cedure
not to be explained on the broad principles of statesmanship, or
even on the common law of fair dealing.

Mr. Schurz was as anxious as Mr. Edmunds to give the President full
power to remove the office-holders. He declared that he "would be
the last man to hamper the President in the good work of cleaning out
the Augean stable, which he is now about to undertake." He was sure
that "the rings must be broken up," that "the thieves must be driven
out of the public service." He eulogized President Grant as especially
fit for the work. "We have," said he, "a President who is willing to
do what we and the country desire him to do." Mr. Schurz expressed
at the same time his "heartfelt concern" regarding a rumor that the
President was very sensitive touching the proposition reported by the
Judiciary Committee, and that "he will make no removals unless the
civil-tenure bill be repealed instead of being suspended." Mr. Schurz
was sure that "on all the great questions of policy the President and
Congress heartily agree," and he condemned "the attempts made to sow
the seeds of distrust and discord." It is somewhat amusing as well as
instructive to recall that in a little more than two years from that
time, when nearly all the appointees of President Johnson had been
turned out of office, Mr. Schurz began work again at "the Augean
stable," now locating it in the Grant administration, and demanding
that it should be cleansed, that "the rings" should be broken up, that
"the thieves must be driven out of the public service." He imputed
to President Grant's administration even greater corruption than he had
charged upon the administration of his predecessor, and from his
ever-teeming storehouse lavished abuse with even a more generous hand
upon the one that he had upon the other.

The amendment of the Judiciary Committee providing for a suspension of
the law until Congress should meet again--a period of about eight
months--was so objectionable that it won no substantial support from
senators. There was something so baldly and shamelessly partisan in
the proposition to suspend the Act just long enough to permit President
Grant, without obstruction or encumbrance, to remove the Democrats
whom President Johnson had appointed to office, that the common
instinct of justice, and even of public decency, revolted. The Tenure-
of-office Act was either right or wrong, expedient or inexpedient,
Constitutional or unconstitutional,