PRESIDENTIAL APOLOGIES FOR NEPOTISM.

Without the avalanche of testimony against this Presidential

pretension, it is necessary only to glance at the defences sometimes

set up; for such is the insensibility bred by Presidential example,

that even this intolerable outrage is not without voices speaking

for the President. Sometimes it is said, that, his salary being far

from royal, the people will not scan closely an attempt to help

relations,--which, being interpreted, means that the President may

supplement the pettiness of his salary by the appointing power. Let

John Adams, who did not hesitate to bestow office upon a few relations

of unquestioned merit, judge this pretension. I quote his words:--

“Every public man should be honestly paid for his services.… But he

should be restrained from every _perquisite_ not known to the laws,

and he should make no claims upon the gratitude of the public, nor

ever confer an office within his patronage upon a son, a brother, a

friend, upon pretence that he is not paid for his services by the

profits of his office.”[98]

It is impossible to deny the soundness of this requirement and its

completeness as an answer to one of the apologies.

Sometimes the defender is more audacious, insisting openly upon the

Presidential prerogative without question, until we seem to hear in

aggravated form the obnoxious cry, “To the victor belong the spoils.”

I did not suppose that this old cry could be revived in any form;

but since it is heard again, I choose to expose it; and here I use

the language of Madison, whose mild wisdom has illumined so much of

constitutional duty. In his judgment the pretension was odious, “that

offices and emoluments were the spoils of victory, _the personal

property_ of the successful candidate for the Presidency”; and he adds

in words not to be forgotten at this moment:--

“The principle, if avowed without the practice, or

practised without the avowal, could not fail to degrade any

Administration,--both together, completely so.”[99]

This is strong language. The rule in its early form could not fail to

degrade any Administration. But now this degrading rule is extended,

and we are told that to the President’s family belong the spoils.

Another apology, vouchsafed even on this floor, is, that, if the

President cannot appoint his relations, they alone of all citizens

are excluded from office,--which, it is said, should not be. But is

it not for the public good that they should be excluded? Such was the

wise judgment of Jefferson, and such is the testimony from another

quarter. That eminent prelate, Bishop Butler, who has given to English

literature one of its most masterly productions, known as “Butler’s

Analogy,” after his elevation to the see of Durham with its remarkable

patronage, was so self-denying with regard to his family that a nephew

said to him, “Methinks, my Lord, it is a misfortune to be related to

you.”[100] Golden words of honor for the English Bishop! But none such

have been earned by the American President.

Assuming that in case of positive merit designating a citizen for a

particular post the President might appoint a relation, it would be

only where the merit was so shining that his absence would be noticed.

At least it must be such as to make the citizen a candidate without

regard to family. But no such merit is attributed to the beneficiaries

of our President, some of whom have done little but bring scandal

upon the public service. At least one is tainted with fraud; and

another, with the commission of the Republic abroad, has been guilty of

indiscretions inconsistent with his trust. Appointed originally in open

defiance of republican principles, they have been retained in office

after their unfitness became painfully manifest. By the testimony

before a Congressional Committee, one of these, a brother-in-law, was

implicated in bribery and corruption. It is said that at last, after

considerable delay, the President has consented to his removal.

Here I leave for the present this enormous unrepublican pretension,

waiting to hear if it can again find an apologist. Is there a single

Senator who will not dismiss it to judgment?

Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 20 (of 20) · 第 68 / 242 题