Democratic Sentinel, Volume 9, Number 11, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 10 April 1885 — REMOVALS FROM OFFICE. [ARTICLE]

REMOVALS FROM OFFICE.

The Views of Jefferson Tersely Presented by Hon. Charles R. Buckalow, Ex-Senator of Pennsylvania.

[Philadelphia Record.]

Now that the Democracy has returned to power after twenty»four years of exile, it finds itself confronted by the same question of patronage management which confronted its founder at the commencement of the century and during his incumbency oi the Presidential office. The name of that great nr an is of ten in voked to sancton or to condemn theerses or practices of government which, from their cannection with party passion or interest, constitute s b* jects of continuing and ardent debate, and upon whic> universal agreement of opinion is not is not to be evpeeted. But his announced views upon any public question, when duly considered, will always be instructive, and will often afford us safe guidance, even under changed political conditions, in modern times. He came to the Presidency at a time when nearly all public offices were filled by his political enemies, by men who tyad bean aetive in on posing his election, and many of whom were not well dis osed to Republican principles of government or it least not hopeful of their success. Was the new Chief Magistrate, the head of a triump al party, to act with v gor or with moderation in making appointments to office, or in removing his political enemies from office, and by what rules of 3ondu t was he te aot in relation thereto? The answer to these question is furnished by Government records and by his published correspondence. 1. He announced with emphasis his conviction that it was both unreasonable and unjust that th* majoicy party of the country should be excluiet from offices of appointment and be compelled to see those offices filled almost exclusively by their political opponents; that this was a wrong which it was nis duty, as .t waihis inclinaiio >, t' redress, and that he would proceed to redress, it as opportunity should offer or should be created by a proper exercise es the removing power. It was his original idea, in pursuing this object, to depend entirely upon deaths, resignations and removals for delinquency to furnish for the exeuise of the appointing

power (Werka IV, 451) But upoi further consideration and expert *nc' in admiais!ration, he came to hold that removals might be made for other reasons than ofiicml delinqu'my or misconduct In office, and particularly for “electioneering' activity or open an'l industrious opposition. to the principles bf the Government, legislative and eveoutive,” or, in other words, for “using the influence of office to destroy the the confluence of the people in their Government.” Sixteen removals wers made by him upon this ground during the first | ’wo years of Ns administration. ( Works IV. 466 48.") President Cleveland, in his civil service reform letter of December 25. ]BB4. giien a more ext‘tided statement of this Jeffeisonian doctrine, where he speaks of persons in office who “have forfeited vll just claim to retention because hey hive used their "daces for party purpase in disregard oi 'heir duty to the people, and because * * * they have proved themselves off nsive partitaus and unscru ulous manipu ators of local party management, 2 He declares that, the appointments made after his own election by his predeoe sor did not confer upon the appoin ees any claim to continuanoe in office; the attempt to tmoase them upon him as his assistants in adminstation was objectionable and -jffencesive. r nd that he would not reg rd ti.<> p>r ons .-,o appointed e.en as candicaies with claims to be considered by him as custodians of the appoinieg sower. So far iherefor, as such appointees were not protectedby aconsititutional tenure of office, there appointments would be treated as if t ey had net made. (Works, IV 381 383, 493-4 546.) 3. It wes his opinion that Ministers of the United States abroad should be recalled sfter a reasonable time of service, for reasons which he said had commanded tne apppro.al of President Washington, as well as his own deliberate judgement. He therefore recalled his friend, Mr, Short, and others from forei/n service, explained to them the grounds of fixe 1 policy upon which he proceeded. (Letter to William Short, Works IV., 41t.) 4. He was unquestionably opposed to the act of 15th May. 1820 (which

fixed a statutory term of four years for many offices). for reasons stated tn bis letter to Mr. Madison, of 30th November. 1830. bat it is equally certain tha he would nut have advised a disregard of the statute by the Executive if h»s opinion as to its enforcement bad been expressed. The power of removal vested in the President by the constitution, can not be destroyed or impaired bv statute, but the manner In which eommiesicns shall go out, and the time for which they shell issue, may bo regulated by law without impinging upon Executive power. As a matter of policy, however, it is unwise and improper to remove officers of the United States during statutory term of service .unless for good eauso public or personal, and the announce., menfand enforcement of a rule against it by the Executive must, in view of mordern abuses of tne appjonting power, be rega ded as a step, and an important step ra the direction of genuine reform. What snail be regarded as goo ! causg for removing an officer of the civil service is a question of profound ‘interest to the student of American politics, and one of eontin ually increasing imnortance. 5. His opinion acrainst nepotism, or the appointment of relatives to office, is strongly expressed in his letter of March 27, 1801. to George Jefferson. (Works, 4, 338.) 6, The celebrated New Haven letter of July 12. 1801 (Worked 402), asserts orimplies some of the foregoing points of policy, but is more remarkable for a vigorous statement of the ultimate object at which be aimed—the condition of things which he greatly desired and longed for. No Jmodein reformer of the civil service has ever more tersely and handsomely expressep the hopes or aims of those who would prescribe proscription,* and establishing utopian perfection in the management of public appointments. But we must remember, as we read, that tne words are the words o( a man of spmpathetio nature as well as intellectual force, and that as in his grea’ first inaugural, he is stating a principle or rule wlcnout its necessary limitations, He says: “I.shall return with joy o th it state of things when the only question concerning a candidate shall be: Is ho honest, is he capable, is be faithful to the Constitution?’ * But if we turn to his leetter to Levi Lincoln, written the day before, and to other writings of his earlier and of later date, we will discover the sence in which he used those words, “faithful to the Constitution.” They did cot. in his view, describe the chiefs the teachers and the believers of the Hamilton school of opinion, who taught and held the docuine of strong govern-' ment by construction ®f cons irutioual grants, and whose distrust of popular intelligence and wisdom was avowed und incorrigible. e who habitually gave to those persons blows, and not favor, was the last amonS living men to invite thimto nestle in the posts of government thus cnablibg th*m ta extend the circle of their influenc and power. But be had not only “the courage of his convictions” butalse the zea of a missionary for t le porpagaiion and defence. There was in his scheme of public conduct no room fur compromise with error or for ur render of adv mtages to defiant and implabable' foes But in a noble sense he was willing like the Apostle to the Gentiles, “to become all things to all men,” to win them to his fai h and to the organization by which that faith was upheld. Hence the spirit of tolerance toward the mass of the party opposed to him at his < lection. sought for their version io Republiean r ripcipl.es by exhibiting befoie them an administration of publij affairs in whicn purity, high ability and wisdom were conspicuous, and by a concilstory course toward them in making :e----mova s from office And he throughly accomplished Lis purpo e. At the end of his public service he lefj Federalism prostrate, bis party triumphant and the future of his country se ure. There is a plain distinction between civil officers of mere service, and officers of direction and eont’ , ol. The Cabinet Secretaries, certain Commissioners, and heads of Bureaus at Washington,Collectors of Customs, Postmasters in the principal cities, and some others officers hold offi e.« of the latter class, while the great mass of officers belong to the foi mer. Officers of direction and control are in a special sense the ages ts of the President in the execution of the laws. He selec s and appoints them, and is responsible for their performan eof duty. Besides, they either s- Icet cr are concerned in the selection of henamerous subordinate officers and employes who serve under them, and in other respect? their powets are varied and extensive. It is therefore necessary to effeient and successful administration that Presidential power over their offices should be continuous and complete. Ii follows that the Tenure-of-Oftiee laws of the Uni ed States, which limjt the President’s power over those offices, must be as pernicious in operation as they are offensive and unconstitutional in form.

C. R BUOKALEW.