suspended officers, the propriety of the suspension is to be questioned? It strikes me that, if the cause of justice and of good government is to be subserved, the rule ought to be the reverse. Where there are no charges, the question comes in rightly: Why, then, was this man suspended? And if offensive partisanship is alleged,—a reason for removal which seems to me perfectly legitimate provided the rule be impartially applied,—the question would be: Was he really an offensive partisan according to the definition adopted? (All this the Senate can ascertain to the satisfaction of the public if it proceeds publicly.)
If the rule adopted by the Finance Committee is as the Times reports it, it will give color to the allegation that the Republicans of the Senate only want the President to admit that he has made partisan removals, and this merely to justify the Republicans in declaring the spoils system to be after all the orthodox creed of both parties. It is the legitimate business of the opposition to show, if it can, that those in power have not been true to their pledges. But if that opposition wants to win the public confidence and to benefit the public interest, it must, in doing so, set up a higher standard for itself.
FROM GEORGE F. EDMUNDS
| Senate Chamber, | |
| Washington, March 17, 1886. |
Yours of the 12th inst. was duly received. I have been so busy the last few days that I could not reply at once. As you understand, I am not at liberty in honor and duty to explain any discussions, or cliques, or difficulties among Senators when the doors are closed. Of course, if any such thing as you imagine took place, it was in violation of what both parties profess as their grateful duty toward ex-soldiers.
I note what you say about secret sessions, but I think the
