The Democratic Party and Civil Service

Reform.

BY MOORFIELD STOREY.

It may properly be said that the Democratic Party is under a peculiar obligation to promote the reform of the civil service; the obligation felt by every honorable man, to repair a wrong which he has done. It was the Democratic party under the lead of Andrew Jackson which first treated the public offices as plunder and which under him and his successors cherished the spoils system so lovingly as to make it a cardinal principle of our government. In thirty years it had become so well established that even President Lincoln in the midst of our civil war recognized its binding force. He could say in his despair, "I wish I had time to attend to the Southern question, but these office seekers demand all my time. I am like a man so busy letting rooms at one end of my house that I have not time to put out the fire which is burning in the other," but he could not escape from degrading bondage to the barbarous maxim, "To the victors belong the spoils."

It is not perhaps surprising that a party, devoted to the support of slavery as the Democratic party then was, did not clearly see how inconsistent with true Democratic principles was a system which made every officeholder a slave, whose acts, whose words and whose opinions, even, must be subject to the will of his patron and master. The slavery contest was in fact a war, in which, as in every war, God was forgotten. In the struggle to retain the control of the government the Democratic leaders used every weapon that opportunity offered, and did not stop to reconcile their practice too nicely with the traditional principles of their party. In the heat of that tremendous conflict the American people had no time to consider administrative reform.

When however the contest was over and the smoke of the battle had cleared away, the scandals of the spoils system, which like every other abuse had flourished amid the disorders

of war, forced themselves upon the public attention. The evils which had been tolerated under the first administration of General Grant had made men think, and many of the most earnest Republicans were beginning to waver in their allegiance to an organization, which seemed determined to ignore or condone the corrupting practices of party leaders.

The Democrats saw the weak point in the record of their opponents and sought to attract dissatisfied Republicans by espousing the cause of reform. The party needed new issues and new leaders, and it did not shrink even from the desperate step of nominating a life-long enemy, in the person of Horace Greeley, as its candidate for President.

The reform of the civil service was already commanding strong support. President Grant had commended it to the attention of Congress in his message of December 5th, 1870, and on March 3d, 1871, the first civil service reform law received his approval. The experiment had begun when the National Democratic Convention was held in 1872, and the Democratic party took an unequivocal position on the question. Its language was clear and distinct.

"The civil service of the Government has become a mere instrument of partisan tyranny and personal ambition and an object of selfish greed. It is a scandal and reproach upon free institutions and breeds a dem ralization dangerous to the perpetuity of Republican government. We therefore regard a thorough reform of the civil service as one of the most pressing necessities of the hour."

This is strong language, but it only expressed the unanimous opinion of the American people at the time, if we may judge from platform professions, for the conventions of all parties made similar declarations. The spirit of independence was abroad in the land, and independent votes were in demand.

The result of the election in the autumn of 1872 gave the Democratic party no opportunity of proving its sincerity. The war was too recent. The Republicans retained power by an overwhelming majority, but used it so that in 1876 the people found themselves engaged in the most doubtful political contest which the country had known. The Democratic party selected as its candidate a Democrat and undertook in its platform to state the principles of the Democratic

party. Among these was included the reform of the civil service, and no party ever made a stronger and clearer declaration on this subject than the following statement, which is said to have been written by Mr. Tilden, then fresh from his victory over the spoils system in the City and State of New York.

"Reform is necessary in the civil service. Experience proves that efficient economical conduct of the governmental business is not possible, if its civil service be subject to change at every election, be a prize fought for at the ballot box, be a brief reward of party zeal instead of posts of honor, assigned for proved competency and held for fidelity in the public employ that the dispensing of patronage should neither be a tax upon the time of all our public men nor the instrument of their ambition. . . . President, Vice-President, Judges, Senators, Representatives, Cabinet officers, these and all others in authority are the people's servants. fices are not a private perquisite: they are a public trust."

Their of

All

Taught perhaps by adversity, but with every prospect of power before it, the Democratic party returned to the principles of its founders. It recognized the great truth that the spoils system rests upon patronage, and that patronage is aristocratic and not democratic. No man should owe the privilege of serving his country to the favor of another. are entitled to equal opportunities, and the country, another name for us all, is entitled to the best service. The equal rights of all and the greatest good of the greatest number, these are the corner stones of Democracy and of civil service reform. The Democratic party, freed from the blight of slavery, became again a great power in the nation when it re-asserted its fundamental principles in the language just quoted.

