The Writings of Carl Schurz/To President Cleveland, March 26th, 1885
TO PRESIDENT CLEVELAND
New York, March 26, 1885.
I have just received your kind note of the 23d inst. and hasten to remove a wrong impression which my letter seems to have produced. It is that it “indicated the wishes of a friend and ally who had a right to insist upon the recognition he asks.” Nothing could be farther from my mind than to insist upon a “recognition.” The practice of recognizing persons by the use of official trust for political or personal services rendered, is on the contrary one of the practices I have frequently denounced as dangerous. What I want to see recognized is not a person but the public interest. But above all, I trust there is nothing in my letter in the remotest degree open to the construction that I could possibly want you to do a wrong thing simply because I asked it. I should be sorry if such a thought has crossed your mind. I argued in favor of Mr. Pearson's reappointment only upon public grounds, believing him to be a true exponent of those principles upon which the public service should be conducted, and that by his reappointment the public interest would be greatly benefited. If there are facts in your possession showing that Mr. Pearson is not the kind of man we took him to be, or that by his reappointment the public interest will not be served, I should be the last man on earth to desire that reappointment. I should openly applaud his rejection.
But in that event, permit me to suggest, the Administration would owe it to itself as well as to the public, to let it be understood what the real reasons for Mr. Pearson's rejection were. This is no ordinary case. It has been widely and with unusual interest discussed in the press as well as in private. The friends of civil service reform have earnestly advocated this reappointment because it would greatly advance the cause they have at heart. The spoils politicians in the Democratic party oppose it because they do not want that reform. Your enemies in the Democratic party and the more unscrupulous Blaine men wish it should not be done because they do not want you to have the credit of it and do want to spite the Independents. Among the best class of citizens it has been generally expected as the proper thing. If it is not done, the naked fact of Mr. Pearson's rejection would be understood by the public as a victory of the partisan spirit which opposes your principles over the public spirit which upholds them.
This would be deplorable. Nothing but public knowledge of the facts in Mr. Pearson's career which rendered his rejection necessary will remove that impression. We here have been led to believe that the charges made against Mr. Pearson under the last Administration were a mere flimsy contrivance on the part of a Republican faction to get rid of a good public servant because they could not use him—just the reason why a true reform Administration would insist upon keeping him. That contrivance did not seem to Mr. Arthur sufficient to serve even as a decent excuse for Mr. Pearson's removal. The matter would have to appear, of course, in an aspect far more grave to cause his rejection now. The worst thing for the character of the Administration would be the use of insufficient charges against Mr. Pearson as a mere pretext; the next worst thing, his rejection for partisan reasons frankly avowed; the best thing, his reappointment if his record is found good, or, if not, a frank avowal of the reasons which compelled his rejection. Those reasons being sufficient, they will be most promptly and heartily approved by those who most earnestly advocated Mr. Pearsons reappointment.
I need scarcely add that this would not in any sense invalidate the arguments I had the honor to submit to you for keeping in place some unobjectionable Republican officers so that the way for the establishment of a non-partisan service be opened.
Pardon me for a general remark upon the relations, as I conceive them, between the Independents and your Administration. That remark is called forth by what you say of “insisting upon a recognition.” The support we gave you in the campaign was a free offering. The suggestions we occasionally venture upon now are a free offering again—the latter, of course, to be presented only as long as welcome. We supported you because we thought so to serve the public good. We try to advise you to the same end. I will not deny that there is now one feeling of a somewhat selfish character in all this, but only one. It is that we want to get as the product of our work as much public good as possible. We wish that at the close of your Administration we may stand fully justified before ourselves and before the country, and speak with pride of the results of what we have done. We wish also that by your success our influence upon public opinion for the public good may be strengthened as it would certainly be very much weakened by your failure. This is all the recognition we want. And in this sense let me say again, that your success will be all the more certain and complete, the more consistent, far-seeing and thorough your Administration is in its reform policy.