Year: 1879

control of the New York Custom House is a
point which has been quite lost sight Of
during the controversy. The difference be-
tween Mr.. Arthur and Mr.. Merritt is q very
small matter indeed in comparison with
the practical working of the Tenure OF
Office law. Without this law no such
strenuous and embittered contest would
have been possible. For the first eighty
six years after the organization OF the
government-that is to say, from the
beginning of Washingtons administration
until the end of Lincoln's there was
never any such jar, confusion and Scan
dalous exhibition of cross purposes in the
executive administration of the govern
ment. Until the second year of President
Johnson's administration, when the orig
inal Tenure Of Office bill was passed, every
President removed without question otii-
GERS in whom he had lost confidence, and
the government was at least as we'll admin
istered during that long period as it has
been since. But before estimating the
value of the obstructive Tenure of Office
act we may perhaps be INDUCED in one or
two observations on the personal and party
aspects of the recent acrid controversy.


: First, then, as regards Mr.. Arthur while
this gentleman held the Office of Collector
he was as popular with the importing mer-
chants as Postmaster James has uniformly
been with the letter sending and letter re-
ceiving inhabitants OF the city. The char
acter of this upright and estlmabie gentle
man does not suffer in the least in this COM
munity, where he is SO well known. by the
adverse action of the Senate. His personal
interest in the question was very slight
Had he been reinstated on the 4th Of March
he would have had but few months to serve
before the expiration of his term, and it was
Of little consequence to him whether he re-
linquished his Office few months earlier or
few months later The offer, by the very
administration which sought to remove
him, of an important position in the foreign
service Of the government, was shining
attestation OF his integrity which tho subse-
quent political war upon him could not
efface. He comes off with his personal
honor clear and with general recognition
that his only offence was his loyal and
steady friendship for Senator Conkling.
The loss of office for q mere fractional rem
nant Of his term is too trivial matter to
cause him modification or serious regret.


It was not Mr.. Arthur, but Senator Conk-
ling, who was the central figure in the late
controversy. The hostile partisans who
affect to think that the New York Senator has
suffered great humiliation have o singu-
lar mode of judging. For the last year and
q half the country has beheld the spectacle
of one man pitted against the whole power
and influence Of an administration Of his
own party, and still defeating it in every
contest and at every point, until, at last,
by the aid of dem ocratic votes, the adminis-
tration succeeds in getting its appointees
confirmed. Considering the great inequality
Of forces the wonder is not that Mr.. Conkling
has lost one minor point in the battle, but
that he has successfully withstood his ad-
versaries so long. They began the fight
with the paramount object Of preventing
his reelection to the Senate He trium-
phantly controlled two State conventions
and carried two State elections against the
opposition Of his local rivals, reinforced by
all the influence Of the federal administra-
ton. It is the most remarkable example in
the history Of American politics of the VIC
tory of an individual over hostile gov
ernment. Mr.. Conkling's re-eloution to the
Senate by the unanimous vote Of his own
party was the most brilliant personal
achievement of which there is any record
in our politics.


The recent affair in the executive session
of the Senate was contest over the shells
after Mr.. Conkling had swallowed the
oyster. Had it happened previous to his
triumphant reelection to the Senate the
result might have damaged him, but follow
ing his reelection it is of little consequence,
except SO for as it touches his pride. The
debit and credit sides of the account for
the last two years show SO large balance in
Mr.. Conkling's favor that he can stand the
situation if the administration can. A
majority Of the republican Senators sup
ported Mr.. Conkling. Of the thirty
three votes in favor of confirming
Mr.. Merritt twenty were given by demo-
cratic and only thirteen by republican Sen
ators. The victory over Mr.. Conkling was
not q republican, but democratic victory.
1t cannot seriously injure republican
statesman to be defeated by his democratic
opponents. The ablest republican Sena-
tors, including Mr.. Blaine and Mr.. Ed
munds, opposed the confirmation. A pub
lie man loses nothing and risks nothing by
a course in which he is supported by ma
jority of his own party, including its prin-
cipal statesmen, and is defeated by the
votes of his political opponents. More
over, there is future in politics, and
in this case the future seems to be
very near. 1t is not improbable
that General Grant will next year be nom
mated rs the republican candidate for the