Rensselaer Republican, Volume 18, Number 31, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 8 April 1886 — HOT SHOT. [ARTICLE]

HOT SHOT.

The Hypocritical Pretenses of the Democratic Party Laid Bare. f ; * ■ , [Extracts from the speech Of Uongreiiinan Barrows on the Edmunds resolutions.) ' It there has been any one thing In the last fifteen years to which the Democratic party ■earned more ardently attached than any other it was reform in the civil service, lu season and •oat of season, In public and in private, by speech and platform, it has coveted every occasion to make solemn protestation of its devotion to this new-found objefitof its idolatry. Its enthusiasm at times would brook no restraint Although reform and the Democratic party never had any personal acquaintance until 1872, when they met for the first time in a Liberal Republican convention, yet from that hour there sparng up an attachment between thein which has been absolutely phenomenal. Some slight conception of the warmth of its devotion at that time may be gathered from the following devotion preserved in its platform of 1872: TUio civil service of the Government has become a mere instrument of partisan tyranny andnersonal ambition, and an object of selfish greed. It is a scandal and reproach upon free institutions, and breeds a demoralization dangerous to the perpetuity of republican got eminent. We therefore regard a thorodgh reform of the civil service as one of the most pressing necessities of the hour; that honesty, capacity, and fidelity constitute the only valid claims to public employment; that the offices of the Government cease to be a matter of arbitrary favoritism and patronage, and that public station shall become again a post of honor.— Democratic platform, July, 1872, Baltimore. In 1876 the Democratic party renewed its vows of fidelity with such earnestness as to banish all thought of the possibility of betrayal, in the following language. Reform is necessary in the civil service. Experience proves that efficient, economical conduct of the Governmental business is not possible if its civil service be subject to change at every election, be-a prize fought for at the ballot-box, be a brief reward for party zeal, instead of posts of honor assigned for proved competency, and held for fidelity in the public employ; that the dispensing of patronage should neither be a tax upon the time,of all our public men, nor the instrument of their ambition. — Democratic platform, St,. Louie, Mo.. Juiie 27. 1876.

In 1880 its ardor had somewhat cooled, and was fast settling down into respectful consideration, as the following declaration in its platform discloses : "We pledge ourselves to a general and thorough reform of the civil service." In 1884 six words, compressed into one curt sentence, measured its waning regard: “We favor honest civil-service reform.” But if the public mind had become distrustful of the sincerity of the Democratic party in its professions touching reform in the civil service, it was fully reassured by Mr. Cleveland in his letter of acceptance, in which ho said: “The selection and retention of subordinates in Government employment shall depend upon their ascertained fitness and the value of their work. Public employment will be open to all who can demonstrate their fitness to enter it." These are some of the professions with which the Democratic party came up to the campaign of 1884, and under which it was intrusted with national control, In view of these utterances the people had a right to expect, and in many instances were undoubtedly deluded into the belief, that the Democratic party would in good faith redeem its promises inf this regard. That, in the language of the Democratic platform, “honesty, capacity, and fidelity" would be the only valid claims to public employment, and that, in the words of the President, “the selection and retention of subordinates in Government employment would dapend upon their ascertained fitness.” Indeed) the Democratic party and its nominee for the Presidency were so completely committed to the doctrine of reform in the civil service that there was no escape from the execution of the law in this regard but by public renunciation or secret evasion. The former step would have been commendable in the highest degree in contrast with that other course which this administration seems determined to pursue. To have failed to execute the law would have been bad faith; to pretend to execute it while secretly nullifying it is not only ba I faith but hypocrisy. On the 4th day of March, 1885, the Presidentelect in his inaugural address declared that "the people demanded the application of business principles to public affairs,” and that “civil service reform should be in good faith enforced.” While these high-sounding words were ringing in the public ear the Postmaster General is writing a “confidential" letter to Democratic Congressmen “to get their cases ready," and lie thought “from 15 to 20 per cent, of fourth-class postmasters in Ohio might be removed within the next two months.” This is the “application of business principles to public affairs.” [Laughter.] While the echo.of these words was yet ringing in the public ear the Postmaster General quietly whistles to his side the whole uncounted pack of hungry office-seekers and sets them upon the