In 1880 the party in general language pledged itself "anew to the constitutional doctrines and traditions of the Democratic party, embodied in the platform of the National Convention of the party" including "a general and thorough reform of the civil service." This must be interpreted as reiterating the language which has been quoted from the earlier platform, though in itself less specific.

It is not, however, from party platforms that the purposes of a party are to be gathered. In the same year Mr. Pendle

ton, of Ohio, a Democratic leader, introduced in the Senate of the United States "a bill to regulate and improve the civil service of the United States," which was referred to a select committee of the Senate. This bill was modelled upon the earlier measure of Mr. Jenckes, but before any action was taken upon it, a carefully framed bill prepared by several gentlemen who had the subject much at heart, among whom that early, devoted and unwavering friend of our cause, Mr. Dorman B. Eaton, was most active, was laid before Mr. Pendleton and by him readily accepted as a substitute for his own less perfect measure. This bill was reported by Mr. Pendleton on Februry 16th, 1881, and he presented with it an admirable report, in which he took the most advanced ground in favor of the reform.

This bill was not reached during the session, but he introduced it again and on December 13th, 1881, supported it with a powerful speech, closing with an appeal to his party associates, in which he said, "We are not in majority. We have no offices now. The chances of time will sooner or later put them in our grasp. Let us now declare that we will have none of their offices except those which may be won by merit, let us give this earnest of our sincerity in a great reform, let us give this token of the purity and patriotism of our coming administration of the government, let us convince the people, even our opponents, that we contend for power not that we may enjoy the emoluments of office, but that we may lead the country in the pathways of advancement and beneficence under the inspiration of a true democracy. The patronage, however pleasant for the moment, is a snare and a curse to any man or party."

Thus by a Democratic leader, in a speech which states the true principles of his party, was launched for a second time the great measure, which was to become the law of this country.

It was referred again to the committee and carefully considered. On May 15th, 1882, it was reported by Mr. Pendleton to the Senate with a recommendation that it pass, and the report which accompanied it contained a statement of evidence and facts, which was of the greatest value. The bill did not come up for a consideration during that session. The Republican party controlled the government and their President had urged the reform, but the House had refused to ap

propriate even the modest sum of $25,000 for the support of the civil service commission, and only on the motion of Mr. Holman, a Democrat, appropriated $15,000. This was the era of Jay Hubbell, and in this company I need say no more. The atmosphere of Congress when he was the chairman of the Republican Congressional Committee was not favorable to civil service reform.

The people, however, were not blind, and when Congress met again December, 1882, the Democratic party had swept the country. In many districts it was Republican hostility to civil service reform that defeated their candidates. Theodore Lyman in Massachusetts was elected on that issue and so were others, though less clearly. Congress understood the lesson. The session began on December 4th, 1882, and on the 12th Senator Pendleton brought his bill before the Senate, which entered upon its consideration with such diligence that on the 27th of December it passed the Senate by a vote of thirty-eight to five. The five were all Democrats, to their shame be it said, but the leaders of the party, Bayard, Pendleton, Lamar, Vest, Garland and even Gorman supported the bill, and that just after their triumph at the poll seemed to assure them the control of the offices in the near future.

The House was more expeditious. On January 4th the Senate bill was reported, and after thirty minutes' debate was passed by a vote of one hundred and fifty-five to forty-seven. Neither party was unanimous, but only a small minority of either was found to oppose the bill. This result conspicuously shows the salutary effect of defeat upon a party, and the lesson may well be taken to heart. Congressmen are quick to see what votes really mean, and out of many issues discussed they select with unerring accuracy the real cause of their defeat. The change of heart wrought by adversity was quick and complete. Even Jay Hubbell did not record his vote against the bill.

Such is the part which the Democratic party took in laying the foundation of the merit system. It was a Democrat who led the contest, he was supported by the leaders of his party, and it was a Democratic victory which persuaded Congress to pass the bill. The statute then enacted has since held its place, and every year has furnished fresh evidence that it was framed wisely.