_Question_. What have you to say with reference to the respective
attitudes of the President and Senate?
_Answer_. I don't think there is any doubt as to the right of the
Senate to call on the President for information. Of course that
means for what information he has. When a duty devolves upon two
persons, one of them has no right to withhold any facts calculated
to throw any light on the question that both are to decide. The
President cannot appoint any officer who has to be confirmed by
the Senate; he can simply nominate. The Senate cannot even suggest
a name; it can only pass upon the person nominated. If it is called
upon for counsel and advice, how can it give advice without knowing
the facts and circumstances? The President must have a reason for
wishing to make a change. He should give that reason to the Senate
without waiting to be asked. He has assured the country that he
is a civil service reformer; that no man is to be turned out because
he is a Republican, and no man appointed because he is a Democrat.
Now, the Senate has given the President an opportunity to prove
that he has acted as he has talked. If the President feels that
he is bound to carry out the civil-service law, ought not the Senate
to feel in the same way? Is it not the duty of the Senate to see
to it that the President does not, with its advice and consent,
violate the civil service law? Is the consent of the Senate a mere
matter of form? In these appointments the President is not
independent of or above the Senate; they are equal, and each has
the right to be "honor bright" with the other, at least.
As long as this foolish law is unrepealed it must be carried out.
Neither party is in favor of civil service reform, and never was.
The Republican party did not carry it out, and did not intend to.
The President has the right to nominate. Under the law as it is
now, when the President wants to appoint a clerk, or when one of
his secretaries wants one, four names are sent, and from these four
names a choice has to be made. This is clearly an invasion of the
rights of the Executive. If they have the right to compel the
President to choose from four, why not from three, or two? Why
not name the one, and have done with it? The law is worse than
unconstitutional--it is absurd.
But in this contest the Senate, in my judgment, is right. In my
opinion, by the time Cleveland goes out most of the offices will
be filled with Democrats. If the Republicans succeed next time,
I know, and everybody knows, that they will never rest easy until
they get the Democrats out. They will shout "offensive partisanship."
The truth is, the theory is wrong. Every citizen should take an
interest in politics. A good man should not agree to keep silent
just for the sake of an office. A man owes his best thoughts to
his country. If he ought to defend his country in time of war,
and under certain circumstances give his life for it, can we say
that in time of peace he is under no obligation to discharge what
he believes to be a duty, if he happens to hold an office? Must
he sell his birthright for the sake of being a doorkeeper? The
whole doctrine is absurd and never will be carried out.
_Question_. What do you think as to the presidential race?
_Answer_. That is a good way off. I think the people can hardly
be roused to enthusiasm by the old names. Our party must take
another step forward. We cannot live on what we have done; we must
seek power for the sake, not of power, but for the accomplishment
of a purpose. We must reform the tariff. We must settle the
question of silver. We must have sense enough to know what the
country needs, and courage enough to tell it. By reforming the
tariff, I mean protect that and that only that needs protection--
laws for the country and not for the few. We want honest money;
we want a dollar's worth of gold in a silver dollar, and a dollar's
worth of silver in a gold dollar. We want to make them of equal
value. Bi-metallism does not mean that eighty cents' worth of
silver is worth one hundred in gold. The Republican party must
get back its conscience and be guided by it in deciding the questions
that arise. Great questions are pressing for solution. Thousands
of working people are in want. Business is depressed. The future
is filled with clouds. What does the Republican party propose?
Must we wait for mobs to inaugurate reform? Must we depend on
police or statesmen? Should we wait and crush by brute force or
should we prevent?
The toilers demand that eight hours should constitute a day's work.
Upon this question what does our party say? Labor saving machines
ought to lighten the burdens of the laborers. It will not do to
say "over production" and keep on inventing machines and refuse to
shorten the hours. What does our party say? The rich can take
care of themselves if the mob will let them alone, and there will
be no mob if there is no widespread want. Hunger is a communist.
The next candidate of the Republican party must be big enough and
courageous enough to answer these questions. If we find that kind
of a candidate we shall succeed--if we do not, we ought not.
--_Chicago Inter-Ocean_, February, 1886.