860

Debate on the Civil Service Bill.

Mr. KASSON. Now let the bill be read.

Mr. COX, of New York. I make the proposition to my friend from Iowa to put the Pendleton bill on its passage now without debate.

Mr. KASSON. Let the bill be read.

Mr. COX, of New York. Let the bill be read, and then let us have a vote on it to-day with a view of proceeding to the practical business of the House; that is, the appropriation bills, the shipping bills, and other bills of importance.

Mr. KASSON. I notice that several gentlemen have arisen on the other side of the House as if to protest against that proposition. Is the gentleman authorized to speak for that side?

Several MEMBERS. Yes, yes.

Mr. COX, of New York. I do not propose to speak for any side of the House; I submit the proposition to both sides.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read the bill.

Mr. BLAND. I rise to a question of order.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. BLAND. I make the point of order against the bill that it creates new offices, provides for new salaries, and under the rules must first be considered in Committee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman raised that point of order a moment ago, and the Chair has already decided it.

Mr. BLAND. I did not understand the Chair to decide it.

The SPEAKER. The Chair decided that by unanimous consent this bill was made a special order for consideration.

Mr. BLAND. For consideration where? I ask that the rule be read.

The SPEAKER. All special orders for immediate consideration take the bills out of the Committee of the Whole into the House. The House has acted upon that principle within the last three days and all through the present Congress. The bill will now be read.

Mr. ATKINS. Will it be permissible to have read the order made in regard to this bill?

The SPEAKER. The Chair has stated that the House by unanimous consent gave the Committee on reform in the Civil Service the right to report this bill back at any time. Under the uniform practice of the House that gives the right for immediate consideration of the bill when reported back; makes it in fact a special order in the House. Within the last three days several bills reported by the Committee of Ways and Means, which were made a special order, were considered in the House and not in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. SPARKS. Do I not understand that in the case of all these special orders to have the bills considered in the House the order must be so framed as to make that direction?

The SPEAKER. The Chair does not recall a single instance when that was done.

Mr. SPARKS. That we can grant unanimous consent for a committee to report a bill to be considered at once in the House is perfectly correct. In that I agree with the Chair. But must it not be specifically fixed in the order that the bill is to be considered in the House?

The SPEAKER. The Chair will have a paragraph read from the Digest.

Mr. SPARKS. With perfect respect to the Chair I ask that the order in reference to this bill be read. The Chair has stated it, but I ask, if the clerks have it at hand, that it may be read.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman desires to have read the proceedings giving consent to the reporting of this bill back at any time. The Clerk will read from the RECORD.

Several MEMBERS. The Journal.

The SPEAKER. The Journal will be read.

The Clerk read as follows:

On motion of Mr. KASSON, by unanimous consent, bill of the Senate No. 133, to regulate and improve the civil service of the United States, and Senate bill No. 2288, to prevent officers or employés of the United States from collecting moneys, &c., were taken from the Speaker's table, read three times, ordered to be printed and referred to the Committed on Reform in the Civil Service, with leave to report thereon at any time.

Mr. SPARKS. Precisely. Now, Mr. Speaker, the committee has reported, and I insist that under the rules the bill must be considered in Committee of the Whole, for it certainly increases officials; it certainly involves the appropriation of money.

The SPEAKER. The Chair has already passed upon that question twice.

Mr. REAGAN. It will be found on examining the precedents upon this subject that where measures which should by the rules be first considered in Committee of the Whole have come up for consideration in the House, the order has embraced the statement that they should be considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole. When such an order is not made, a bill of this character, as I understand, must under the practice of the House go first to the Committee of the Whole for consideration, unless by agreement it be considered in the House. I make this statement because I have on various occasions obtained such orders from the House, and that clause was in each case believed to be necessary.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will have read the decision of the immediate predecessor of the present occupant of the chair, which is in accordance with the rulings of the present occupant of the chair during this Congress, and, so far as the Chair is informed, the uniform rulings in prior Congresses. The rulings in the Forty-sixth Congress, as the Chair is informed, were sustained by the House on appeal. The Clerk will read from page 358 of the Digest.

The Clerk read as follows:

When a bill or resolution is made a special order, the rule requiring consideration, if it contain an appropriation, in Committee of the Whole, in there by waived. (Journal, 3, 45, pages 241, 242.)

Mr. SPARKS. The committee was simply authorized to report this bill at any time; it was not made a special order.

The SPEAKER. The Chair has passed on that question. The House decides to proceed with the consideration of the bill. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. KASSON] is recognized.

Mr. KASSON. Let the bill be read.

The SPEAKER. The bill will be read.

The Clerk read as follows:

An act (S. 133) to regulate and improve the civil service of the United States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized to appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, three persons, not more than two of whom shall be adherents of the same party, as civil-service commissioners, and said three commissioners shall constitute the United States civil-service commission. Said commissioners shall hold no other official place under the United States.

The President may remove any commissioner; and any vacancy in the position of commissioner shall be so filled by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, as to conform to said conditions for the first selection of commissioners.

The commissioners shall each receive a salary of $3,500 a year. And each of said commissioners shall be paid his necessary traveling expenses incurred in the discharge of his duty as a commissioner.

SEC. 2. That it shall be the duty of said commissioners: First, To aid the President, as he may request, in preparing suitable rules for carrying this act into effect, and when said rules shall have been promulgated it shall be the duty of all officers of the United States in the Departments and offices to which any such rules may relate to aid, in all proper ways, in carrying said rules, and any modifications thereof, into effect.

Second. And, among other things, said rules shall provide and declare, as nearly as the conditions of good administration will warrant, as follows:
First, for open, competitive examinations for testing the fitness of applicants for the public service now classified or to be classified hereunder. Such examinations shall be practical in their character, and so fur as may be shall relate to those matters which will fairly test the relative capacity and fitness of the persons examined to discharge the duties of the service into which they seek to be appointed.

Second, That all the offices, places, and employments so arranged or to be arranged in classes shall be filled by selections according to grade from among those graded highest as the results of such competitive examinations.

Third, appointments to the public service aforesaid in the Departments at Washington shall be apportioned among the several States and Territories and the District of Columbia upon the basis of population as ascertained at the last preceding census. Every application for an examination shall contain, among other things, a statement, under oath, setting forth his or her actual bona fide residence at the time of making the application, as well as how long he or she has been a resident of such place.

Fourth, that there shall be a period of probation before any absolute appointment or employment aforesaid.

Fifth, that no person in the public service is for that reason under any obligation

861

to contribute to any political fund, or to render any political service, and that he will not be removed or otherwise prejudiced for refusing to do so.

Sixth, that no person in said service has any right to use his official authority or influence to coerce the political action of any person or body.

Seventh, there shall be non-competitive examinations in all proper cases before the commission, when competent persons do not compete, after notice has been given of the existence of the vacancy, under such rules as may be prescribed by the commissioners as to the manner of giving notice.

Eighth, that notice shall be given in writing by the appointing power to hold commission of the persons selected for appointment or employment from among those who have been examined, of the place of residence of such persons, of the rejection of any such persons after probation, of transfers, resignations, and removals, and of the date thereof, and a record of the same shall be kept by said commission.

And any necessary exceptions from said eight fundamental provisions of the rules shall be set forth in connection with such rules, and the reasons therefor shall be stated in the annual reports of the commission.

Third. Said commission shall, subject to the rules that may be made by the President, make regulations for, and have control of, such examinations, and, through its members or the examiners, it shall supervise and preserve the records of the same; and said commission shall keep minutes of its own proceedings.

Fourth. Said commission may make investigations concerning the facts, and may report upon all matters touching the enforcement and effects of said rules and regulations, and concerning the action of any examiner or board of examiners hereinafter provided for, and its own subordinates, and those in the public services in respect to the execution of this act.

Fifth. Said commission shall make an annual report to the President for transmission to Congress, showing its own action, the rules and regulations and the exceptions thereto in force, the practical effects thereof, and any suggestions it may approve for the more effectual accomplishment of the purposes of this act.

SEC. 3. That said commission is authorized to employ a chief examiner, a part of whose duty it shall be, under its direction, to act with the examining boards, so far as practicable, whether at Washington or elsewhere, and to secure accuracy, uniformity, and justice in all their proceedings, which shall be at all times open to him.

The chief examiner shall be entitled to receive a salary at the rate of $3,000 a year, and he shall be paid his necessary traveling expenses incurred in the discharge of his duty.

The commission shall have a secretary, to be appointed by the President, who shall receive a salary of $1,600 per annum. It may, when necessary, employ a stenographer and a messenger, who shall be paid, when employed, the former at the rate of $1,600 a year, and the latter at the rate of $600 a year. The commission shall, at Washington, and in one or more places in each State and Territory where examinations are to take place, designate and select a suitable number of persons, not less than three, in the official service of the United States, residing in said State or Territory, after consulting the head of the Department or office in which such persons serve, to be members of boards of examiners, and may at any time substitute any other person in said service living in such State or Territory in the place of any one so selected. Such boards of examiners shall be so located as to make it reasonably convenient and inexpensive, for applicants to attend before them; and where there are persons to be examined in any State or Territory, examinations shall be held therein at least twice in each year.

