nations of Theodore Roosevelt to succeed
Arthur as collector, Edwin A. Merritt to succeed George H. Sharpe
as surveyor, and L. B. Prince to succeed A. B. Cornell as naval
officer. All of them were rejected by the Senate on the 29th of
October. On the 6th day of December, during the following session,
Roosevelt, Prince and Merritt were again nominated, and the two
former were again rejected. Merritt was confirmed as surveyor on
the 16th of December.

This action of the Senate was indefensible. There was not the
slightest objection to Roosevelt or Prince, and none was made.
The reasons for a change were given in the report of the Jay
commission. Even without this report the right of the President
to appoint these officers was given by the constitution. To compel
the President to retain anyone in such an office, charged with the
collection of the great body of the revenue from customs, in the
face of such reasons as were given for removal, was a gross breach
of public duty. No doubt the Democratic majority in the Senate
might defend themselves with political reasons, but the motive of
Mr. Conkling was hostility to President Hayes and his inborn desire
to domineer. The chief embarrassment fell upon me. I wished to
execute the reforms needed in the collector's office, but could
only do it with his consent. The co-operation required was not
given, and the office was held in profound contempt of the President.
If the rejection of these nominations had been placed upon the
ground of unfitness, other names could have been sent to the Senate,
but there was no charge of that kind, while specific and definite
charges were made against the incumbents. Other names were mentioned
to the President, and suggestions were made, among others by Whitelaw
Reid, whose letter I insert:

"New York, March 29, 1878.
"My Dear Mr. Sherman:--Leaving Washington unexpectedly this morning,
I was unable to call again at the treasury department in accordance
with your polite invitation of last night. I have, however, been
thinking over the customhouse problem of which you asked my opinion.
It seems to me, more and more clear, that, if a new appointment is
to be made, it should be controlled by two considerations: First,
the appointee should be a man who can be confirmed; and, second,
he should be a man equal to all the practical duties of the place,
which are necessarily and essentially political as well as
mercantile.

"To nominate