some one president had succeeded in accomplishing the reform. So long as he remains in office, well and good; but the expiration of his term installs in his place a successor who may or may not share his own deep sense of its importance, and the reform is seen to be ephemeral.1 No. In order to guarantee its permanence, it must not merely represent the convictions of some one man, but must have its foundations laid deep in well-considered and far-reaching legislation. Says Mr. Curtis, in his Saratoga address:

"In this country law is only formulated public opinion. Reform of the civil service does not contemplate an invasion of the constitutional prerogative of the president or the senate, nor does it propose to change the constitution by statute. The whole system of the civil service proceeds, as I said, from the president, and the object of the reform movement is to enable him to fulfil the intention of the constitution by revealing to him the desire of the country through the action of its authorized representatives. When the ground-swell of public opinion lifts congress from the rocks, the president will gladly float with it into the deep water of wise and patriotic action."

But let us interrogate the other branch of the government, the legislative.

When a member of the House of Representatives, in 1872, Mr. Garfield said (Congressional Globe, Apr. 19, 1872, p. 2583), "Individual members of congress are no longer wholly responsible for this state of things, for they are also pressed by their political friends for help which, it is understood, they are able to render. It is hardly possible for any man in public life to escape this pressure." Senator Dawes, of Massachusetts, in a letter to the Springfield Republican, dated July 19, 1881, says: "No one can altogether escape responsibility for the existing state of things. The president has encouraged it, if not directly, certainly by recognizing and yielding to it." Congressman Robinson, of the same state, says (see Boston Advertiser, July 30, 1881): "I have no question at all that members of congress would welcome any change that would relieve them from participating in this matter."

It appears, therefore, that neither of the two departments has felt equal to the responsibility of acting alone in this matter. But, it may be asked, have not matters improved since some of these declarations were written? Few will urge that the legislation of 1871 is sufficient and adequate, after examining the repeated appeals in the annual message of every president since that year, and of the other government officers friendly to reform, for farther legislation. In that act, particular methods, since seen to be wellnigh essential, were not specifically prescribed, and thus obstruction was made possible. But it may be supposed that since the competitive examinations, as conducted at New York and elsewhere, have proved themselves so abundantly effective, they may be extended to the other offices without legislation. On this point a recent statement of Mr. Eaton sheds important light, and shows that it is not to be expected:

"The self-sacrificing labors of a few men of rare ability, patriotism, and experience, whose earnestness in the cause went beyond words, scorning alike the sarcasms of chieftains and high officials, alone made such results possible. It is too much to expect that their patriotic labors will be indefinitely continued. Such men are not likely to be found in every place where examinations will be needed. A great nation has no right to ask that private citizens as a charity, and the more self-sacrificing and devoted of its salaried subordinates working beyond office hours, -as have been the facts in the cases to which the learned senator has referred, shall carry on a great national reform unaided - unrecognized even - by the national congress, in order that its members may not have to perform a plain public duty at a time when, perchance, it might not be agreeable." [Letter in Springfield Republican, Oct. 7, 1881.]

The fact that the president has an undoubted right to ask the opinion of a senator in the matter of an appointment, where he is certain that a candidate unknown to him is personally known to the senator, is not to be confused with an obligation to do so. In the early days of the republic, with the constitutional provision fresh in the public mind, the matter came before President Washington for action, and was promptly settled by him.

"In 1794 it was rumored that President Washington contemplated appointing Alexander Hamilton to be minister to England. Mr. Monroe, who was the leader of his party in the senate, was opposed to this appointment, and wrote to the president, asking that he be granted a personal interview in regard to the matter. President Washington, with a wisdom and foresight that is wonderful, saw instantly the danger of establishing such a precedent." He refused to grant the interview, and, on the 9th of April, 1794, wrote as follows to Monroe: "If you are possessed of any facts or information which would disqualify Col. Hamilton for the mission to which you refer," I request "that you would be so obliging as to communicate them to me in writing. As I alone am responsible for a proper nomination, it certainly behoves me to name such a one as, in my judgment, combines the requisites for a mission so peculiarly interesting to the peace and happiness of this country."

3

For a time, as may well be imagined, the effect of this unmistakable deliverance from the executive, which must have cooled the air like a thunder-shower, was to put an end to any tendency towards the usurpation of executive powers by congress. Insidiously, however, it has gradually made itself

a recognized precedent under the name of the "courtesy of the senate;"1 and the advent of the civil-service reform discussion, fourteen years ago, found it not only securely intrenched, but a most formidable obstacle to any such reform. It is of no little interest now to notice that, in 1872, Gen. Garfield, then a member of congress, brought the force of his commanding intellect and profound knowledge of political history and development to bear upon this very matter in a characteristically able and convincing argument. In the light of this fact, it is not a matter of wonder that, on becoming president, he should, in the still unforgotten contest of last spring over the New York collectorship nomination, have given the "courtesy of the senate" its most telling blow. Whatever we may think as to the justifiable nature of this struggle, it was effective. It is in the light of this earlier position of his also that a passage in General Garfield's letter of acceptance, which has, we think, been somewhat misconstrued, should be understood:

"To select wisely from our vast population those who are best fitted for the many offices to be filled, requires an acquaintance far beyond the range of any one man. The executive should, therefore, seek and receive the information and assistance of those whose knowledge of the communities in which the duties are to be performed best qualifies them to aid in making the wisest choice."।

He by no means recognized in this declaration the right of congress to invade his prerogative. Indeed, in another part of the letter, he expressly disclaims that very thing. Nevertheless, what was the case on his accession to office? His time was seized upon and monopolized by applicants for office and members of the government, engaged in pressing the claims of candidates. The Nation says:

"It was not work imposed on him by the constitution or the laws. It contributed nothing to the improvement of the administration or of any other public interest. It did not tend to promote the public welfare in any manner whatever.”

"Now, in what did this work consist? What was it? Simply the work of listening to arguments in favor of giving some hundreds of small offices, which were not vacant, to a few thousand insignificant and obscure persons who had discovered that they were unable to make a decent livelihood in any of the ordinary pursuits of active American life. It was to this class - one of the least important and least worthy of the community - that he made the tremendous sacrifice of health and strength to which all the newspapers called attention during his first four months of office."

It is, then, one reason, and by no means an unimportant one, why the proposed reform is "not unnecessary;” that "congress," to use the recent language of a newspaper writer, " is part of the thing to be reformed;" and the measneed to receive, by this legislation, "that essential strength and stability which only the approval of congress can impart." 2