disappoint the expectations of his friends." It was estimated that a thousand removals had been made before the meeting of Congress in December, and twice that number by the end of Jackson's first year. Most of the important offices were included in the list.

There was not, however, a "clean sweep." Kendall, in his review of the condition of the government during the first three years of Jackson's term, states that only one-seventh of the officials at Washington, one-sixteenth in the post-office department, and one-eleventh in the country at large were replaced during that period. Benton, who regarded the removals as "indispensable," in view of the small number of resignations, declares that judicial officers, save one judge, were not disturbed; that only four out of seventeen foreign representatives were recalled during the first year, and that in the departments at Washington a majority of the employés remained opposed to Jackson throughout his administration. Certain it is, however, that there were loud complaints of the number and the circumstances of removals, particularly of postmasters; that the public service deteriorated, and that business men and others who had to deal with federal agencies were embarrassed and annoyed. There was particular complaint of the appointment of Jackson editors, fifty-five of whom received offices during the first two years, many of them continuing their editorial duties while holding office.1

In his first annual message, December, 1829, Jackson urged the propriety of excluding members of Congress "from all appointments in the gift of the President in whose election they may have been officially concerned." Judicial, diplomatic, and cabinet officers were excepted. The excepted officers were obviously the ones of most importance, yet Jackson himself had negatived his own recommendation in advance by appointing, within three months of his inauguration, two collectors, an appraiser, and a district attorney from members of Congress. His appointments of this class in one year were more numerous than those of any of his predecessors in a term. The message further recommended a general extension of the law which limited certain classes of appointments to four years. The reasons advanced in support of such a step were as ridiculous as they were specious. Long continuance in office, Jackson declared, inevitably begets indifference to the public interests, and opens the way for incompetency and corruption. "The duties of all public officers are, or at least admit of being made, so plain and simple that men of in

2

Salmon, Appointing Power, 59.

Young, American Statesman, 480; Sumner, Jackson (rev. ed.), 191; Debates of Congress, VI., 242.

1

telligence may readily qualify themselves for their performance." Moreover, as no one has any more intrinsic right than another to an office, "no individual wrong" is done by removal, "although individual distress may be sometimes produced." "He who is removed has the same means of obtaining a living that are enjoyed by the millions who never held office." 1

Two months elapsed before all the nominations made during the recess were sent in, and the subject was before the Senate for two months more. Frequent requests for a statement of the reasons for particular removals were made, and were availed of as occasions for debate. Webster doubted whether the Constitution vested in the president the power of removal without the consent of the Senate, holding it to be "only incident to the power of appointment." He asked Chancellor Kent for an opinion, and the great jurist, who had heard the question debated in 1789, was inclined to agree with Hamilton, in the Federalist, that the consent of the Senate was needed. "The power to appoint and reappoint, when all else is silent, is the power to remove." At the same time, he regarded the action of the first Congress and the acquiescence of half a century as closing the constitutional question.

1 Richardson, Messages and Papers, II., 448.
Federalist, No. 77.

• Webster, Private Corresp., I., 483, 486, 487.

Against the expediency of such wholesale removals, with the resulting demoralization of the public business, there was better ground for argument. Many of the nominations were eventually rejected by the Senate. A few very objectionable ones were withdrawn. Webster wrote that the debate, of course in secret session, was "sometimes pretty warm," and refers to "the importunities of friends and the dragooning of party." "Were it not for the fear of the out-door popularity of General Jackson," he adds, "the Senate would have negatived more than half his nominations."2 Kendall's nomination was confirmed only by the casting vote of the vice-president, perhaps from fear lest Kendall, if rejected, might establish a paper in opposition to the Telegraph.

3

To just what extent Jackson's policy changed the personnel of the civil service cannot be stated with precision. If the statements of Kendall and Benton be accepted and there is no reason to doubt their approximate correctness-only a minority of officeholders were directly affected. All the evidence seems to show that it was the manner as much as the number of removals that impressed public opinion, and that after the first year the excitement largely subsided. We do not hear much of the

4

1 See, e.g., Richardson, Messages and Papers, II., 474, 477. • Webster, Private Corresp., I., 501.

Sumner, Jackson (rev. ed.), 191, quoting an ambiguous subject after 1830, partly, perhaps, because those who remained in office had been terrorized, and partly because there were few more important offices to fill. There was occasional discussion of the constitutional issue in Congress, and in 1835 a bill, introduced by Calhoun, providing for a repeal of the act of 1820, and for the submission of the reasons for removals to the Senate, passed the Senate by aid of the combined opposition; but the House took no action.

The substantial victory, therefore, lay with Jackson. There is no evidence that he ever regretted the course he had pursued. Frequent reference in his letters to the corrupt use of executive patronage by Adams suggests probably the main reason why Jackson thought such wholesale reform necessary. He seems to have convinced himself, also, that there was dishonesty in the public service. He wrote to Van Buren that the late removals of comptrollers and auditors had been made in the interest of honesty, adding, characteristically: "The people expect reform-they shall not be disappointed; but it must be judiciously done, and upon principle." 1 In September, 1829, he wrote again to Van Buren that there were no complaints against General Cass, governor of Michigan territory, and no intention of removing him, "unless, in the settlement of his accounts, he should prove a defaulter, and you know