minds for this reason, who, once they give their whole mind to the subject, cannot help being "reformers," if they try.1 Another reason is, as Mr. Eaton suggests in his letter to Mr. Dawes, that " the nomenclature of reform is so little settled, and so much feeling enters into its discussion, that we should not be surprised either at honest misapprehensions or at artful misrepresentations." Perhaps the most potent element of misunderstanding, however, is in a supposed inherent clashing of theory and practice. Were the present movement a "theoretical" one, it would justly give occasion for distrust. That it is, in its present stage, advocated by some, out of the entire mass who "see only one side of the shield," is not incredible. "Many of the friends of reform," says Mr. Eaton,3 ،، are only in the stage of disgust, denunciation, and general discontent." "They have not those definite views needed for devising or even for giving effective support to better methods." No one can wonder that a man like Senator Dawes, who has given years to the study both of its theory and practice, should say with some weariness: "I have found the theoretical reformer very impatient and unwilling to listen to anything but a reference to his demand for a law which shall do this work and save us further trouble." 4 And one can readily sympathize with the feeling thus expressed by a daily newspaper: "But what did Senator Dawes expect of or from the theoretical reformer'? Has not the reformer' insisted for the last thirty years that law, not virtue in the people, would suppress intemperance? There is, or ought to be, a theory underlying each and every law. The trouble with the reformers, with which the senator is exasperated, is that their theory excludes the most essential elements of the problem." Let it not be supposed that the objections urged do not comprise some definite and clearly stated criticisms of specific points. These are worthy of the most careful and candid study on the part of those who support the reform." But there is nothing surprising in this. It is the common and the natural course, and gives us reason to believe in its ultimate establishment. Its experience may be (to quote once more from Sir Arthur Helps) that of another great question in another country. This opinion, he says, "has gone through a series of stages of development. It was at first held by two or three thoughtful writers, who perhaps were the only persons who thoroughly believed in it, and were willing to accept all its consequences. The opinion very gradually grew into favor, until it came to be held by an overwhelming majority." The practical question now is what shall be done to assist in its development. For one thing, no steps backward should be permitted. That which has been accomplished should be sacredly guarded. That so large a body of citizens already believe in its necessity should be only an additional reason for extending and enlarging the public sentiment. There should be intelligent and painstaking study brought to bear on the provisions of

The following references to articles presenting objections are here given, not as comprising an exhaustive list, but embracing some which deserve particular attention:

Argument by Mr. J. M. Connell, included in Mr. Jenckes's report of May 14, 1868, P-73-77

"Will democracy tolerate a permanent class of national office-holders?" - Lippincott's Magazine, Dec., 1880, v. 26, p. 690-97. [Answered in same magazine, June, 1881, v. 27, p. 580-92. "Tenure of office," by D. B. Eaton.]

"Reform versus reformation," by A. W. Tourgee. - North American Review, April, 1881, v. 132, p. 305-19. [Answered in same magazine, June, 1881, v.

P. 546-58. A new phase of the reforin movement," by D. B. Eaton.]

1881.

132,

Loop-holes in the Pendleton scheme of reform."-Boston Advertiser, Aug. 26,

A discussion of the competitive examination feature. - The American, April 2, 1SS1, v. i, p.

Professor W. G. Sumner, of Yale College, a student of the reform for many years, discusses "Presidential elections and civil service reform." - Princeton Review, Jan., 1881, p. 129-48.

Senator Dawes of Massachusetts, who has been intimately identified with the legislative discussion, the last ten years, examined some of the features proposed, in three letters to the Springfield Republican, July 21, July 29, and Aug. 15, 1881.

He was answered by Mr. Eaton in four letters to the same paper, Sept. 30 (weekly), and Oct. 7, 17, and 24, 1881. Also (perhaps by a former cabinet minister), in The Nation, Aug. 4, 1881, v. 33, p. 36. A conversation with Mr. David A. Wells, as to the constitutional point, is printed in the Boston Sunday Herald, of Aug. 21, 1881. For other articles see the pamphlet, "The literature of civil-service reform in the United States," p. 13. 2" Thoughts upon government," Am. ed., p. 13.

the reform and of kindred points in administration. Especially should there be the freest discussion of objections, and a candid examination of intelligent criticism. All this, it may be said, will be practically an education of the public. Precisely; and, should this be accomplished, whatever legislation is enacted will have a tenfold security of basis. Says a daily paper :

"How to utilize this informed and awakened public sentiment, | and to apply the practicable remedy in law and in administration, is the problem of the hour."