track of honest officials with instructions to hunt them down and hold them at bay until the Postmaster General could take their official life. This, Mr. Chairman, is reform in the civil service! This is “doing business behind glass doors.” The whole history cf American politics discloses no parallel to this. It is no part of my purpose, Mr. Chairman, -to catalogue the long list of removals or count the disreputable appointments which make up the first year s record of this reform administration. Every Congressional district has its instances, and these are Within the knowledge of the individual members of the House, I only desire to summarize the result of the application of “business principles to public affairs,” as exemplified in the Postoffice Department during the first twelve mouths of its administration. The First Assistant Postmaster General, in his able annual report for the year ending Juilt'3o, 1885, at page 27, states the whole number of Presidential offices at that date was 2,‘f33, and the whole number of fourth-class postoffices i 49,019. To these 2,233 Presidential offices there were appointed, between March' 4, 1885, ifiid March 4, 1886, 1,078 Democratic Postmasters, or nearly one-half of the entirenumber were changed the first year., Of those 1,078 appointments, 782 were made necessary by reason of death. resignation, ,or expiration of commission: 228 'were appointed to succeed Postmasters suspended, 7 in p.lace of Postmasters removed for cause, and 1 to succeed a' 1 oitmaster removed —nearly 300 suspensions and removals in twelve months in Presidential offices alone. Not content with 782 vacancies caused by death) resignation. and expiration of commissions, the President supplements this record by 296 suspensions and removals— upon what ground the country is not yet advised. But this does not furnish a fair illustration of the workings of reform in this department of the Government* The President and undoubtedly the Postmaster .General have felt themselves somewhat hampered and embarrassed by that provision cf the Constitution which makes it necessary in these matters to take the advice and obtain the consent of the United States Senate. Such a requirement gives undue fiublicity to official conduct and destroys that reedom of action which is found in fourth-class offices, where the will of the Postmaster General is supreme. In response to the request of the Senate recently directed to the Postmaster General_eall-_ ing upon him to state the number of removals in fourth-class offices between March 4, 1885. and March 4, 1886, he states the whole number of removals between those dates to have been 8,635. This does not includo. appointuienta to vacancies, but all these were removals ostensibly for cause. Add to this the Presidential removal during the year and we find the total removals of postmasters to be 8,931 in twelve months. This is over 744 a .month, 28 every working day, 4 an hour, or 1 e'very fifteen minutes. This is conducting the affairs of the Postoffice Department on “business principles."' “ The foregoing exhibit in a single branch of the Postoffice Department furnishes a fair illustration of the practical workings of the civil-service law, as interpreted by the Postmaster General. What is true of this department is undoubtedly true of all. Indeed, as early ns June, 1885, the country was advised by Mr. Higgins, when hungry Democrats were complaining of the delay in furnishing them with the means of subsistence, that there had already been between three and four thousand changes. “There are,” he said, “about eighty-five internal raVenue collectors, and fifty-two of them are now Democrats. Each has under him fifty to one hundred employes, and all these are being conI mtly changed. So you will perceive that you tan soon count up to the. thousands. It is the same with the customs officers and the postoffices.” This declaration was made within ninety days after this administration came into power. -Thie-is upon authority of and what he does not know about “refbrm" is scarcelv worth acquiring. - J But the most ludicrous feature in this whole reform business is tue constant boasting ofjthe Democratic party that it has brought the Government back to the practices of the lathe s, and that in the application of its reform views to governmental affairs it Is reproducing the halycan days of Jeffersonian simplicity and Jacksonian honesty. Ona is at a loss to know which most to admire in this assumption, its novelty or its audacity. Let us read a page of the nation’s history in the days of the'fathers touching the question of removals in the civil service, Washington in

