Year: 1877

The Advertiser, in thoughtful article on
the civil service reform, objects to the COM
plant that the theory of reform upon which
the Administration is acting is GILL -defined'.
The use of that expression is perhaps unhap-
py. Let us say then that the policy of the
Administration is contradictory. The order of
the 23dof June distinctly states that the right
ofcivil servants to express their views on pub.
lie questions, either orally or through the
press, is not denied. This order has been
supplemented by many expressions which
were certainly not called for if it is to be read
by the sletter. Among the latest of these ex-
plantations is one by the President on the
18th inst. to Mr.. J. P. Hamilton, Secretary
of the Kansas Republican Association. Mr.
Hamilton was, the associated press informs
us, "emphatically" told "that no person in
the government employ could be allo wed to
take any part whatever in political affairs"
1t is easy to multiply examples of inconsis-
tency. Many are plainly and pointedly set
forth in "Gail Hamlton's letters.'' to which
the Aduertiser unnecessarily refers. One
does not find it necessary to refer to those
letters while the Administration furnishes so
many illustrations of inconsistency in its acts
and semi official utterances.


1t is not our purpose to complain of the
Administration for the mistakes it has made
in carrying out its plan of civil service reform.
Such mistakes are perhaps unavoidable.
The candid critic will certainly at.
tach no harsher name than mis-
takes to the appare MT deviations from the
plan marked out in the order Of
June %. Some errors are to be expected


in carrying into practice new and untried
policy OF government, and for such errors rea :
sonable men are always prompt to make due
allowance. Our complaint is more radical.
1t is that while the Presi dent in his order
admits the right of the civil servant to free
dom of political action and expression, he n
his conversation and action distinct ly forbids
that freedom. As the Advertiser says the
civil servant is forbidden to run caucuses,
conventions and campaigns" That is to
say, he is forbidden to attend the primari es
and express his preference for the men
whom he desires to see chosen to our elec-
tive offices. For the last decade the press of
the country, the ''indepe adent press' in par
ticular, have been telling the citizen that it
Is his duty to attend caucuses, to meet and
defeat the politicians at the very outset, to
see to it as far as he may that only reputable
and efficient men shall be brought as candi :
dates before the people by the great party


antz afi
has been held up to him as his primary and
chief political duty. 1t is only within he
last thirty days that this attendance has bee
denounced as political crime punishable by


withdrawal of public trust aud dismissal from


official position.


Now we hold that the theory which makes


it the duty of the citizen to attend


caucus and do all he can to effect the


presentation Of good men for the suffrages Of


the people is the correct one. In our politics


a nomination by the majority party is, save


in rare and exceptional cases, equivalent to


an election, and he who wishes TO defeat the
election of bad and incompetent men must
begin his work by defeating their nomina-
ton. To do that it is necessary for him to
take part in the caucus and the convention.
If he be defeated in these it is his duty, ac-
cording to the independent press, and ac-
cording to the Adrertiser if we are not mis-
taken in its past utterances, TO defeat the
man in the ensuing campaign. Now rule
which forbids any man, whether in or out of
government employ, to take part in caucus
or convention or campaign, depriyes him of
freedom of political action and of the most
efectual agencies through which he can


make his choice felt. We conceive that the
administration in promulgating this rule has
| made grave mistake.


We confess to some curiosity as to the
| meaning of the phrase "running" a caucus
| or convention. 1t is very convenient and
| no less obscure expression. Every man goes
into caucus or convention with the hope of
running" them. He hopes the majority
Will favor his views, and he works, if his heart
is in his professed objects, to secure major
ity. Triumph by all honorable means is a
duty. Are we TO understand that an office
| holder who goes into caucus and is so fortu-
nate lin the light of the new policy ''unfor-
| tunate" would be the better word -as to find
the majority of its members with him must
| be dismissed from office because he has "run"


that caucus? Then must the Republican
party be dismissed from power, for it has


"run" the country. For dozen years it has
been guilty of the crime of having a major
| ity Of the people with it.