The Writings of Carl Schurz/To President Cleveland, June 25th, 1885
TO PRESIDENT CLEVELAND
I trust it is not too late to congratulate you on the selections you have made for the marshalships in Chicago and Cincinnati, the appointment of Mr. Stallo, and the removal of Meade. All these things have made an excellent impression and greatly strengthened public confidence in your purposes and firmness.
I learn through this morning's papers that efforts are making to induce you to appoint some representative of one of the Democratic factions here collector of customs. Pardon me for saying that I should consider anything of the kind a great mistake and a misfortune. The New York customhouse is the most prominent place in the home service. It has a sort of National character. It is the place where the practical reform of the civil service is most conspicuously on trial. The selection you make for the collectorship will therefore be looked upon as a test of the general tendency of your Administration in that respect. The character of the appointment should, therefore, in my humble opinion, be such as to convince every one at first sight, that the customhouse is not to be in any sense a machine in politics. It is quite evident that the selection of any one “representing” any of the factions would produce just the contrary effect.
I have had some anxious letters again from Boston about the collectorship there. May I speak once more of the disheartening shock the independent element received by the appointment of Mr. Pillsbury and of the importance of putting a thorough reformer into the other influential place so that the impression made by the former may not remain the prevailing one?
At our interview here something was said about a little speech I had made at a dinner in Boston in the midst of the excitement caused by the Pillsbury appointment, and that I should send it to you. I do so now, although it is old, because, as I am assured through a great many letters from different parts of the country, it faithfully expresses the independent sentiment.
As it may interest you to hear something of the current of opinion concerning your Administration, I may say that among those with whom I come into contact the feeling is generally one of satisfaction, confidence and hope. People say that on the whole things go well, and that although mistakes were made, you may be depended upon to correct them. You are constantly gaining friends. It is true, there is more trust in you than in the party.
Of course, we should not forget, that the great danger, politically, of an Administration like yours is to sit down between two chairs. Three policies are before you. One is to return altogether to the old practices of the spoils system. This would indeed rally a considerable portion of your party firmly around you, but it would after all finally result in fatal defeat and dishonor. I should not speak of this as a “possibility” at all. The second is to strike out boldly and consistently in the line of reform, aiming straight at a non-partisan service. A portion of the party, not however a large one, might revolt, but you would find a powerful public sentiment on your side with recruits far more than enough to fill the gap. You will then have a party, to be sure, with new elements but also with new vitality in it. The third is to go forward in the line of reform far enough to disgust some of the old party—for almost any degree of systematic reform will do that—but not far enough to inspire the reform elements outside of the party with that enthusiasm which will induce them to step under your banner in mass and as an organized force. Thus the gap would be made and not filled. This is what we might call sitting down between two chairs. The second policy appears, therefore, not only the best one for the country, but the only safe one for you and your party.
You will have noticed that the Republican platform in Ohio makes two issues, one the “bloody shirt,” and the other civil service reform. The first is more or less burnt powder; but the importance of the second will depend on two things: what the Democratic State conventions will say, and what you do. The Republican platforms will all fairly ring with the reform cry. There is danger that the Democratic conventions will be far less outspoken in that respect. If so, everything will depend on you, not merely as regards this year's campaigns, but the success of your Administration and the vitality and fate of your party generally.
If, under these circumstances, you would permit me to make a suggestion, it would be 1, to extend, as soon as possible, the civil service rules beyond the scope in which you found them, even if it be only a little; 2, to leave in office or reappoint some conspicuously efficient Republican officeholders; and 3, to correct, as soon as it can conveniently be done, some of the mistakes made, for instance, in the internal revenue collectorships in New England.
Pardon me for adding that the sweeping changes in the internal revenue collectorships have always struck me as questionable proceedings. Those places were not put under the four-years-term rule for the very purpose of withdrawing them from periodical change. Should this very circumstance make arbitrary removals more justifiable than they would be in the case of a fixed term? Of course, I say nothing against removals for good cause. But can the mere fact that such officers were appointed for indefinite terms, be taken to furnish in itself sufficient cause for removal? In this case the repeal of the four-years-term law, for which the Civil Service Reform Association have petitioned, would make official tenure only less secure.
Excuse the length of this letter, remembering that I mean well. Again I thank you for the good things you have done and congratulate you on the golden opinions you have won.