It shall be the duty of the collector, post master, and other officers of the United States, at any place outside of the District of Columbia where examinations are directed by the President or by said board to be held, to allow the reasonable use of the public buildings for holding such examinations, and in all proper ways to facilitate the same.

SEC. 4. That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to cause suitable and convenient rooms and accommodations to be aligned or provided, and to be furnished, heated, and lighted, at the city of Washington, for carrying on the work of said commission and said examinations, and to cause the necessary stationery and other articles to be supplied, and the necessary printing to be done for said commission.

SEC. 5. That any said commissioner, examiner, copyist, or messenger, or any person in the public service who shall willfully and corruptly, by himself or in co-operation with one or more other persons, defeat, deceive, or obstruct any person in respect of his or her right of examination according to any such rules or regulations, or who shall willfully, corruptly, and falsely mark, grade, estimate, or report upon the examination or proper standing of any person examined hereunder, or aid in so doing, or who shall willfully and corruptly make any false representations concerning the same or concerning the person examined, or who shall willfully and corruptly furnish to any person any special or secret information for the purpose of either improving or injuring the prospects or chances of any person so examined, or to be examined, being appointed, employed, or promoted, shall for each such offense be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than $100, nor more than $1,000, or by imprisonment not less than ten days, nor more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

SEC. 6. That within sixty days after the passage of this act it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury, in as near conformity as may be to the classification of certain clerks now existing under the one hundred and sixty-third section of the Revised Statutes, to arrange in classes the several clerks and persons employed by the collector, naval officer, surveyor, and appraisers, or either of them, or being in the public service, at their respective offices in each customs district where the whole number of said clerks and persons shall be altogether as many as fifty. And thereafter, from time to time, on the direction of the President, said Secretary shall make the like classification or arrangement of clerks and persons so employed, in connection with any said office or offices, in any other customs district. And, upon like request, and for the purposes of this act, said Secretary shall arrange in one or more of said classes, or of existing classes, any other clerks, agents, or persons employed under his Department in any said district not now classified; and every such arrangement and classification upon being made shall be reported to the President.

Second. Within said sixty days it shall be the duty of the Postmaster-General, in general conformity to said one hundred and sixty-third section, to separately arrange in classes the several clerks and persons employed or in the public service at each post-office, or under any postmaster of the United States, where the whole number of said clerks and persons shall together amount to as many as fifty. And thereafter, from time to time, on the direction of the President, it shall be the duty of the Postmaster-General to arrange in like classes the clerks and persons be employed in the postal service in connection with any other post-office; and every such arrangement and classification upon being made shall be reported to the President.

Third. That from time to time said Secretary, the Postmaster-General, and each of the heads of Departments mentioned in the one hundred and fifty-eighth section of the Revised Statutes, and each head of an office, shall, on the direction of the President, and for facilitating the execution of this act, respectively revise any then existing classification or arrangement of those in their respective Departments and offices, and shall, for the purpose of the examination herein provided for, include in one or more of such classes, so far as practicable, subordinate places, clerks, and officers in the public service pertaining to their respective Departments not before classified for examination.

SEC. 7. That after the expiration of six months from the passage of this act no officer or clerk shall be appointed, and no person shall be employed to enter or be promoted in either of the said classes now existing, or that may be arranged hereunder pursuant to said rules, until he has passed an examination, or is shown to be specially exempted from such examination in conformity herewith.

But nothing herein contained shall be construed to take from those honorably discharged from the military or naval service any preference conferred by the seventeen hundred and fifty-fourth section of the Revised Statutes, nor to take from the President any authority not inconsistent with this ac t conferred by the seventeen hundred and fifty-third section of said statutes; nor shall any officer not in the executive branch of the Government, or any person merely employed as a laborer or workman, be required to be classified hereunder; nor, unless by direction of the Senate shall any person who has been nominated for confirmation by the Senate be required to be classified or to pass an examination.

SEC. 8. That no person habitually using intoxicating beverages to excess shall be appointed to, or retained in, any office, appointment, or employment to which the provisions of this act are applicable.

SEC. 9. That whenever there are already two or more members of a family in the public service, in the grades covered by this act, no other member of such family shall be eligible to appointment to any of said grades.

SEC. 10. That no recommendation of any person who shall apply for office or place, under the provisions of this act which may be given by any Senator or member of the House of Representatives, except as to the character or residence of the applicant, shall be received or considered by any person concerned in making any examination or appointment under this act.

SEC. 11. That no Senator or Representative or Territorial Delegate of the Congress, or Senator, Representative, or Delegate elect, or any officer or employé of either of said Houses, and no executive, judicial, military, or naval officer of the United States, and no clerk or employé of any Department, branch, or bureau of the executive, judicial, or military or naval service of the United States shall, directly or indirectly, solicit or receive, or be in any manner concerned in soliciting or receiving, any assessment, subscription, or contribution for any political purpose whatever, from any officer, clerk, or employé of the United States, or any Department, branch, or bureau thereof, or from any person receiving any salary or compensation from moneys derived from the Treasury of the United States.

SEC. 12. That no person shall, in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by any officer or employé of the United States mentioned in this act, or in any navy-yard, fort, or arsenal solicit in any manner whatever, or receive any contribution of money or any other thing of value for any political purpose whatever.

SEC. 13. No officer or employé of the United States mentioned in the act shall discharge, or promote, or degrade, or in any manner change the official rank or compensation of any other officer or employé, or promise or threaten so to do, for giving or withholding or neglecting to make any contribution of money or other valuable thing for any political purpose.

SEC. 14. That no officer, clerk, or other person in the service of the United States shall, directly or indirectly, give or hand over to any other officer, clerk, or person in the Service of the United States, or to any Senator or Member of the House of Representatives, or Territorial Delegate, any money or other valuable thing on account of or to be applied to the promotion of any political object whatever.

SEC. 15. That any person who shall be guilty of violating any provision of the four foregoing sections shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine not exceeding $5,000, or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or by such fine and imprisonment both, in the discretion of the court.

Mr. KASSON. Mr. Speaker — [Cries of "Vote!" "Vote!"] I move the previous question on the bill. [Applause.]

Mr. REAGAN. I hope the gentleman will not do that.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. KASSON moved to reconsider the vote by which the previous question was ordered; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

Mr. KASSON. It is only fair to the House that I should say — [Cries of "Vote!" "Vote!"] Gentlemen will have the vote in a very few moments. I am endeavoring to do justice to them in calling attention to one or two things only in the bill. [Cries of "Regular order!"]

Mr. Speaker. I ask whether this is not the regular order?

The SPEAKER. The gentleman is in order under the rules. The House will be in order.

Mr. KASSON. I do not wish to abuse my privileges. I do not rise for the purpose of making a speech. I wish only to say that the committee have not been too blind to observe one or two errors in the bill. But in obedience to the feelings of the House they have passed these over, in order that the vote may be taken at once upon the bill. One of these errors is a mistake in a word, where instead of "secretary" the Senate bill includes the word "copyist," an office which was stricken out by the Senate, while that of secretary remains. There are two or three other errors of that sort. But we have been pressed so earnestly not to send the bill back to the Senate for any reason that we have yielded to the wishes of the House. I was not willing, however, that either this body or the Senate should suppose that I failed to observe some things which needed to be corrected, and which could be corrected without interfering at all with the purposes of the bill. [Cries of "Vote!"]

Mr. REAGAN. Are we not entitled to an hour for debate after the previous question?

The SPEAKER. The bill has not been debated on a previous day, and the present rule cuts off that right.

Several MEMBERS. Let us have the vote.

The SPEAKER. The House will be in order.

Mr. REAGAN. I wish to inquire whether, under the rules, this bill not having been debated on any previous day, we have not the right to be heard before the vote is taken upon its passage?

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state, in order that there may be no complaint, that under the present rules a bill or proposition which has not been debated and upon which the previous question is ordered is subject to debate for thirty minutes.

Mr. REAGAN. I desire to occupy a portion of that thirty minutes.

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman desire to occupy it in opposition to the bill?

862

Mr. REAGAN. I do.

Mr. KASSON. Let the gentleman from Texas control the fifteen minutes in opposition, and I will take the other fifteen minutes in favor of the bill.

Mr. REAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I am as much in favor of a wholesome and honest civil-service bill as any member in this House. My objection is not that this in a reform of the civil service, but it is to the fact that this bill is not effective, and in not honestly and fairly intended to be effective in accomplishing the object of civil-service reform.

