managers in party caucuses and conventions. An example is very much needed.[1]
TO L. Q. C. LAMAR
| 175 West 58th St., | |
| New York, Oct. 9, 1886. |
I thank you very much for your letter of the second. I fully agree with you in all you say of the President. I believe firmly in the sincerity of his professions and his integrity of purpose. I am sure that he wishes to redeem his pledges with the utmost strictness. I agree with you also that the lapses which have occurred were owing mainly to two things: the unscrupulous partisanship or incapacity of subordinates, and to the bad advice given by Members of Congress. But it should not be forgotten that whatever weight be attached to this circumstance, it does not ultimately relieve the President of his responsibility. As to the officers under him, he has the power to fill their places with men who, as to the conduct of the public service, are of the same way of thinking with him, or, if he cannot find a sufficient number of individuals so qualified, to keep those he has well disciplined by practically convincing them that they hold office only on condition of a strict observance of reform principles. And as to the bad advice given by Congressmen, the President is under no obligation whatever to follow it, and he has already had ample opportunity for learning that as to
- ↑
Lamar's long answer of Oct. 2, 1886, is printed in Mayes's L. Q. C.
Lamar, 488-89. It began as follows:
“My dear Mr. Schurz: I have received your letter and it has been both gratifying and interesting to me. I needed no assurance that you would not desire the retention in office of any unworthy man. I have absolute confidence in your disinterestedness, and know no act in your life that would give me the least misgiving on that subject.”
