no less than mine that to keep in place, or to reappoint, without regard to party affiliation, officers who have been conspicuously efficient in the discharge of their duties, who have maintained a good general character and who have not meddled with party politics beyond the ordinary exercise of a citizen's right, is a good rule, in fact a rule demanded by the public interest. That the enforcement of such a rule will greatly add to the character and efficiency of the service is self-evident, for it will teach all public officers that the best possible performance of their official duties without partisan service will give them an excellent claim to be retained in place even if there be a change of party in power,—and that no other claim can be depended on. It is equally clear that without the establishment of such a rule the public service will never become a non-partisan service, but will always have a strong tendency to degenerate into a party machine, periodical “new ideals” being the regular order. If upon the expiration of the term of every Republican officeholder you put a Democrat in his place, the whole service, outside of the comparatively small number of subordinate places covered by the civil service law and a few other exceptions, will, at the end of your Presidential term, be essentially, and purposely, a Democratic service; and if then the Republicans win, they will only have to follow your example to make it an essentially Republican service again, and so on and on. But if you establish and follow the rule above indicated, reappointing a Republican here and there on account of proved fitness, you will have made a precedent which no succeeding Administration can afford to disregard, and thus you will have conferred a great and lasting benefit upon the Republic.
The reappointment of Mr. Pearson is in this respect regarded as a test of your policy, and it is only in this sense that I address you in its behalf. I need scarcely