Mr. RYAN. I insist the House shall be called to order, so we may know what is going on.

Mr. REAGAN. I have been led to believe from some careful attention I have given to the debate on this bill which occurred elsewhere, that it is an effort on the part of both political parties to cheat the country.

Mr. SPARKS. I rise to a point of order. We ought to have order in this House and there is no order. I desire to hear what the gentleman from Texas has to say in opposition to this bill. I think his views are eminently just.

The SPEAKER. Gentlemen occupying the aisles and the area in front of the Speaker's desk will resume their seats.

Mr. MILLS. If we do we can not hear what is going on.

Mr. REAGAN. I was stating, Mr. Speaker, when interrupted, that it seemed to me from the observation I have had of the discussion of this question that both political parties have believed they were succeeding in cheating the country, and that the Republican party knows it is succeeding in cheating the Democratic party. [Laughter.] I have some reasons on the face of the bill itself for this as well as in the general line of discussion.

We propose against one of the evils which has afflicted this country to prevent the contribution of money by clerks and other officials of the Government, to corrupt elections. How do we do it in this bill? We do it by forbidding officers of the Government to collect money from other officers of the Government, and by forbidding clerks at their places of business from paying money for such purpose.

But is there anything which will prevent the collection of money to corrupt elections? Now, it is not necessary that a Government officer should collect that money, but any private citizen under this law may collect money just as it has been collected by public officers and members of Congress heretofore. Why, then, go through the sham of telling the people by this bill we have cured that evil, when we know, when all men know, we have only made a mock pretense of curing it, leaving the whole thing to private persons to solicit, without subjecting themselves to any penalty, contributions from clerks or other officials of the Government? It contains provisions well enough in themselves, but ineffective.

The fifth subdivision of section 2 provides that no person in the public service is for that reason under any obligation to contribute to any political fund or to render any political service, and that he will not be removed or otherwise prejudiced for refusing to do so.

The sixth subdivision provider that no person in said service has any right to use his officer authority or influence to coerce the political action of any person or body.

Now, sir, these are well enough; but how can you enforce them? There is no penalty for disregarding these wise and proper provisions. They amount to so much blank paper as an effectual remedy against the evil the country complains of, and no more.

My objection is that this bill, being of a very important character, one in which the country feels profoundly interested, should have been matured upon proper privilege of debate and amendment, and should have been made an effectual remedy for the evil that the country complains of. And when I am called upon to vote for a measure of this kind to cheat the people into the belief that something is being done, when we know that it is not being done, I con not record my vote for it.

I yield now to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. TOWNSHEND] for a moment, saying that I will not vote under pressure for this bill, but desire an opportunity to make it a proper bill in order that it may command my approval.

Mr. TOWNSHEND, of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to make a speech upon this question, and shall not attempt to make one in the brief time allotted to me. I simply desired, in taking the floor now, to ask the gentleman from Iowa to allow one single amendment to be voted upon. I will ask the Clerk to read the amendment I would suggest in my time.

The Clerk read as follows:

That the solicitation of money, property, or other thing of value by any executive officer, clerk, or employé of the United States, or the giving by any such officer, clerk, or employé of any such money, property, or other thing of value, for political purposes, or to advance the political interests of any person or party, is hereby prohibited. And any person offending against any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in a sum not exceeding $500; and such offending party shall, in addition to the fine imposed, be discharged from his office.

Mr. TOWNSHEND, of Illinois. This, Mr. Speaker, is designed to remedy the defects suggested by the gentleman from Texas; and if the gentleman, from Iowa will permit a vote to be taken upon it, in my opinion this side of the House will be found solid in support of the bill as amended. I ask the gentleman therefore, to permit a vote to be taken upon the amendment.

Mr. KASSON. The gentleman from Illinois knows perfectly well that it is out of my power now to control the matter, after the previous question has been demanded and ordered.

Mr. TOWNSHEND, of Illinois. The gentleman can certainly do so by unanimous consent. If he will make the request of his side of the House for unanimous consent that the amendment may be voted upon, I think he will secure it.

Mr. REAGAN. I now yield one minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. ROBINSON].

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. I only desire, sir, to submit an amendment, which I ask the Clerk to read.

The SPEAKER. It is not in order now to offer amendments.

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. I ask that it be read as a part of my remarks.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amend the first section of the bill so that it will read:
"Be it enacted, &c., That the President who shall be elected in November, 1884, is authorized to appoint," &c.

And add at the end of it:
"This bill shall take effect on the 1st day of July, 1885."

Mr. ROBINSON, of New York. I only wanted to suggest the propriety of that amendment, and commend it to the consideration of the House.

Mr. REAGAN. I now yield three minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. ATKINS].

Mr. ATKINS. Mr. Speaker, I presume that the purpose of this bill in its fourteenth section is to break up political assessments. I assume that to be the object aimed at. Now, I submit that this fourteenth section, in these words —

That no officer, clerk, or other person in the service of the United States shall, directly or indirectly, give or hand over to any other officer. clerk, or person in the service of the United States, or to any Senator or member of the House of Representatives or Territorial Delegate, any money or other valuable thing on account of or to be applied to the promotion of any political object whatever — does no such thing. But if after the word "Delegate" you insert "or to any other person," then I submit that the section would become operative in the direction of breaking up such practices. I therefore ask the gentleman from Iowa who has charge of the bill to allow these words to be inserted if he really and sincerely desires that political assessments shall be entirely broken up.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Iowa could not consent at this time to accept an amendment. The previous question has been ordered.

Mr. ATKINS. It may be done by unanimous consent. Will the gentleman from Iowa consent? for I am sure he desires to break up political assessments.

Mr. KASSON. It is scarcely necessary for me to repeat what I have already said, especially to one so experienced in parliamentary practice as the gentleman from Tennessee, that, I have not the slightest authority to do what he asks any more than any other member of the House. I have no power, after the previous question is ordered, to consent to anything.

Mr. ATKINS. Then, sir, I desire to ask unanimous consent of this House that the words I have indicated may be inserted.

Mr. NEAL. I object.

Mr. ATKINS. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. NEAL] objects.

The SPEAKER. Objection is made on both sides.

Mr. HAMMOND, of Georgia. Who objects on this side?

The SPEAKER. A number of persons objected.

Mr. REAGAN. I now yield two minutes to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HERBERT].

Mr. HERBERT. Mr. Speaker, I believe that all the gentlemen who have spoken or written upon this question are practically agreed that the greatest evils which at present afflict our civil service have grown out of the tenure-of-office act, and the abuses of that act — the usurpations under it of powers never intended by the Constitution to be exercised by them. But yet the Senate, forgetful of or overlooking these abuses, have sent to us a bill with the pretentious title of an act to reform the civil service of the United States, leaving that tenure-of-office act in full force and effect.

I have desired, sir, that there should be a full and free discussion of this question and an opportunity given to amend the bill as in the judgment of many gentlemen upon this floor it ought to be amended. It is for the purpose now of sending up to be read an amendment I intended to propose, relating to the repeal of this act to which I refer, that I have sought the floor.

The SPEAKER. Amendments are not in order.

Mr. SPARKS. The amendment may be read as a part of the gentleman's remarks.

The SPEAKER. That may be done.

The Clerk read as follows:

Add as a new section the following:
"SEC. 16. That sections 1767, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, and 1772 of the Revised Statutes be, and they are hereby, repealed."

863

Mr. HERBERT. The Republican majority on this floor have called the previous question, applied the gag-law to cut off discussion. Thus while pretending to be civil-service reformers they have prevented a discussion of their civil-service record. Allowed as I was but two minutes on the floor, I propose briefly in print to express my views. That the Republicans are ashamed to have their record exposed is not strange. They have been defeated at the polls and condemned by the people.

Now they come up as reformers. They are for tariff reform, for internal-revenue reform, for reform in the rates of postage, for civil-service reform, for any sort of reform except that fundamental, reform the people seem to favor — the turning out of the Republican party and putting the Democracy in power.

But the pretenses these gentlemen put up are hollow; their reforms are simulated, not intended to benefit the people, but simply to help the Republican party. What the people demand is fair and equal taxation, cheaper clothing, cheaper farming utensils, a cheapening of all the necessaries of life — laws that will benefit the poor as much as the rich.

A fair sample of the reforms to be expected from this Congress is the reduction by the bill that has passed this House of letter postage from 3 to 2 cents. This is a plausible bid for votes in 1884. Of course everybody can see that this is a relief; but relief for whom? Relief for the man who writes many letters, not for the man at the plow.

The average member of Congress spends, say $120 per annum for postage-stamps. He votes himself relief to the amount of $40. His constituent who writes one letter a month he relieves 12 cents per annum. Then that bill will create a deficiency of two or three millions of dollars in the postal service. That deficiency must be made up by higher taxes on blankets and shoes and window-glass and tin and other articles used by the people.

