Year: 1867

We had supposed that the object of the va


rious bills before Congress to restrict the Pres


ident's power Of removal from Office was suf


ficiently understood; we had hoped that Con-


gress needed no further urging to proceed
with this greatly needed reform. There is
danger that in seeking to punish the present


Executive, Congress may neglect to purify the


Executive office; it is evident that in some


quarters at least the scope of the proposed


measures is not clearly apprehended. al


The power of arbitrary removal from Office


is not conferred upon the President by the


constitution. 1t was granted by law, not di-


rectly but by implication, by the first Con-


gress. Notwithstanding the unlimited conf


dence repcsed in Washington, this rover was


conceded to him by but small maiority of


the House and by the casting vote of the Vice


President In the Senate. Madison, who favor


ed the law, declared that If any President


should arbitrarily exercise the power entrust-


ed to him, he would do so at the risk Of inn


peachmeDt. Until Jackson's time no officer


OF the government was removed save for


cause. In Jackson's time and after, the


whole matter was reviewed. Statesmen who


agreed in nothing else have uniformly agreed


in declaring the system introduced by Jack
son to be without warrant in the constitution
or in express legislation, destructive to the in
terests of the civil service, and dangerous to
theicountry. Webster and Calhoun, CLAY and
Benton, are on record against this shameful
malpractice. Add the names of Story and
Marshall from the bench, and we have the
representative men of the different parties and
of the Legislative and Judicial departments
of the government.


Yet we read in newspaper the other day,
IN brief discussion of this subject, that mo
fault has ever before been discovered in our
system'-meaning the practice since Jackson's
time. On the contrary, fault has always been
found with it. Not only our leading states
men but great majority of thoughtful Amer
leans have felt that the Transformation of the
civil service into political make-weight has
been national disgrace and source of pub
lie danger. No other civilized government
chooses to place its official salaries on the foot
ing OF pensions to partizans. Ofice-seekino
degrades our politics and corrupts our citizens
to an extent as alarming as it is disgusting.
Oftice-holders ought to be the servants of the
whole people and not of party. They were.
in the early days of the government. Holding
their own opinions and voting as they chose.
they refrained from entern actively into pol-
itics. Subject to removal in the practice of
those days, for cause only, like officers of the
army and navy, they regarded themselves as
belonging to the country, and not as belong
ing to the man who for the time happened 10
occupy the Presidential chair. lfaI


The propositions now before Congress look
to a return to the earlier and better practice
in this respect. 1t is unquestionably in the
power Oft Congress to compel such return.
by enacting that hereafter the President shall
remove no officer in the civil service except
for misconduct or incapacity, and shall report
the caCse to the Senate, which as it confirms
his appointments ought also to confirm his
removals. This is great, necessary, per-
manent reform; yet the article from which
we have already quoted speaks of it as 'tem-
porizing legislation" -..r


1t is necessary TO the successful administra-
ton of affairs so various and complicated. to |
employ trained and skilful officers. Our d. |
plomatic service, for example. suffers for want
of subordinate officers trained to the duties Of
the service. Diplomacy is in ether countries
a profession, to which men are regularly bred.
Whether mans inclinations are conserva-
tive or progressive. whether he acts with one
party or another, ought to have no more to do
with his service to the government than with
his service to individuals. Our office-holders
ought TO learn again, what many of them have
forgotten, that tney are employed as public
servants and not to govern this people.


1t is not partiKan advantage which is
sought, but publication Of the political at
mosphere, and the permanent benefit of the
civil service. If fanybody chooses to urge the
cowardly argument that we cannot carry the
elections without the aid of bribery of this
sort, it is sufficient to remind him that we
carried the elections last fall by overwhelm-
ing majoritfes 10 spite Of Executive patronage.