1 I eight, wars rcmo.ed ouly nine, all for raise. Jonn Adams lu four wars removed nine, and, Im> stated, none for political reasons. Jefferson in eight years removed thirty-nine; none for party i>nrposoH. Madison tn eight years removed five. Monroe in eight years removed nine. Jehu Quincy Adams in four years removed two. The first six Presidents * holding the Presidential office tot forty' years removed only seventy, three office-holders. Heveutytthrec removals in forty years! Whv, sir, tho’ Postoffice Department alone has made more remo-ala than that in fprty minutes I laughter), decapitates more than that before breakfast as a mere appetiser. And yet the Dem< crafic party has the impudence to look the American people in the face and declare without blushing that it has returned to the practices of the fathers. Let us have done with-this farce of reform. The people are sickening of it. It was quite an attraction in the beginning, but it has ceased to draw, and you had better ring down the curtain and put out. the lights ' if you would save the performance or tho performers from public ridicule and contempt. Take it from the boards, or it will be hissed off by a disgusted public. —. And here let me say that the crowning infamy in this whole business of reform lies in the dishonorable methods employed to secure the removal of honest, capable officials. If you would say to a Republican; “I want this office because you ore a Republican, and I want it for a Democrat because he is a Democrat," that would be honorable and manly. But you say: “We cannot do that, for we are committed to the doctrine that removals shall not be made for partisan reasons, and that honesty, capacity, and fidelity shall constitute the only valid claims to public employment We ■mat aeem to keep this promise to tho public it we blacken the good name of every Republican official in the land." And so you permit, nay, not only permit, but invite, charges to be made against faithful and upright public servants upon which they are removed, and thereupon you give out that they are removed or suspended for cause. But when the susspended official or his friends ask to be advised of the nature of these charges, then this reform administration replies, “That is a sealed volume, and you can not be permitted to open it." I am not alluding now to the controversy going on in the other end of the Capitol. I have in mind an instance within my own knowledge. Two Government officials in my own city, of unquestioned integrity and unimpeachable character Wi public and private life, were removed from office, and when I demanded of the head of the department to be advised of the nature of the charges preferred against them, I was informed that I could neither have a copy of the charges ner be informed of their substance. These charges against those men are only harmless because no imputation cun possibly destroy public confidence in their official or private character. In this refusarto disclose the nature of these changes lies the infamy of this whole business. Men of the highest character in public and private life, against whose fair names the breath of suspicion even has never come, are turned out of office and branded with some crime which they are not permitted to know, and can not, therefore, disprove; and these charges, unknown and unanswered, unanswered because unkown, puss into the permanent archives of this nation to remain so long as the Government shall stand. This, I repeat, is the crowning infamy of this whole business, and ought and will consign any party that approves it to deserved retirement. But I am suspicious the Democratic party has deluded itself into the belief that-such a conrse will lead to great patty advantage and contribute tb its future success. You argue that this method is a three-fold victory; first, you say, we get the Republican official out and a Democrat in, which is of prime consequence; second, by withholding all knowledge of the grounds upon which removals are made we will keep from the people the real cause, which is purely a political one, and continue the deception that we are reformers ; and, third, by denying to removed officials the right to kpow and answer the charges made against them the suspicion will obtain that they are removed for some malfeasance in office, and in the approaching campaign we have but to point to the long list of removals for convincing proof of official corruption. If this is your reasoning, let me say to you that you are making’s, fearful mistake. If you would remove the Republican official, saying to him, “It is not because you. have not been a faithful and honest public servant, but solely because you are not in accord with the Democratic party," there is not a Republican official in the land who would not gracefully surrender and accept the situation. He would probably continue a Republican from conviction, but the simple loss of his office would not spur him to unusual zeal. But when you remove him upon some sec et charge, ejnanating from some secret, unknown source, which he is not permitted to know or answer, reflecting upon his public or private'character, he not only continues to be a Republican, but be becomes your active, implacable foe. The office was of little value to him, but his good mime is a priceless legacy, cherished above all elite, which he hoped to bequeath untarnished to his children. That is but a common sentiment. “Whosteals my purse steals trash; * ♦ ♦ But he that fiiches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him And makes me poor indeed." You, for party ends, are wantonly placing a stain upon thousands of good names, and be assiwed they will not rest inactive under the foul' aspersion. Nay, more, their kinsmen and their fr onds will make common warfare with them. Honorable men of all parties Will espouse their cause, and this Democratic reform administration will answer for its vilification of worthy citizens at the bar of public opinion, Where it will receive swift and merited condemnation.