The Partisan’s Price: How Civil Service Reform Cost a Delegate His Seat

Among the resolutions adopted at the late Republican National Convention, and which all Republican politicians profess to endorse, is the following: 'The invariable rule for appointments should have reference to the honesty, fidelity and capacity of the appointees... permitting all others to be filled by persons selected with sole reference to the efficiency of the public service.'

Yet a card published in the *Intelligencer*, endorsed by A.B. Young—a self-described 'staunchest Republican in King county'—serves as a beautiful commentary on these professions of civil service reform. Writing from Fort Ward on August 14, 1876, Young attacks Delegate O. Jacobs, stating: 'Pardon me if I make a suggestion. O. Jacobs... has no need to render said account, for nothing which he can say—certainly nothing which he has done—can restore to him the confidence which the Republican party once placed in him.'

Young goes further, suggesting Jacobs be escorted to the upcoming Territorial Convention by 'Lane, of Oregon, and Beriah, of Seattle,' with 'Ned' (Edward H. Brown) tacked onto his coat tail like Grant’s brother was to Greeley’s. The animus is exclusively personal, based solely on the ground that Jacobs has favored civil service reform to the detriment of his party friends.

The *Dispatch* defends Jacobs, noting that his appointment as Clerk of the Court was recommended by the Republican Central Committee and a large majority of both parties. The real controversy stems from the removal of 'dead heads' and 'dead beats'—older appointees who held office in violation of age laws. Edward H. Brown’s appointment as Inspector of Customs filled a vacancy with a qualified man, meeting the requirements of the Republican platform.

The paper concludes that the grumbling about Jacobs’ infidelity to his party is based on his association with gentlemen of adverse political sentiments and his refusal to bow to 'bigots and boors' who regard devotion to party as the sole claim to public position. It asserts that if Jacobs is not returned to Congress, it will be because faithful services are not appreciated by the people.