The Writings of Carl Schurz/To George F. Edmunds, March 12th, 1886
TO GEORGE F. EDMUNDS
Am I presuming too much upon your kindness if I ask you to send me also Mr. Wilson's speech?
I am one of those who follow this debate with great interest and in a spirit of entire impartiality. I want simply the truth to prevail, justice to be done and the cause of good government to be advanced. Now I must confess I was shocked when I read in the papers this morning that the Senate, after listening to an arraignment of the President for unjust suspensions, went into secret session and confirmed, at the solicitation of a leading Republican Senator, R. S. Dement of Illinois, who had been nominated in the place of a suspended officer, and that officer a man who during the war for the Union had conducted himself so gallantly that he was promoted to a major-generalship for skill and bravery in the field. This case, if any, seemed to be fit to be made a test case. But 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 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.