Civil Government in the United States Considered with Some Reference to Its Origins

by John Fiske

Practically all will admit that the Elastic Clause, if construed strictly, ought not to be construed too narrowly; and, if construed liberally, ought not to be construed too loosely. Neither party has been consistent in applying its principles, but in the main we can call Hamilton the founder of the Federalist party, which has had for its successors the National Republicans of 1828, the Whigs of 1833 to 1852, and the Republicans of 1854 to the present time; while we can call Jefferson the founder of the party which called itself Republican from about 1792 to about 1828, and since then has been known as the Democratic party. This is rather a rough description in view of the real complication of the historical facts, but it is an approximation to the truth.

[Sidenote: Tariff, Internal Improvements, and National Bank.] It is not my purpose here to give a sketch of the history of American parties. Such a sketch, if given in due relative proportion, would double the size of this little book, of which the main purpose is to treat of civil government in the United States with reference to its origins. But it may here be said in general that the practical questions which have divided the two great parties have been concerned with the powers of the national government as to (1) the Tariff; (2) the making of roads, improving rivers and harbours, etc., under the general head of Internal Improvements; and (3) the establishment of a National Bank, with the national government as partner holding shares in it and taking a leading part in the direction of its affairs. On the question of such a national bank the Democratic party achieved a complete and decisive victory under President Tyler. On the question of internal improvements the opposite party still holds the ground, but most of its details have been settled by the great development of the powers of private enterprise during the past sixty years, and it is not at present a "burning question." The question of the tariff, however, remains to-day as a "burning question," but it is no longer argued on grounds of constitutional law, but on grounds of political economy. Hamilton's construction of the Elastic Clause has to this extent prevailed, and mainly for the reason that a liberal construction of that clause was needed in order to give the national government enough power to restrict the spread of slavery and suppress the great rebellion of which slavery was the exciting cause.

[Sidenote: Civil service reform.] Another political question, more important, if possible, than that of the Tariff, is to-day the question of the reform of the Civil Service; but it is not avowedly made a party question. Twenty years ago both parties laughed at it; now both try to treat it with a show of respect and to render unto it lip-homage; and the control of the immediate political future probably lies with the party which treats it most seriously. It is a question that was not distinctly foreseen in the days of Hamilton and Jefferson, when the Constitution was made and adopted; otherwise, one is inclined to believe, the framers of the Constitution would have had something to say about it. The question as to the Civil Service arises from the fact that the president has the power of appointing a vast number of petty officials, chiefly postmasters and officials concerned with the collection of the federal revenue. Such officials have properly nothing to do with politics; they are simply the agents or clerks or servants of the national government in conducting its business; and if the business of the national government is to be managed on such ordinary principles of prudence as prevail in the management of private business, such servants ought to be selected for personal merit and retained for life or during good behaviour. It did not occur to our earlier presidents to regard the management of the public business in any other light than this.

[Sidenote: Origin of the "spoils system.">[ But as early as the beginning of the present century a vicious system was growing up in New York and Pennsylvania. In those states the appointive offices came to be used as bribes or as rewards for partisan services. By securing votes for a successful candidate, a man with little in his pocket and nothing in particular to do could obtain some office with a comfortable salary. It would be given him as a reward, and some other man, perhaps more competent than himself, would have to be turned out in order to make room for him. A more effective method of driving good citizens "out of politics" could hardly be devised. It called to the front a large class of men of coarse moral fibre who greatly preferred the excitement of speculating in politics to earning an honest living by some ordinary humdrum business. The civil service of these states was seriously damaged in quality, politics degenerated into a wild scramble for offices, salaries were paid to men who did little or no public service in return, and thus the line which separates taxation from robbery was often crossed.

[Sidenote: "Rotation in Office.">[ [Sidenote: The "spoils system" made national] About the same time there grew up an idea that there is something especially democratic, and therefore meritorious, about "rotation in office." Government offices were regarded as plums at which every one ought to be allowed a chance to take a bite. The way was prepared in 1820 by W.H. Crawford, of Georgia, who succeeded in getting the law enacted that limits the tenure of office for postmasters, revenue collectors, and other servants of the federal government to four years. The importance of this measure was not understood, and it excited very little discussion at the time. The next presidential election which resulted in a change of party was that of Jackson in 1828, and then the methods of New York and Pennsylvania were applied on a national scale. Jackson cherished the absurd belief that the administration of his predecessor Adams had been corrupt, and he turned men out of office with a keen zest. During the forty years between Washington's first inauguration and Jackson's the total number of removals from office was 74, and out of this number 5 were defaulters. During the first year of Jackson's administration the number of changes made in the civil service was about 2,000. [34] Such was the abrupt inauguration upon a national scale of the so-called "spoils system." The phrase originated with W. L. Marcy, of New York, who in a speech in the senate in 1831 declared that "to the victors belong the spoils." The man who said this of course did not realize that he was making one of the most shameful remarks recorded in history. There was, however, much aptness in his phrase, inasmuch as it was a confession that the business of American politics was about to be conducted on principles fit only for the warfare of barbarians.

