Daily Alta California, 19 February 1886
WAR ON CLEVELAND.
Senator Edmunds’ Fires a Gun at the Federal Administration.
REFUSAL TO SHOW DOCUMENTS.
A Formal Arraignment of the Attorney-General and President by the Republican Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
WASHINGTON, February 18th.— In the Senate, to-day, Edmunds, on behalf of the majority of the Judiciary Committee, submitted a long report and accompanying resolutions on the demand for papers in the Dustin case. The report recites the fact and circumstances of the removal of Dustin and the appointment of his successor as United States Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. It declares that it has been the uniform practice of the Judiciary Committee, since the Tenure-of-Office Act, to call upon the heads of departments for all papers and information in possession of the departments touching the conduct of the administration of the officer proposed to be removed, and the character and the conduct of the person proposed to be appointed. This has been done with the unanimous approval of all the members, although the composition of the committee has been, during that period, sometimes of one political character and sometimes of another. The committee feels authorized to state, the report says, after a somewhat careful search, that within the foregoing limits there is scarcely, until now, any instance of refusal by the head of a department, or even the President himself, to communicate official facts and information, as distinguished from private and unofficial papers, motives, views, reasons and opinions to either House of Congress, when unconditionally demanded. Indeed, the early journals of the Senate show great number of instances of directions to the heads of departments, as a matter of course, to furnish papers and reports upon all sorts of affairs, both legislative and executive.
Instances of requests to the President and commands to the heads of departments by each House of Congress from early days until now, for papers and information on every conceivable subject of public affairs are almost innumerable, for it appears to have been thought by all the Presidents who have carried on the Government now for almost a century, that even in respect of requests to them by an independent and coordinate branch of the Government, they were under a constitutional duty and obligation to furnish to either House papers called for, unless, as has happened in very rare instances, when request was coupled with an appeal to the discretion of the President in respect of the danger of publicity, to send the papers, if in his judgment it should not be incompatible with the public welfare.
The Senate, then, by this nomination, is asked to advise and consent to the removal of the incumbent, and to the appointment of the candidate proposed for his place. In exercising its duty in respect to these questions, it is plain that the
CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE INCUMBENT
Is a matter absolutely essential to be known to the Senate in order that it may determine whether it can rightfully advise his removal or rightly leave him to resume the functions of his office at the end of its session, as well whether the candidate proposed has in the exercise of the office under his designation so conducted himself as to show that he is competent and faithful. Indeed, it may be stated with entire accuracy, that even in the case of a vacancy in an office and the proposed tilling of such vacancy it is important for the Senate to know the previous condition and management of the office, whether there has been cases of misconduct or abuse of power, embezzlement of money, and, indeed, all the circumstances bearing upon the administration, in order that it may judge of the suitableness of appointing a particular person to take up its duties with reference to the difficulties that may exist in its affairs, the state of the accounts and every thing concerning its administration, so as to measure the fitness and competency of the particular candidate to meet the emergencies of the case.
A table is presented, showing a large number of persons appointed in the place of officers suspended, and the query is made, have those suspended officials, or any considerable number of them, been guilty of misconduct in office or of any personal conduct making them unworthy to be longer trusted with the performance of the duties imposed upon them by the law? If they have, it would seem to be clear that every consideration of public interest and of public duty requires that the facts should be made known in order that the Senate may understandingly and promptly advise their removal and that a most careful scrutiny should be had in respect of the selection of their successors, as well as in respect of providing better means and safeguards by legislation for administering the laws of the United States. Such information, it would seem, the Executive is determined the Senate shall not possess, for the alleged reason that it might enable the Senate to understand what circumstances connected with the faithful execution of the laws induced the President to exercise the discretion which the statute confers upon him, to suspend them, and ask the Senate to unite with him in their removal from office.
CIVIL SERVICE DECLARATIONS.
