own merits, with
ont reference to the men who are to


execute them. 1t is not Impossible


other Presidents hereafter may use


their office as corruptly and as calaml-
tously as Mr.. johnson did. Yet II TINS


law were abolished now what assur-


ance is there that 1t could ever be re-


enacted? The influence OF the Presl-


dent would always be exerted to the


utmost against it. That influence
would embrace the giving or Withhold


ing of all the vast patronage at his COM


mand. AS this law in great measure
,