places originally classified there has been an actual decrease, with a corresponding decrease in the appropriations for their support; in other words, that in the branches of the service under the civil service law more work was done by fewer persons and for less money, while in the branches not under the civil service law the old needless multiplication of offices went on, with an increasing wastefulness of expenditure.
These are only a few specimens of your assertions which were shown to be untrue. I might largely extend the list. Now, what did you do, Senator, when you were thus brought face to face with crushing proofs of the untruthfulness of the allegations against the civil service law you had made? Then you remembered that the president of the Civil Service Reform League was a “traitor to the Republican party and its principles,” and that the leading members of that League were generally “renegades” and “political hermaphrodites,” and persons entitled to no credit. And when you had annihilated them to your heart's content you rose to the final averment: “I stand by every declaration heretofore made, the denials to the contrary notwithstanding.” It may not have occurred to you, Senator, that this is a somewhat grave matter, concerning your character as a gentleman. He who makes a false statement in the first instance may be excused on the ground that it was a mere mistake, a slip of the tongue or a lapse of the mind—although it might be expected of a Senator of the United States that before speaking of a public matter so loudly and so repeatedly, he should at least inform himself of easily ascertainable facts. But when, after having been clearly shown the falsity of his allegations, he then deliberately repeats and reaffirms and “stands by” them, the case becomes more serious. Then he exposes himself to the application of a very short word which cannot be offered any one who
