The Ethics of the Office: Fighting the 'Spoils' System in 1876 Seattle

Whose dog art thou? This is the fashion in which the filth ones of the Courier breed bay at us. The editor is filled with wonder and indignation that a man who holds a subordinate office of trust and emolument under a Republican Administration can have the temerity to declare himself a free American citizen, independent of party subserviency. He exclaims: 'If he can show us a political precedent for such an untenable position, he will oblige us.' It is evident that he belongs to that brood of politicians who regard the management of government as a system of personal rewards and punishments, where offices are simply for the reward of party services—'spoils of victory.' He is not alone in that view, but belongs to that large class of politicians who know no other issue and never discuss any public measure but in its relation to party success. This is the class of politicians who have caused all the corruption and public scandal which now overshadow the fair fame of our country, and who most vigorously oppose civil service reform. The idea that the Clerk of a Court is any more of a party office than that of a cashier in a Bank or a Book-keeper in a commercial house is not only degrading to the public service, but an insult to the Judiciary. Chief Justice Lewis entertains no such degraded idea of his public functions. He demanded nothing more than a faithful discharge of the duties of the office which he conferred upon us, without any surrender of private rights or opinions. When our political views clash in such a measure as to interrupt our confidential relations, then it will be our duty to tender our resignation; but it does not follow that while we hold the position we must surrender all personal rights to the dictation of party.