When the tariff bill comes in, which these gentlemen are working on with so much assiduity, it too will be found a sham and a delusion, a bill not for the relief of the people but for the relief of the Republican party. I may vote for it. I shall vote for it if in any respect it equalizes the burdens of taxation, but I shall never accept it as a finality while it fails, as it will fail, to do full justice to the laborers on the farms and in the workshops; to all the consumers of manufactured articles.

So, too, I vote for this bill to reform the civil service. I know it is only a pretense — a half-way measure; but it is at least a condemnation of Republican methods and Republican practices, and no Republican shall get ahead of me in condemning his own methods.

The attitude the Republicans assume on this floor to-day is amusing. Their professions when contrasted with their performances render them absurd; but ridiculous as it is to see these new converts making the welkin ring with their songs of reform the questions they are putting to the front in this last session of the Forty-seventh Congress all deserve and must receive at the hands of their political opponents serious consideration. All the world knows that they are merely playing for power, but we can not afford to simply laugh at and deride them, we must check-mate their moves.

It is a matter of history that the Republican party when drunk with power boldly defies the laws of God and man, but when sobered by defeat it is shrewd and cautious and keenly alive to public sentiment. It is in that condition to-day. To satisfy the demands of public opinion they are proposing measure after measure; and, I desire Democrats to mark it, they all come up for a bill to reform the civil service. However they may differ on other questions, they practically all agree on that. Is it wise for us to say that these gentlemen, coming from every State in the dominant section of this Union save one, are all mistaken — that they none of them know what hurt them in the recent elections?

A few years ago a leading Republican, voicing what was undoubtedly the belief of his party, spoke of the gentlemen engaged in advocating civil-service reform as "them d—d literary fellows," who knew nothing about practical politics. Even up to the last day of the last session of this Congress, ay, and up to the very night of the November elections, the Republican party treated the civil-service reformers with contempt. But now see what a change. Scarce sixty days have elapsed and the Republican Senators in caucus have resolved to support and have passed a bill substantially as suggested by the Civil Service Reform Association of New York.

New York city is a great center of thought and political influence. New York is the State in which the spoils system has been carried to its furthest extreme; and, mark it, there where the war in the last election campaign was made fiercest against the spoils system, there where Cleveland represented reform and Folger represented the Republican methods which this bill condemns, Cleveland was elected by the greatest majority ever given for any candidate for any State office in America.

The Republicans here, learning a lesson from the sentiment developed in New York and elsewhere, are determined to make a pretense of obedience to it. I do not believe it wise for Democrats to defy it. That sentiment is an aspiration for better and purer politics. If it should be that the Democracy is defeated in 1884, it shall not be said of me that I contributed to that defeat by defying public sentiment and refusing to aid our Republican brethren in their work of self-condemnation. In that work I stand in front of the foremost Republican.

Therefore I shall not vote against this bill because it does not go far enough.

I know the Republicans wish to put us on the record as opposed to this bill. One of them in this discussion, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. CALKINS], sought to drive us to-day into that position. He declared that by the bill the Republicans were securing the offices covered by it, even if we were victorious in 1884. It was a shrewd endeavor to drive us into opposing it. He well knows that the bill does not take away and does not pretend to take away the power of removal. I would never vote for it if it did. I believe the Democratic party if it comes into power ought to make many removals, not only in the places not covered by this bill, but especially in the Departments at Washington and among the clerks. We must go to the bottom if we over expect to get at the bottom facts.

The wisdom, the experience, of this country is that there ought to be changes in the executive offices. The officers who handle the people's money ought to be changed now and then. They ought to be compelled to settle their accounts. Look at the constitutions of our States. I do not know that any of them place any limit upon the power of the people to re-elect their members of the legislative branch. What legislators do is known of all men. If faithful, the people may continue them. But with executive offices it is different. Take, for instance, sheriffs. They handle large sums of money. In Alabama they can not under the constitution succeed themselves. They must settle. In nearly or quite every other State there is some similar provision.

In these Departments here at Washington those who have handled millions and billions of the people's money ought to be made to settle. They can only settle with successors. Unless such settlements are made the people can never know how they stand with the Government.

The clerks and chiefs of divisions of Departments here carry on the administrative Departments of this Government. The heads of Departments know little or nothing of the details of administration. How can they? Take for instance a single item. The United States court expenses in Alabama for the year ending June 30, 1881, were over $146,000. In every State, in every Territory, there were similar accounts. What Secretary of the Treasury could look into these vast accounts when hundreds of millions of dollars in other accounts required the same scrutiny?

Marshals may bribe through their accounts, commissioners may buy, claimants of all sorts may corrupt the clerks who pass upon these acts counts, and yet the Secretary of the Treasury may never discover the frauds.

The fact is that the thieves have stolen and stolen from the Government until their consciences will not allow them to keep it all. A few days since I read in the Evening Star, the following:

CONSCIENCE CONTRIBUTIONS — The Treasurer of the United States has received from "J. R.," attorney, the sum of $4,000 in cash for account of the conscience fund, sent at the request of a client, and covering principal and interest; and Mr. Rogers, acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue, has received $100 in a letter postmarked York, Pennsylvania, with the information that the money belonged to the United States internal revenue.

And if frauds are discovered what guarantee have we that Republican heads of Departments will excise Republican rascalities? I take it that Republican Cabinet officers are, not more honest than Republican Congressmen — and what have we seen here? When Credit Mobilier frauds first leaked out a Republican committee made a white-washing report. It was only when compiled by the press and public opinion that the truth came. So, since I have been in Congress, a Democratic House sought to impeach the United States minister to China. We had good reason to believe he was guilty of every fraud in the calendar. The Republicans, by parliamentary tactics, fought off the investigation. He was, to use the phrase of one of their former leaders, "their rascal," and they were determined to protect him. If Congressmen dare do this in the face of the country, will not a Secretary do the same thing for his vassal when no one but he knows of his rascality?

Take another instance. It is an open secret that the star-route frauds were never discovered till a clerk who had been turned out gave the clew.

Take Howgate. He had been stealing for years. Tens of thousands of dollars had gone into his pocket, and the public never knew of it till he was turned out and Hazen put in.

The people of this country can never know how they stand. They can never have a reckoning so long as they permit the Republican party to reckon with themselves alone.

One reason why I vote for this bill is that if honestly carried out it will put some Democrats in position even under a Republican administration. I vote for it also because it requires a fair distribution of the offices in the Departments at Washington among the bona fide inhabitants of the States and Territories. Alabama has not her fair share of offices in these Departments. She eventually will have if the provisions of this bill are carried out.

I vote for it because it is a step in the right direction — because if the clerks here at Washington who handle the people's money are not all of one party no party will be responsible for the rascals among them, and no head of a Department will have party reasons prompting him to cloak frauds and hide defalcations.

But I do not vote for it because, forbidding as it does the consideration of recommendations of Congressmen for clerkships in Washington, it would save me trouble and annoyance. To help those who have

864

helped me would be my highest pleasure; to put into places of honor and emolument those who have adhered to me through good and evil report there is no labor I would not undergo, no honorable task I would not undertake. Yet I am conscious there is a broader and higher and nobler object before me than the gratification of my own personal wishes in the selection of a few clerks in the Departments at Washington.

This bill will give the people I represent a larger share of the clerkships at Washington than they have ever had before; but there is something the people want more than these clerkships. They want a Democratic administration that will give us just and wholesome laws, that will give us as far as possible judges and marshals and tax-gatherers who are of the people and in sympathy with the people. For one I will never imperil the chance of securing these great blessings by defying what I believe to be a widespread sentiment that the Departments at Washington shall no longer be filled by the favorites of Congressmen.

The bill is limited in scope, and if the experiment it proposes shall accomplish no good result, a Democratic Congress, if we succeed in 1884, can repeal it. It applies nowhere except in the Departments at Washington and in offices where there are more than fifty employés. Thus it will be seen it does not apply to a single office in the South, unless, perhaps, there may be fifty employés in the custom-house and post-office in New Orleans. Where it does apply it provides that clerks shall be admitted upon competitive examinations and not upon the recommendation of Congressmen.

The Constitution does not give to Congressmen the power of appointment. It vests that power in the Executive Department of the Government, in the President and heads of Departments. The power to remove these clerks is left untouched. A new administration might, if it saw proper, sweep away everyone of these clerks in a day. The bill applies only to the mode of admission to clerkship. Examinations are to be had to ascertain the fitness of the applicant. When Alabama's quota is to be filled certainly Alabama Democrats can compete with Alabama Republicans.

There are about 120,000 places under this Government. The bill covers only about 10,000 clerkships.

