The Political Fight Over Federal Jobs
A brewing rebellion among Democratic legislators in Olympia threatens the leadership of Col. Griggs over the spoils of federal patronage.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The senatorial situation, interesting as it is, does not command attention of Democrats as absorbing as does the subject of Federal patronage distribution. The senatorship fight is but an incident, from the Democratic point of view, of the great struggle for the Federal offices. There is a difference of opinion among the Democratic members as to the influence the senatorial nominee is entitled to exert in the matter of appointments, and this difference is widening. A number of Democrats in the legislature are candidates for government positions. When Griggs was first named nearly all were willing to concede that Cleveland should listen to his advice, by virtue of the position given him by his party caucus, but as the senatorial contest has progressed, the suspicion has grown among the candidates who do not feel sure of their standing with Griggs, that they are being made the victims of a plot to corral the best places for Pierce countymen.
“The position taken by the anti-Griggs men is based upon the theory that they will have a majority in the caucus, but they may be counting without their host.”
The transition of federal power often triggers internal party warfare over appointments, a cycle that remains a staple of American politics. This report captures the raw, transactional nature of 19th-century machine politics in the Washington State Legislature.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.