when this is thrown aside and eliminated from all further inquiry, merely because, as is reported, a Republican Senator feels himself under some personal obligation to the person nominated, and that person supposed to be a very unfit one for the place, then the whole warfare of the Republicans in the Senate is in great danger of falling into contempt for apparent want of sincerity.
It seems to me there is but one way to make that which is now going on in the Senate, serve the cause of good government instead of leading to a restoration of the spoils system pure and simple,—and that is to make the executive sessions of the Senate, as far as appointments of office are concerned, public. There is no doubt, the Senate has lost grievously in public estimation—and I say that with great sorrow, for I deeply appreciate its importance in our political system. It will continue to lose as long as it authorizes the suspicion that it covers office jobbery by the secrecy of its proceedings. Is not this the proper time to relieve it of this odium? And are not you the man to take the lead in effecting so wholesome a reform?
P. S. March 19th. I see a curious report from Washington in the Times this morning. It is that the Finance Committee of the Senate has asked the Secretary of the Treasury whether there are any specific charges against suspended officers, and that in cases in which they are told by the Secretary that there are no charges affecting the moral or official character of the suspended officer, they will proceed with the consideration of the nominations made. Does this mean that in cases where the public interest was confessedly well served, or where there was at least no charge that it was badly served, suspensions are to be treated as justifiable, while in cases where there are charges affecting the moral or official character of the