The Republicans seem to think that by tying their own hands as to these few minor offices they can hoodwink the people. But the disease lies far deeper. What the people complain of is the use made of the offices all over the country; bribing men with office to support the party; giving a deputy collectorship to the proprietor of newspapers to secure the support of these papers; appointing pretended special agents of the Government and sending them over the country with mileage and perdiem pay, drawn from the people's treasury to influence political conventions.

I am reliably informed that a Mr. A. T. Wimberley was appointed a special agent of the Treasury Department in August last; his appointment was for four months, which would cover the period of the Congressional election; that he went to the second Congressional district of Alabama and attended a Greenback convention at Greenville; that his purpose in going there was to aid the Republican candidate for Congress; that he then went to Mississippi and took an active part for Chalmers against Manning, his pay going on all the time. Civil-service reform will never be complete until such robberies of the Treasury shall cease. There is nothing in the bill to prevent the repetition of such offenses.

But I will not elaborate here. I have simply given instances of what occurred all over the country in the last election. I simply intend to show briefly why I vote for this bill.

The avowed purpose of those who outside of this Congress framed it and have had the power to force it on the Republican party is to give us a better, a purer, a more economical civil service. I trust it may succeed as far as it goes. It was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution that those holding political offices, such as Representatives and Senators in Congress, should use minor offices to bribe the people to keep themselves in power, putting unworthy men in place for their own personal gain. Such practices have been denounced by the greatest men of the past — by Clay, by Webster, and Calhoun. Some abuses have always existed, perhaps always will; but the Republican party has made the system more odious to the people than it ever was before.

They have capped the climax by the tenure-of-office act. This act was passed in 1807. It was passed by the Republicans to tie the hands of Andrew Johnson. It provides that those officers to whoso appointment the Senate must consent can not be removed without the consent of the Senate. After it was passed Senators found that it gave them complete control each in his own State of all the patronage, all the offices, if he was with the Administration, because there grew up what was called the courtesy of the Senate, which was simply an understanding that the Administration Senators should be masters in their own States. So they dictated to the President and dictated to the people who their officers should be, and thus became absolute princes, chieftains dividing among themselves the plunder won in political battle. Let me give one instance of the practical working of this law in Republican politics.

The possession of the custom-house at New York was part of the booty won by the campaign of 1880. Garfield supposed that under the Constitution the right of appointment was his. Conkling thought that under the tenure-of-office act and by the courtesy of his fellow-chieftains it was his. In the quarrel the Senator lost his political life and the President fell by the bullet of the assassin. The country stood aghast and the people went into mourning, while the Republican chieftains went on with their quarrels over the spoils. Imagine Clay, or Webster, or Calhoun resigning a seat in the Senate because a President would not permit him to control a custom-house; and then picture to yourself a follower of the resigning Senator murdering the Chief Magistrate because he refused to give the Senator the share of booty he claimed.

Instances of just such quarrels, followed by just such assassinations, might be found without number among the half-savage tribes that plundered Europe in the Dark Ages, but in American politics such a thing was impossible till the Republican party passed the tenure-of-office act. I desired to have opportunity to discuss the bill and amend it. I intended to propose as an amendment the repeal of this act. If the majority party here had consented to repeal that act it would have shown that their desire to reform was genuine. But they have denied the right of amendment. The Senators who have been eloquent in favor of this bill are determined to hold on to their power over the plunder, and it remains now to be seen whether in 1884 the people will not take the question of reform into their own hands by putting the Democracy in control of this Government.

I want to say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, simply this: I know the Republican party is sick, sick unto death; it needs reform, needs it badly; but the gentlemen on the other side need not expect by such medicine as this little half-way measure to cure the sick man. A strong man in the agonies of death can not be cured by homoeopathic doses of catnip tea.

Mr. REAGAN. I want to add one word to what I stated before. I have said this was an effort of both political parties to cheat the country, and a clear case in which the Republicans know they were cheating the Democrats. I did not say why I made that statement. It will be soon the competitive examinations provided for are only for the lowest classes of clerks. There are no competitive examinations required for the higher classes of clerks. And as I understand it we are simply legislating Republican clerks into office without examination, instead of having a fair civil service that shall be non-partisan and that shall respect alike the rights of both parties.

If I have any time left I yield it to my friend from Missouri [Mr. BUCKNER].

Mr. BUCKNER. I do not know if I have a right to take time from my friend from Texas, because he opposes this bill and I am for it, decidedly so. But I would like to give the reasons why I am for the bill, and I can not get any time from the other side of the House, I do not know that the gentleman from Iowa proposes to let anybody on this side speak for the bill.

I want to say that I am for this bill not so much for what it contains as for its promise of good things in the future. It is but an entering-wedge. I hope, to break down that most iniquitous system which has existed in this country for the last forty years, having as its motto "To the victors belong the spoils." The public sentiment is now drifting in the right direction, and I am willing to give my support, and that fairly and fully, to this entering-wedge, to this beginning of reform throughout the civil service of this country.

The SPEAKER. The time allowed in opposition to the bill has expired. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. KASSON] is entitled to the floor.

Mr. KASSON. I yield three minutes to my colleague on the committee, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. CALKINS].

Mr. CALKINS addressed the committee. [See Appendix.]

Mr. WILLIS. I ask the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. KASSON] if he proposes that only gentlemen on his side shall be heard in support of the bill?

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. KASSON] is entitled to the floor. Does he yield to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. WILLIS]?

Mr. KASSON. I yield, at present two minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ROBINSON].

Mr. ROBINSON, of Massachusetts. I am heartily in favor of this bill. It is in the right direction. We have read enough in the platforms of both political parties; here is a chance to do something.

In some of the States of this country have just been inaugurated officers of the Democratic party; and I have noticed they have made haste, no matter what their declarations have been in recent platforms, to turn out well-tried public servants and put in some of their own retainers and supporters. I want this Congress here and now to express itself in this bill, so that it may be in accord with the sentiment of this country.

I hear some gentlemen say, "Oh yes, we are for reform, but this does not reform enough." I am somewhat alarmed when I find a man who says he wants to reform but cannot begin at all unless he can reform all over in one minute. If there is not enough in this bill, still let us take it gladly, give it a cordial welcome and support, and we will pass some other bill some day which will go as far as our most progressive friends want.

Mr. KASSON. I now yield two minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. WILLIS]. I wish it could be more.

Mr. WILLIS. I am very much obliged to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. KASSON] for permitting me to say that while there are a few on this side of the House who criticise the failure of this bill to give

865

adequate relief upon that greatest enormity of our present civil service, the iniquitous political assessment system, we have already demonstrated by our votes to-day, and we will further demonstrate by our action hereafter, that we are heartily in favor of this and all other measures of reform.

The country will not be deceived or misled by anything that maybe done or said at this late day. The record of both political parties is made up, and by it they must stand or fall. What is that record?

Toward the close of the last session when the sundry civil bill was under discussion I had occasion to call attention to it. Bills that had been pending for over half a year before the select committee charged with the duty of examining and reporting upon them had been tossed contemptuously aside as the offspring of Utopian enthusiasts and visionary sentimentalists. The proposition to restore to active work the Civil Service Commission, although it required only the sum of $25,000 — a paltry amount in view of the ends to be attained — was greeted upon this floor with derisive jeers, and fierce opposition. The cause of reform, spurned and neglected by its chosen champions, appeared utterly hopeless and helpless. Such was the unfriendly outlook when we left this hall last August.

But three short months have passed and to-day what do we see. A change has come over the spirit of our legislative desires and purposes. Apathy has given way to activity; ridicule has been succeeded by eulogy and admiration; the stone which was rejected of the builders has become the chief corner-stone of our political temple. From the first hour of this second session until the present moment bill has followed bill and resolution has crowded fast upon resolution; civil service is the watchword — the high and most imperative demand of the hour. Thus in the words of Gerald Massey:

We are beaten back in many a fray,
But never strength we borrow;
Where the vanguard camps to-day
The rear shall rest to-morrow.

Sir, I do not recall these facts in any unkind or critical spirit, nor any narrow, partisan purpose. The questions involved in this proposed legislation, and in every branch of it, are, in every view, of profound concern. Many of us, all, I may say, who have given any thought to the subject, believe that if the abuses of patronage continue, if the interests of the public are to be sacrificed to partisan and personal purposes, the experiment at self-government will prove a failure; if, in a word, there is not a prompt and thorough revolution in our methods of administering our Government we will soon have no government to administer. The issues involved in this bill are not, therefore, necessarily party issues. They are issues of public virtue, of peace, purity, fraternity, and good government, involving the welfare and concerning the honor of the whole American people.

Those issues, we on this side of the House are ready now to meet, and we have always been ready to meet. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. REAGAN] and other gentlemen on this side have made no objection to the chief provisions of this bill. They have complained, and in my judgment rightly complained that the sections aimed at political assessments are utterly insufficient.

