CHAPTER X

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM

Lyman Trumbull [Ill.] Introduces in the Senate Bill to Make Recommendations by Senators or Representatives of Persons for Office UnlawfulDebate: In Favor, Sen. Trumbull, John Sherman [O.]; Opposed, Oliver P. Morton [Ind.], James W. Nye [Nev.], Simon Cameron [Pa.]-Carl Schurz [Mo.] Moves as a Substitute Examinations for Civil Service-Debate: In Favor, Sen. Schurz; Opposed, Jacob M. Howard [Mich.]; No Action Taken on Either Bill-George H. Pendleton [O.] Introduces in the Senate a Civil Service Reform Bill-Speech of Senator Pendleton-Bill Becomes Law-Pendleton's Subsequent Career.

Ο

N January 4, 1871, Lyman Trumbull [Ill.] brought forward in the Senate a bill from the Judiciary Committee "to relieve members of Congress from importunity and preserve the independence of the departments of the Government" by making it unlawful for any member of Congress or territorial delegate to solicit or influence in any way the appointment of any person to a Government office, and for the President or any head of a department to make any appointment so solicited, if the appointee were privy to the solicitation. The penalty for the infraction of the act was a fine not exceeding $1,000. The act did not apply to actions by Senators upon nominations made by the President to the Senate.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO OFFICE

SENATE, JANUARY 4-27, 1871

SENATOR TRUMBULL.-It is unnecessary to recapitulate the evils of the present system; they are known to all. It is known that in the departments in Washington there are a great many more clerks than would be needed if those there were capable, efficient, and faithful officers; and it is known that many of them are put in merely as a reward for political services.

If Congress divests itself of this subject, the responsibility is then upon the head of the department. He will be held responsible for the persons he appoints to office, and there will be no political influence here to compel him to keep incompetent men in and no political influence here to compel him to appoint incompetent men. If the duties are not properly performed, if more clerks are there than are needed, Congress will hold the proper secretary responsible.

Senator John Sherman [O.] supported the bill. At first he said he had been opposed to it on the ground that it changed the custom established from the beginning of the Government, but now he believed it necessary to relieve not only Senators, but the President.

Members of Congress, especially of the House of Representatives, claim the right to dictate local appointments, and if their wishes are not yielded to in every case it creates at once a cause of quarrel, which finds its outlet in some legislation or other. The legislative and executive departments of the Government should be as distinct and marked as if they were separated by a broad river. The only connection between the executive and legislative departments, so far as appointments are concerned, should be between the President and the Senate.

The President ought to have the right to seek information everywhere, not only from members of Congress, but in the selection of officers he ought not to be embarrassed by the demands of persons upon whose votes he is daily subject, in the course of ordinary legislation, and over whom he might wish by patronage to establish a control.

I have regarded this measure for the last year as being not a complete civil service reform in itself, but as being an entering wedge indispensably necessary to bring about a civil service reform separating the civil service in the executive departments entirely from the legislative until the unconstitutional habit that has sprung up in this country of allowing members of Congress to control appointments is broken up. Unless we ourselves abdicate, surrender, give up that power of control over the executive appointments, we cannot expect to agree upon a civil service reform.

OLIVER P. MORTON [Ind.].-The bill, in my opinion, is unconstitutional from beginning to end, and proceeds upon false principles. I undertake to say that this Government could not be readily nor safely administered upon this bill.

Why, sir, what does the bill propose to do? It makes it a penal offence for me to exercise a right that belongs to every citizen of the United States. Every person in these galleries, every postmaster has the right to recommend to the President for appointments to office; but this bill proposes to make it a criminal offence for a Senator to do so. And then the President is a criminal if he dares to make an appointment that has been advised by a Senator, if it is done with the knowledge of the person whose appointment is advised. Have we a right to make the President a criminal for doing that?

Why, sir, what is the effect of it? If a Senator recommends a man with his knowledge he becomes ineligible. Have we a right to establish a qualification for office of that kind? It would be a clear violation of the Constitution of the United States. It has been decided by the Senate that where a State constitution provided that a man holding a State office was not eligible during his term of office to be elected to the Senate of the United States, such provision was a nullity, and no State constitution had the power to fix an additional qualification for office.

I know there are some people in this country who believe that everybody in Congress is corrupt, and if we pass this bill they will have a right to believe that we think so; that we ourselves are willing to legislate on the idea that we cannot safely be trusted to recommend men for appointments.

Why, sir, I should be glad to be relieved of this labor. It is particularly afflicting to me in my present state of health. But what right have I to be relieved of it? If I take the office of Senator I take it with its burden. Senators want to make the place entirely pleasant, relieved of all responsibilities and of all disagreeable features. Sir, when a man accepts the office of Senator, or the office of Representative, he takes it with its responsibilities and with its annoyances.

Now, let us suppose it to be the law that the President has a right to call on members of Congress for information in regard to appointments, but they have no right to give an opinion without it; how much are they relieved? Would not the President at least feel under political and moral obligation, ordinarily, to consult his political friends in either House as to appointments from their States? Would not that be expected as a matter of course, and would it not be regarded as unfriendly if he did not do it? Every man who wanted to be a district attorney or a marshal in his State would understand that the Senator would be called upon to give his opinion, and so he would send his application to the President and refer the President

to the Senator from Illinois; and that is the way they would all do, and the Senator would not be relieved at all.

Now, Mr. President, I come to the principle of the bill, and insist that it is false in itself. I undertake to say that the greatest security an executive can have, who can know but a very small number of the American people, is the fact that he can rely upon members of Congress, his political friends, for recommendations to office. Take a member of the House. He is expected to recommend, if he is a political friend of the President, for the local offices in his district. The people understand that, and if there is a bad appointment made, if there is a bad postmaster, if a horse thief is appointed postmaster, they hold the member of Congress directly responsible for it. Therefore, it becomes his interest at once to recommend good men for these offices; his reëlection depends upon it.

JAMES W. NYE [Va.].-Suppose by some chance a Senator should find out that a most unworthy man, some horse thief say, was being recommended and likely to receive an appointment to office; would he be subject to this penalty if he should tell the President of that fact?

SENATOR MORTON.-I do not know whether opposing a nomination would come within the penalties of this bill; but I will state what would come within it.

SENATOR NYE.-If you cannot recommend, you cannot oppose. I simply desire to know whether I should be put in the penitentiary for doing that act, instead of the thief? [Laughter.]

SENATOR MORTON.-I suppose prima facie you would, under this bill. [Laughter.]

The discussion was resumed on January 10.

SENATOR TRUMBULL.-The only interference that Congress or any member of Congress legitimately has with the appointment of officers is in giving the advice and consent of the Senate to the nominations that are made by the President. With that exception this whole executive power is vested in the executive department, and, so far from its being unconstitutional to prohibit interference by members of Congress with appointments, it is carrying out the very spirit of the Constitution to prohibit such interference, and it is an encroachment on the rights of the Executive whenever appointments are made or dictated by members of Congress from either House.

And such, Mr. President, was the early understanding. For

the first forty or fifty years of the Government members of Congress did not interfere with appointments. It was regarded at

that time as exceedingly indelicate and improper for a member of Congress to go to the President, or to any head of a department, and suggest the name of a person for office. The practice that now obtains is of modern origin. The principle that "to