Democratic Sentinel, Volume 10, Number 7, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 19 March 1886 — RENNA’S ANSWER TO EDMUNDS. [ARTICLE]

RENNA’S ANSWER TO EDMUNDS.

[Cincinnati Commercial Gazette (Re» publican) Special.] Washington, March 14—The bombardment which Mr. Kennagave Mr. Edmunds out of Mr. Blaine’s second ▼olum was keenly enjoyed by many epublDan*. A portion of the full text is as follows: “While I huvethis book in my|hand I take the liberty of r«adirg what the distiugusshed author says on the subject of the act of 1869, which was passed pretty nearly by the same, men who passed that of 1867, and of which he speaks as fob* sows: ‘The chief defenders of the proposition to suspend the act were Mr; Trum! ull, Mr. Edmunds and Mr. Sob irz. Mr. Edmunds, pressed by Mr Grimes to furnish a good reason 'or suspending the act, replied that, Q <ving to the peculiar cir umstan•Q that have attended the last adMl ■ iatrafion, it is desirable that there >uld be an immediate and general Xf r oval of the officeholders or the •ountry a - a rule and as an agency forthat removal, subject to our ap* pr val v, !u n we meet again in con flrmation of their successors, these bad men being put out, we are willing to trust the Executive with that discretion." Mr: Blaine proceeds: "Coming from a Sena or of the United Stwtes, this declar ition was regarded as extraordinary. The ‘bad men’ to whom Mr. Edmunds referred were the appointees of President Johnson, and every one of them had b«en confirmed by the Senate of the United Stales wh n the Republicans had more than two-third j of th* body. If these appointees ware ‘ baa men,’ why, it vrns pertinently and forcibly asked by the ag t rieved, did not Mr. Edmunds submit proof of ths fact to his Republican associates and procure their rejection? He knew the accused men declar°d as much about their characters when their names were before the Senate as he knew when he sought, behind tne protection of nis privilege to brand thsm with infamy. “To permit this to be confit med in the silence and confidence of an executive session and then in open Senate, when their places ware wanted for others, describe them as ‘bad men’ seemed te them a procedure to not be explained on the broad [ rinciple of statesmanship, or even or the common law of fair dealing. * * * Within the eight months next ensuing the President would probably make more -emovals and appointments than for the remainder of his term, and it was just for this period that Mr. Trumbull, Mr. Elin mid s a d Mr. Schnrz urged that the law be made inoperative—inoperative in order that removals of Democratic offlce>holders for good cause, and for no cause except that they were Democrats, might in every way be expedited-’ “There is much in this chanter relevant to the particular featura of this controvessy which I s- ould like to read, but 1 do not desire to take the time to do it. I will, however, read the closing paragraph, which I commend to those who aided in the enactmont of the law of 1867, an 1 so soon after participated in the enactment of the law of 1869. Con eluding a passage on that subject Mt. Blaine savs: ‘Casting off all political disguises Bud personal pretenses, the simple truth remains that the tenure of office law was enacted lest President Johnson should remove Republican office-holders too rapidly, and was practically repealed lest President Grant should not remove Democratic office holders rapidly enough.’” (Laughter.)

"‘The Senator from Vermont was in Congress when both these laws were passed. Ha gave his very active adherence to the proposition of the first one, and then proposed to suspend for eight months the act of 1867 by the act of 1869. He it was I thinK, who made the motion to ie» commit the bill providing for the euspt nsion, and it wan recommitted, and the bill reported was rapidly passed with only a slight amendment. I w mt to do that Senator the justice, however, to show you the consistency, the absolute and perfect consistency, < f his support of the act of 1867, and bis support of tae modifier ion in the act of 1869. Referring to the debate la 1867. I find him making this declaration: 'But the commirtee have recommended the adop lion of this rule respecting the ten ■ ure of office as a permanent and systematic, and, as they believe, a •. ap propriate regulation of the Government for all administrations and for all time.’” tew" Ibis was in 1867 for al' administrations and for all time.. ‘All administrations.’ yon see, were not broad enough lo cover it but ‘for all time’ the 1 w was to be enacted;'and still that proposition was not broad »-nough, The Senator, on another <lr»\ in the course of the debate, made use of this language: ‘I do not. therefore. choose to submit to the imputation for a singla moment that there is, either in tnis bill or out it, any attempt to advance anybody’s political views whatever, oi to aid anvbody’s friends.’ That was in 186 . I read now from the Globe f or March. 1869. page 107, and from i speech by th.Senator from Vetmor.t, ir which bo says: ‘Now. what do we ropo; • m ■:<;? We pronose. in ord*r as ■ hopx] to inert the ?iew- of po.iiicttl friends who h ><i < <>. thought they nud seen, pro ie d ,i (i

Acuities in administration under this law, to give, by an act of generous confidence in the present Executive, to him during the next recess of Congress a complete power to sweep out of office the persons who now hold it.’”