Political assessments are one of the most conspicuous evils of our corrupt civil service. In every form of opinion, by every department of the Government — executive, legislative, and judicial — by the President and by the people, these forced levies have been denounced as a national disgrace and a national dishonor.

Need I remind this House how the plain principles of common right and justice have been repeatedly trampled under foot under this system? Need I recall the history and operations of the campaign assessment circulars which have biennially gone their rounds and made their demand — a demand to which every officer, every clerk, every employé in the civil service of this country must respond?

In the light of the acknowledged facts is there even a respectable minority upon this floor which will deny the necessity for legislation that will effectually and forever put an end to this great evil and disgrace? Had we not therefore the right to expect upon this point the most stringent and far-reaching legislation? The committee had before them a bill which was carefully prepared and submitted to the supervision of men of the highest intelligence, the most extensive information, and the largest practical experience upon this subject. I allude to H. R. 520. At the first national conference of the civil-service reform associations of the United States, held at Newport, Rhode Island, a resolution was offered by Mr. Wheeler, of New York, and adopted.

Resolved, That the bill introduced in the House of representatives of the United States, by Mr. WILLIS, of Kentucky (H. R. 520), provides practicable and judicious measures for the remedy of the abuse known as political assessments, and that the associations represented in this conference will use every honorable means in the press, on the platform, and by petition, to secure its passage by Congress.

This action of the national association has been supplemented by the petitions of many thousands of our citizens praying for the passage of this bill. I am surprised and they will be surprised that their petitions have been unheard, or if heard, unheeded. Instead of the careful, well-guarded provisions of that bill we have four short sections in the Senate bill reported back by the committee. I do not think that any gentleman who examines these sections and compares them with this bill will hesitate in his decision as to which will effectually put an end to political assessments. I submit it to this House that a coach and four could be comfortably driven through those sections.

Federal officials are prohibited from collecting assessments from other Federal officials, but there, is no prohibition upon others, not in the Government service from soliciting, and no prohibition against the payment by Federal employés of assessments to such persons. Without a law as broad as this I see no remedy for this pernicious practice of assessments.

Vast sums of money, sums undreamed of by the uninitiated, are collected and expanded, not for the "necessary and legitimate expenses of the campaign," under which shallow pretense the money is contributed, but in bribing and debauching the voters of the country, thus holding out a premium for crime, treachery, and venality.

The public has cried out against these evils which threaten the overthrow of our republican institutions. This money is largely the result of assessments upon the office-holders of the country — the men whose salaries are paid by both political parties.

What we need is a law positively forbidding the payment by office-holders of money for political purposes. Public policy, the purity and security of the ballot-box, demand such legislation. The necessity, the propriety, and the constitutionality of such a law can not successfully be denied. The office-holder is a public trustee, and may be required to forego the privilege of contributing money for political purposes on the ground that such payment is prejudicial to the faithful and proper discharge of his trust.

The statutes of the United States prohibit, under heavy penalties, members of Congress from exercising the privilege of contracting with the Government, because it would lead to corruption. Upon the same principle these assessments could be and should be stopped.

The people will not and ought not therefore to be satisfied with this, imperfect legislation. It holds the word of promise to their ears and breaks it to their hopes.

In striking contrast to the evasive and delusive language of these sections I call the attention of the House to the clear, comprehensive, and vigorous clauses of the bill which I hold in my hand. It not only, if enacted, puts an end at once to money contributions, but it prohibits the use of official influence either by promises of increased salaries or of help of any kind toward a Government employé by reason of his having refused or omitted to pay a political assessment. It prohibits any one from paying or promising to pay an assessment in return for appointment to office. It prohibits members of Congress from using their authority against employed in public offices for failure to make payment of assessments.

It specifically declares that "no person shall prepare or make out, or take any part in preparing or making out, any political assessment with the intent that the same shall be sent or presented to, or collected of, any officer, agent, or employed under the Government of the United States; and no person shall knowingly send or present any political assessment to or request its payment of, any said officer, agent, or employé."

It authorizes any person paying an assessment to recover the same by suit within one year, thus increasing the probabilities of detection where the law has been violated. After prohibiting "political assessments" in terms it gives a definition of such assessments which is specific, thorough, comprehensive, and exhaustive.

That the phrase "political assessment," as used herein, shall be deemed to include every form of request payment, loan, advance, or other contribution, or promise of money or any other thing of value, for or in aid of any party or political purpose whatsoever, whether the same be conditional or absolute, whether based on any salary or compensation or otherwise, and whether the application to such purpose is to be direct or through any method of indirection or disguise.

It will be seen that this assumes that the abuse aimed at is not limited to money assessments. That species of assessment of itself is sufficiently unjustifiable and corrupting, but, as is well known, the evil is much more insidious and far-reaching in its nature. Offices may be and are sometimes obtained, contracts may be awarded or withheld, penalties released, the collection of fines staid or omitted, neglect of duty, carelessness, even open dishonesty, may be overlooked or condoned upon the understanding, express or implied, that the beneficiaries of such favors shall become active friends and liberal contributors to the campaign fund of the party. Sinecures may be secured, high salaries and even pensions may be promised or withheld for the same purpose. I will not be understood as charging that all of these things have been done, but I am now commenting upon what are reasonable probabilities and easy possibilities in an excited political contest.

These, then, and every other method devised by partisan avarice to arbitrarily swell its coders and perpetuate its power are intended to be embraced in the definition of "political assessments" as given in this bill.

Sir, if we are in earnest, as I hope we are, in the desire to overthrow this great evil, let us give our support to a bill such as this, which has been indorsed by the friends of reform everywhere. If we are halfhearted in our determination, if we want only to scotch and not to kill this creature of corrupt politics, the way is clear; we have only to pass a law such as is contained in these four sections, and let it be, as it will be, easily and promptly evaded. I submit to the House, however, that

866

something more than this is expected of us by the country. I submit these hurried suggestions now in the hope that when the committee reports back the Senate bill upon this subject now before them they will be constrained to give us some substantial relief.

As to the remaining sections of the bill, which provide for open competitive examinations, I can say for myself and for the overwhelming majority on this side that they will receive our hearty support. The experience of other countries as well as our own demonstrates the necessity and practicability of a reform measure such as this. I will not attempt, for the House is ready to vote, to discuss these sections. Two years ago I introduced here the bill which we now have before us. The more fully I have studied the history of the civil service of our own and of other lands the more fully I have been convinced of the necessity of this legislation if we would bring back our country to its ancient and honorable principles of purity, simplicity, economy, and honesty.

Mr. KASSON. I desire in the very few minutes left to say a word upon the progress of reform in the civil service. This is not the first step, as gentlemen have said, that has ever been taken in the direction of civil-service reform. The first legislative step was under old Democratic administration, and was simply to provide for an undefined examination. Under that examination the habit arose of leaking it trifling and yielding too much to the pressure for appointments by Congressional influence.

The next step which I find upon the statutes was one taken at the close of one of my former terms in Congress, I think in 1867. It was the provision of law prohibiting the levying or soliciting of contributions in navy-yards from laborers employed by the United States, and was intended to cure an evil that had long previously grown up of applying political assessments to that class of employés.

Later a civil-service commission was created, but public opinion was not sufficiently ripened to make it effective, nor a law sufficiently matured.

The next step was taken in a conference committee, where I had the honor, in connection with Senator BAYARD, of Delaware, to prepare that section of the law against official assessments and contributions under which a conviction has been had in the city of New York not many months ago.

This further progress is now due, let me say it frankly, to the rightful judgment of Congress, inspired by honest and earnest recommendations of the Executive, and by organizations outside of Congress among the people, under the name of civil-service reform associations. We owe it to the rightful appreciation of the importance of the subject from both these sources that we now have the fruit in the form of this and other bills which have been presented. The young men of the country, and the active, intellectual, and non-political forces, have largely contributed to this result.

Let me say, for myself and for my committee, that while this bill, as originally reported, made no provision against assessments, made no provision against Congressional patronage, and in several other respects was infirm and deficient, the Committee on Civil Service Reform thought it their duty to prepare a bill which would cover both of those offenses against a correct administration of the civil service, and also to provide for protection against arbitrary removals.

I am proud to stand upon my own convictions of duty, and on my own judgment of the elements of true reform. I say now and here that in several particulars the bill reported by the Civil Service Reform Committee of this House is more effective and more thorough than that which we have decided to offer now, in order to more surely secure the passage of some bill that shall accomplish some good results. Our own bill might fail in House or Senate. The Senate has incorporated in amendments — less complete, but possibly effective — our prohibitions of patronage and assessments, and have made the original machinery less cumbrous, and have preserved the Presidential powers.