[Footnote 34: Sumner's Jackson, p. 147.]

In the canvass of 1840 the Whigs promised to reform the civil service, and the promise brought them many Democratic votes; but after they had won the election, they followed Jackson's example. The Democrats followed in the same way in 1845, and from that time down to 1885 it was customary at each change of party to make a "clean sweep" of the offices. Soon after the Civil War the evils of the system began to attract serious attention on the part of thoughtful people. The "spoils system" has helped to sustain all manner of abominations, from grasping monopolies and civic jobbery down to political rum-shops. The virus runs through everything, and the natural tendency of the evil is to grow with the growth of the country.

[Sidenote: The Civil Service Act of 1883.] In 1883 Congress passed the Civil Service Act, allowing the president to select a board of examiners on whose recommendation appointments are made. Candidates for office are subjected to an easy competitive examination. The system has worked well in other countries, and under Presidents Arthur and Cleveland it was applied to a considerable part of the civil service. It has also been adopted in some states and cities. The opponents of reform object to the examination that it is not always intimately connected with the work of the office,[35] but, even if this were so, the merit of the system lies in its removal of the offices from the category of things known as "patronage." It relieves the president of much needless work and wearisome importunity. The president and the heads of departments appoint (in many cases, through subordinates) about 115,000 officials. It is therefore impossible to know much about their character or competency. It becomes necessary to act by advice, and the advice of an examining board is sure to be much better than the advice of political schemers intent upon getting a salaried office for their needy friends. The examination system has made a fair beginning and will doubtless be gradually improved and made more stringent. Something too has been done toward stopping two old abuses attendant upon political canvasses,—(1) forcing government clerks, under penalty of losing their places, to contribute part of their salaries for election purposes; (2) allowing government clerks to neglect their work in order to take an active part in the canvass. Before the reform of the civil service can be completed, however, it will be necessary to repeal Crawford's act of 1820 and make the tenure of postmasters and revenue collectors as secure as that of the chief justice of the United States.

[Footnote 35: The objection that the examination questions are irrelevant to the work of the office is often made the occasion of gross exaggeration. I have given, in Appendix I, an average sample of the examination papers used in the customs service. It is taken from Comstock's Civil Service in the United States, New York, Holt & Co., 1885, an excellent manual with very full particulars.]

[Sidenote: The Australian ballot-system.] Another political reform which promises excellent results is the adoption by many states of some form of the Australian ballot-system, for the purpose of checking intimidation and bribery at elections. The ballots are printed by the state, and contain the names of all the candidates of all the parties. Against the name of each candidate the party to which he belongs is designated, and against each name there is a small vacant space to be filled with a cross. At the polling-place the ballots are kept in an inclosure behind a railing, and no ballot can be brought outside under penalty of fine or imprisonment[36]. One ballot is nailed against the wall outside the railing, so that it may be read at leisure. The space behind the railing is divided into separate booths quite screened from each other. Each booth is provided with a pencil and a convenient shelf on which to write. The voter goes behind the railing, takes the ballot which is handed him, carries it into one of the booths, and marks a cross against the names of the candidates for whom he votes. He then puts his ballot into the box, and his name is checked off on the register of voters of the precinct. This system is very simple, it enables a vote to be given in absolute secrecy, and it keeps "heelers" away from the polls. It is favourable to independence in voting,[37] and it is unfavourable to bribery, because unless the briber can follow his man to the polls and see how he votes, he cannot be sure that his bribe is effective. To make the precautions against bribery complete it will doubtless be necessary to add to the secret ballot the English system of accounting for election expenses. All the funds used in an election must pass through the hands of a small local committee, vouchers must be received for every penny that is expended, and after the election an itemized account must be made out and its accuracy attested under oath before a notary public. This system of accounting has put an end to bribery in England.[38]