The report quotes the passage on the Civil Service contained in the President’s annual message and says : This highly important and valuable official communication in the presence of 643 suspensions from office would teem to lead to the conclusion that this number of civil officers of the United States selected to be suspended and removed, had been so derelict in the performance of their functions, or guilty of such personal misconduct as to put them in the category of unfaithful public servants, deserving dismissal by the President and the Senate and the condemnation of their countrymen. In such a state of things, we think that the common sense of justice and fair play that is so much prized, we believe, by the people of the United States, would require that in some way this large body of men should have an opportunity to know the substance of their alleged misdeeds in order that they may either admit their guilt or denying, explain their conduct, or show that the accusations against them were selfish and wicked pretexts, and set up for the mere purpose of obtaining their suspension and ultimate dismissal from office, in order that others less capable and worthy might at once receive the honors and emoluments of their places. It is known to every Senator that so far as the Senate has to do both with removals and appointments, it has for a great number of years been its practice, when an officer or person was before it for removal or appointment, against whom any serious accusations have been made which would, if true, influence the action of the Senate in the case, to cause the person concerned to be informed of the substance of the complaint against him and give him AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND HIMSELF.
And it is also known that at this very session a very considerable number of instances of that kind occurred and are of daily occurrence. If the Senate is proceeding upon a false principle in such instances, it is high time that its course in those respects should be reversed, and that thereafter it should act upon such accusations without any knowledge, other than that derived from the accusers, and leave the victims of such injustice to console themselves with the reflection that all parties are now engaged in an effort to reform the Government. Why should the facts as they may appear from the papers on file be suppressed? Is it because that being brought to light it would appear that malice and misrepresentation and perjury are somewhat abundant, or merely that faithful and competent and honorable officers have been suspended and are proposed to be removed under the advice and consent of the Senate, in order that places may be found for party men because they are party men or are the special object of party favor. How does it happen that in this time of suggested reform and purer methods in the Government, for the first time, it is thought important that the history and administrative facts relating to the official and personal conduct of officers of the United States should be withheld and the administration of the Government should proceed with a secrecy and mystery as great as in the days of the Star Chamber? The high respect and consideration that the Senate must always have for the Executive Office would make it reluctant to adopt either theory, but at the present an impenetrable veil remains, and as the Committee is unable to suggest any other solution of the riddle, it must leave it until this veil is lifted and the operations of the Government shall again be known.
In this state of things, the Committee feels it to be its clear duty to report for the consideration of the Senate and for adoption the following resolutions, namely :
Resolved, That the foregoing report of the Committee on Judiciary be agreed to and adopted.
Resolved, That the Senate hereby expresses its condemnation of the refusal of the Attorney-General, under whatever influence, to send to the Senate copies of papers called for by its resolutions of the 5th of January, and set forth in the reports of the Committee on Judiciary, as in violation of his official duties and subversive of the fundamental principles of Government and of the good administration thereof.
Resolved, That it is, under these circumstances, the duty of the Senate to refuse its advice and consent to the proposed removals of officers, the documents and papers in reference to the supposed official or personal misconduct of whom are withheld by the Executive or any head of the Departments, when deemed necessary by the Senate and called for in considering the matter.
Resolved, That the provisions of Section 1,754 of the Revised Statutes, declaring ” that persons honorably discharged from the military or naval service, by reason of disability resulting from wounds or sickness incurred in the line of duty, shall be preferred for appointments to civil offices, provided that they are found to possess the business capacity necessary for the proper discharge of hbe duties of such office,” ought to be faithfully and fully put into execution ; that to remove, or propose to remove, any such soldier, whose faithfulness, competency and character are above reproach, and to give place to another who has not rendered such services, is a violation of the spirit of the law and of the practical gratitude the people and the Government of the United States owe to the defenders of constitutional liberty and the integrity of the Government.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Geo. F. Edmunds,
John J. Ingalls,
S. J. R. McMillan,
Geo. F. Hoar.
Jas. F. Wilson,
Wm. M. Evarts,