The present bill is less bureaucratic than the original. It is not here and now, as with some men, that I for the first time lift my voice in favor of this reform. I did so before the last election and upon the stump in the State of Iowa. I fear no man's censure, knowing the sincerity of my purpose to get a thorough and genuine reform in the civil service. I must censure some provisions of this bill. I say frankly that I think the bill, while nominally apportioning appointments among all the States and Territories, fails to provide that the selection shall be made among the inhabitants of each State and Territory, by competition among themselves. But I hope that under the rules which will be established pursuant to its provisions that result may yet be accomplished. This bill as first introduced has been amended, as I said, by ingrafting two of the important provisions of the bill reported by our committee, namely, provision against assessments and provision against Congressional interference in patronage, not so thoroughly as we had proposed, but still it has set the current against those evils. We sought to prevent arbitrary removals. This bill leaves that evil untouched.

Say what gentlemen may, the popular voice, as well as justice itself, is against the tyrannical levying of assessments upon office-holders, and against what is called "bossism" in Congress. If the bill known as the Pendleton bill had not touched these subjects before it left the Senate I should have come to another conclusion as to the duty of this House. But it has touched them; it has organized in Congress the moral sentiment of the country against that system, and I therefore cheerfully and heartily support this bill as an important step in advance of existing law.

But gentlemen on the other side of the House say, "But you do not prevent office-holders from paying something to somebody who is not in office." That is true, and I am glad it is true. When I am asked to take away the manhood of an American citizen, simply because he holds a petty office under the Government, and to say that he shall not voluntarily pay his money for any lawful purpose, as you and I in and out of Congress may do, and as all citizens may do, I will not consent to degrade his manhood to that condition. He has the right to give or withhold his money freely. We must only require that no man shall oppress or unduly influence him to do it. We have no constitutional right to limit his personal liberty. The gentleman from Kentucky has no more right to contribute to apolitical fund than has the humblest clerk in a Department of this Government. This bill forbids undue influence over the contribution. It allows no official whatever to ask him for such contribution. It allows him, also, the freedom of a citizen to give or refuse.

The House bill was intended to go further and prohibit officers of political organizations from asking employés of the Government for contributions for political purpose. The Senate has not seen fit to go that far. I am still content with this as a great step, which taken away no liberty of the humblest officer, but preserves the right of every citizen to help any cause which he believes to be good and honest, whether religious, educational, or political. Under these circumstances I think we were right in reporting the Senate bill and laying aside that which if approved by the House would still have to pass the criticism of the Senate before it should become a law. Better this bill assuredly than merely the chance of a better one.

The SPEAKER. The question is on ordering the bill to a third reading.

The bill was ordered to a third reading; and was accordingly read the third time.

Mr. KASSON. I now call the previous question on the passage of the bill.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. KASSON moved to reconsider the vote by which the previous question was ordered; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

Mr. KASSON. I call for the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill.

Mr. SPRINGER. I desire to make a motion to recommit with instructions.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. THOMPSON] is recognized.

Mr. THOMPSON, of Kentucky. I move to recommit the bill to the select committee with instructions to report back in lieu of section 6 the provision which I send to the desk, and to amend section 14 by inserting, in line 5, after "Delegate," the words "or any other person."

Mr. MILLS. Let us have the yeas and nays on the motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Kentucky moves that the bill be recommitted to the Select Committee on Reform in the Civil Service, with instructions which the Clerk will read.

The Clerk read as follows:

Strike out section 6, and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"SEC. 6. That the various clerks, agents, officers, and employed to whom this act applies shall be divided, by the appointing officers thereof, into four divisions, known as divisions A, B, C, and D, each officer dividing his own appointees. All those falling into division A shall be appointed for one year, and upon the expiration of this term those then appointed into division A shall be for four years. All those falling into division B shall be appointed for two years, and upon the expiration of this term those then appointed into division B shall be for four years. All those appointed into division C shall be for three years, and upon the expiration of this term those then appointed into division C shall be for four years. All those appointed into division D shall be for four years, and upon the expiration of this term for a like term: which division and appointment shall be made before and take effect March 4, 1883. That in the first cast of said divisions there shall be placed as near an equal number of each grade or class of clerks, officers, agents, and employés as is practical, the object being to make said divisions as near equal in size and in the number of each grade or class of clerks, officers, agents, and employés, and to keep them so, as is practical. If a vacancy occur in any division the appointment to fill the vacancy shall only be made for the balance of the unexpired term."

Amend section 14 by inserting, after the word "Delegate," in line 5, the words "or any other person."

The SPEAKER. The question is upon the motion of the gentleman from Kentucky to recommit with the instructions which have been read.

Mr. HAMMOND, of Georgia. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. Can we not have a separate vote upon these two propositions?

Many MEMBERS. Oh, no!

The SPEAKER. But one motion to recommit is in order.

Mr. THOMPSON, of Kentucky. At the request of a number of gentlemen I modify my motion by withdrawing all of the proposed instructions except the amendment to section 14.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Kentucky modifies his motion to recommit, so that the instructions shall be as the Clerk will read.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amend section 14, line 5, by inserting, after the word "Delegate," in said line, the words "or any other person."

867

Mr. THOMPSON, of Kentucky. And that the committee report for immediate consideration at any time.

Mr. KASSON. I ask for a vote on this motion, begging the House not to delay the passage of the bill.

The SPEAKER (having put the question). In the opinion of the Chair, the motion is not agreed to.

Mr. THOMPSON, of Kentucky. I call for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and there were — yeas 85, nays 113, not voting 91; as follows: YEAS — 85
Alken,
Atherton,
Atkins,
Beach,
Belmont,
Beltzhoover,
Berry,
Blackburn,
Blanchard,
Bland,
Blount,
Bragg,
Brumm,
Buchanan,
Buckner,
Caldwell,
Carlisle,
Cassidy,
Clark,
Cobb,
Cox, Samuel S.
Cox, William R.
Cravens,
Culberson,
Curtin,
Davis, Lowndes H.
Deuster,
Dowd,
Dunn,
Ermentrout,
Flower,
Forney,
Frost,
Garrison,
Geddes,
Gunter,
Hammond, N. J.
Hardy,
Haseltine,
Hatch,
Herbert,
Hewitt, G. W.
Hoblitzell,
Hoge,
Holman,
Jones, George W.
Kenna,
King,
Klotz,
Knott,
Leedom,
Le Fevre,
Manning,
Matson,
McKenzie,
McLane, Robt. M.
McMillin,
Mills,
Moore,
Morrison,
Moulton,
Mutchler,
Nolan,
Oates,
Phelps,
Reagan,
Robinson, Wm. E.
Rosecrans,
Ross,
Singleton, Otho R.
Sparks,
Springer,
Stockslager,
Talbott,
Thompson, P. B.
Turner, Henry G.
Turner, Oscar
Upson,
Vance,
Warner,
Wellborn,
Williams, Thomas
Willis,
Wilson,
Wise, George D.

NAYS — 113.
Aldrich,
Anderson,
Barr,
Bayne,
Belford,
Bingham,
Bisbee,
Bliss,
Bowman,
Briggs,
Buck,
Burrows, Julius C.
Burrows, Jos. H.
Butterworth,
Calkins,
Campbell,
Candler,
Cannon,
Carpenter,
Caswell,
Chace,
Crapo,
Cullen,
Deering,
De Motte,
Dezendorf,
Dingley,
Errett,
Farwell, Sewell S.
Fisher,
Ford,
George,
Godshalk,
Grout,
Guenther,
Hall,
Hammond, John
Hardenbergh,
Harmer,
Harris, Benj. W.
Haskell,
Hepburn,
Hewitt, Abram S.
Hill,
Hiscock,
Hitt,
Houk,
Hubbs,
Humphrey,
Jacobs,
Jadwin,
Jones, Phineas
Jorgensen,
Kasson,
Kelley,
Ketcham,
Lacey,
Lewis,
Lindsey,
Lord,
Marsh,
McClure,
McCook,
McKinley,
McLean, Jas. H.
Miller,
Morey,
Morse,
Neal,
Norcross,
O'Neill,
Payson,
Peelle,
Peirce,
Pettibone,
Ranney,
Reed,
Rice, Wm. W.
Rich,
Richardson, D. P.
Ritchie,
Robeson,
Robinson, Jas. S.
Ryan,
Scoville,
Scranton,
Sherwin,
Skinner,
Smalls,
Smith, A. Herr
Smith, J. Hyatt
Speer,
Spooner,
Steele,
Taylor,
Thomas,
Thompson, Wm. G.
Townsend, Amos
Tyler,
Updegraff,
Urner,
Van Aernam,
Van Horn,
Wads worth,
Wait,
Walker,
Ward,
Washburn,
Watson,
Webber,
Williams, Chas. G.
Willits,
Wood, Walter A.

