that he
compels the admiration of every one who really loves the just and
true.

--_The Truth Seeker_, New York, September 5, 1885.

THE PRESIDENT AND SENATE.

_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--