NOT VOTING — 91.
Armfield,
Barbour,
Black,
Brewer,
Browne,
Cabell,
Camp,
Chapman,
Clardy,
Clements,
Colerick,
Converse,
Cook,
Cornell,
Covington,
Crowley,
Cutts,
Darrall,
Davidson,
Davis, George R.
Dawes,
Dibrell,
Dugro,
Dunnell,
Dwight,
Ellis,
Evins,
Farwell, Chas. B.
Fulkerson,
Gibson,
Harris, Henry S.
Hazelton,
Heilman,
Henderson,
Herndon,
Hooker,
Horr,
House,
Hubbell,
Hutchins,
Jones, James K.
Joyce,
Ladd,
Latham,
Lynch,
Mackey,
Martin,
Mason,
McCoid,
Miles,
Money,
Mosgrove,
Muldrow,
Murch,
Pacheco,
Page,
Parker,
Paul,
Phister,
Pound,
Prescott,
Randall,
Ray,
Reese,
Rice, John B.
Rice, Theron M.
Richardson, J. S.
Robertson,
Robinson, Geo. D.
Russell,
Scales,
Shackelford,
Shallenberger,
Shelley,
Shultz,
Simonton,
Singleton, J. W.
Smith, Dietrich C.
Spauding,
Stone,
Strait,
Townshend, R. W.
Tucker,
Valentine,
Van Voorhis,
West,
White,
Whitthorne,
Wise, Morgan R.
Wood, Benjamin
Young.

So the motion was disagreed to.

The following additional pairs were announced from the Clerk's desk:
Mr. RICHARDSON, of South Carolina, with Mr. DWIGHT.

Mr. BROWNE with Mr. WHITTHORNE.

Mr. KAY with Mr. SCALES.

On motion of Mr. VAN HORN, by unanimous consent, the reading of the names was dispensed with.

Mr. TUCKER. I am paired with Mr. RUSSELL, of Massachusetts. If he were present, I would vote in the affirmative.

Mr. TOWNSHEND, of Illinois. I am paired with my colleague [Mr. HENDERSON]. If he were present, I would vote in the affirmative.

The SPEAKER. The rule requires pairs should be submitted in writing.

The vote was then announced as above recorded.

Mr. KASSON. I ask by unanimous consent that gentlemen may have the privilege of extending their remarks; and that all members who desire to do so may have leave to print remarks on this bill.

Mr. HASKELL and Mr. BRAGG objected.

The SPEAKER. The question recurs on the passage of the bill.

Mr. KASSON demanded the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it wad divided in the affirmative — yeas 155, nays 47, not voting 87; as follows:

YEAS — 155.
Aldrich,
Anderson,
Barr,
Bayne,
Beach,
Belford,
Belmont,
Beltzhoover,
Berry,
Bingham,
Bisbee,
Blanchard,
Bowman,
Bragg,
Briggs,
Buck,
Buckner,
Burrows, Julius C.
Burrows, Jos. H.
Butterworth,
Calkins,
Campbell,
Candler,
Cannon,
Carlisle,
Carpenter,
Cassidy,
Caswell,
Chace,
Clark,
Cobb,
Cox, Samuel S.
Cox, William R.
Crapo,
Cravens,
Cullen,
Curtin,
Davis, Lowndes H.
Deering,
De Motte,
Deuster,
Dezendorf,
Dingley,
Ermentrout,
Erret,
Farwell, Sewell S.
Fisher,
Flower,
Ford,
Frost,
George,
Godshalk,
Grout,
Guenther,
Gunter,
Hall,
Hammond, John
Hardy,
Harmer,
Harris, Benj. W.
Haseltine,
Haskell,
Hatch,
Hepburn,
Herbert,
Hewitt, Abram S.
Hewitt, G. W.
Hill,
Hiscock,
Hitt,
Hoblitzell,
Holman,
Houk,
Humphrey,
Jacobs,
Jadwin,
Jones, Geo. W.
Jones, Phineas.
Jorgensen,
Kasson,
Kelley,
Ketcham,
Klotz,
Lacey,
Lewis,
Lindsey,
Lord,
Matson,
McClure,
McCook,
McKinley,
McLane, Robt. M..
McLean, Jas. H.
Miles,
Miller,
Morey,
Morrison,
Morse,
Moulton,
Mutchler,
Neal,
Nolan,
Norcross,
O'Neill,
Payson,
Peelle,
Peirce,
Pettibone,
Phelps,
Pound,
Ranney,
Reed,
Rice, Wm. W.
Rich,
Richardson, D. P.
Ritchie,
Robeson,
Robinson, Geo. D.
Robinson, Wm. E.
Rosecrans,
Ryan,
Scoville,
Scranton,
Sherwin,
Singleton, Otho R.
Skinner,
Smith, A. Herr
Smith, J. Hyatt
Speer,
Spooner,
Springer,
Stockslager,
Talbott,
Taylor,
Thompson, P. B.
Thompson, Wm. G.
Townsend, Amos
Tyler,
Updegraff,
Urner,
Vance,
Van Aernam,
Van Horn,
Wadsworth,
Wait,
Walker,
Ward,
Washburn,
Watson,
Webber,
Williams, Chas. G.
Willis,
Willits,
Wilson,
Wood, Walter A.

NAYS — 47.
Alken,
Atherton,
Atkins,
Blackburn,
Bland,
Bliss,
Bount,
Brumm,
Buchanan,
Caldwell,
Clements,
Culberson,
Dunn,
Forney,
Garrison,
Geddes,
Hammond, N. J.
Hardenbergh,
Hoge,
Hubbs,
Kenna,
King,
Knott,
Leedom,
Le Fevre,
Manning,
Marsh,
McKenzie,
McMillin,
Mills,
Moore,
Oates,
Reagan,
Robinson, Jas. S.
Ross,
Smalls,
Sparks,
Steele,
Thomas,
Turner, Henry G.
Turner, Oscar
Upson,
Warner,
Wellborn,
Whitthorne,
Williams, Thomas
Wise, George D.

NOT VOTING — 87.
Armfield,
Harbour,
Black,
Brewer,
Browne,
Cabell,
Camp,
Chapman,
Clardy,
Colerick,
Converse,
Cook,
Cornell,
Covington,
Crowley,
Cutts,
Darrall,
Davidson,
Davis, George R.
Dawes,
Dibrell,
Dowd,
Dugro,
Dunnell,
Dwight,
Ellis,
Evins,
Farwell, Chas. B.
Fulkerson,
Gibson,
Harris, Henry S.
Hazelton,
Heilman,
Henderson,
Herndon,
Hooker,
Horr,
House,
Hubbell,
Hutchins,
Jones, James K.
Joyce,
Ladd,
Latham,
Lynch,
Mackey,
Martin,
Mason,
McCoid,
Money,
Mosgrove,
Muldrow,
Murch,
Pacheco,
Page,
Parker,
Paul,
Phister,
Prescott,
Randall,
Ray,
Reese,
Rice, John B.
Rice,Theron M.
Richardson, J. S.
Robertson,
Russell,
Scales,
Shackelford,
Shallenberger,
Shelley,
Shultz,
Simonton,
Singleton, Jas. W.
Smith, Dietrich C.
Spaulding,
Stone,
Strait,
Townshend, R. W.
Tucker,
Valentine,
Van Voorhis,
West,
White,
Wise, Morgan R.
Wood, Benjamin
Young.

So the bill was passed.

The following additional pains were announced from the Clerk's desk:
Mr. CABELL with Mr. FARWELL of Illinois.

Mr. JOYCE with Mr. WHITE.

Mr. WEST. I am paired with Mr. DIBRELL. If I were at liberty to vote I would vote in the affirmative.

Mr. BLACKBURN. I am paired with Mr. HUBBELL on all political questions; but not understanding this to be a political question, I claim the privilege of voting, after conference with his colleagues on that side of the House. I vote "no."

Mr. WHITTHORNE. I am paired with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. BROWNE] on all partisan questions. Not regarding this a partisan question, I have voted, and voted "no." I make the statement in justice to the gentleman from Indiana. If present, he would vote "ay."

Mr. REESE. I am paired with Mr. DAVIS, of Illinois. If not paired, I would vote against the bill in its present form.

Mr. ROBESON. I desire to say that my colleague Mr. BREWER, who is absent on important business, if present would vote "ay."

868

Mr. SMITH, of Illinois. I am paired with Mr. HOUSE, of Tennessee. If he were here, I would vote "ay."

Mr. McMILLIN. I desire to change my vote from "ay" to "no."

Mr. TUCKER. I am paired on political questions with Mr. RUSSELL, of Massachusetts. If he were present, I would vote "ay" on the passage of the bill.

Mr. ROBINSON, of Massachusetts. I desire to state that my colleague Mr. RUSSELL, if present, would vote the same way — for the bill.

Mr. TOWNSEND, of Ohio. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the names be dispensed with.

There was no objection.

The result of the vote was then announced as above stated.

Mr. KASSON moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.