If any point has been clearly forced upon our mind in the course of this discussion it is that the executive has repeatedly appealed for assistance in the shape of additional legislation; that members of congress themselves admit its necessity; and that the sentiment of the people is largely for that specific thing. Clearly the next step should be the passage by congress of some bill, and it is difficult to see that it could do better than to pass the particular bill which we have been considering. Whether this will be done is of course still a matter of speculation. “It may be true," says the New York Evening Post, "that congress, as at present constituted, is not favorable to any thorough-going reform measure." "But congress has had to do many things in obedience to public opinion, and there is an opportunity now for the friends of civil-service reform to make that opinion commanding and effective." One congressman, during the summer, has expressed the optimistic opinion that the civil service will take care of itself if we only give the people "the highest mental, moral, and physical culture." (Senator Ingalls, at Williams College, July 4, 1881.) It is also somewhat disheartening, as the Boston Advertiser suggests, that, considering "the length of time during which the question has been agitated and the length of time during which the system has been on trial in some form, here and elsewhere, some of our congressmen show a singular unfamiliarity with its place and usefulness as an adjunct of the civil service.”

In his letter to the "Springfield Republican," dated Sept. 22, 1881, Mr. Eaton says:

"It now remains to be seen whether the senators and representatives from Massachusetts will be ready to take that lead upon the

subject, in the halls of legislation, which her people have taken among the States. And who can doubt that they will?"

About the date of this letter the annual Republican State Convention in Mr. Dawes's state (Massachusetts) was held. At this, as at every previous state convention since 1875, intelligent resolutions were adopted on the subject of the civil service. The platform of this year, however, says "The Nation" (Sept. 29, 1881, p. 242), “goes one step further than any party platform has hitherto done, in the minuteness of its definition of a thorough reform.” “It will be difficult," adds The Nation, "for any Massachusetts representative, at least, to get round the above in any creditable way." They are cut off by the platform from the work of barren criticism." In this connection it is worthy of notice that Mr. Rice, a representative from Massachusetts, has stated definitely:

"As I am at present advised, my opinion is that the first thing is for congress to enact (similar) legislation, leaving the execution of it to heads of departments, and watch the result." 1

Also that Mr. Hoar, the junior senator from Massachusetts, has, in a current periodical article, given the Pendleton bill the weight of his approval. He says:

"It has worked well in several important offices. Its adoption will be an emphatic expression, both by congress and the executive, of a desire to coöperate in getting away from the evils of the existing system. It will enable the executive to make an honest and earnest effort to take the civil service of the country out of politics, under circumstances which promise the coöperation of congress and the support of public opinion." (p. 476.)

The need of caution in estimating the extent of public sentiment has been touched upon in these pages. No student of history or political science will question the fact that legislation without a sound basis of public sentiment is valueless. There is, however, such a thing as erring in the direction of allowing legislation to lag too far behind the sentiment of the people, as well as the opposite error. In fact, as Mr. Eaton says, in a third letter to the Springfield Republican (dated Sept. 25, 1881):

" In Webster's speech on the Greek revolution, he treateddebate in congress as a fit means of arousing and guiding a sound public opinion. In his view, and in that of Mr. Sumner, as I interpret them, it is the part of a statesman and legislator not to doubt and hesitate in silence, until swept on by an omnipotent sentiment, but to speak early in behalf of what ought to be done, and to speak fearlessly, for the encouragement of the spirit and intelligence which make it possible. 'There are excitements to duty,' says Mr. Webster in his oration at Bunker Hill, but they are not suggestions of doubt.' It is a part of the duties and functions of a legislator not only to discover and arraign abuses in the public administration, but to devise and put in force the proper remedies. They have no right to be ignorant as to such remedies."

Certainly there are few who better express the sentiment of Massachusetts than her present able and statesmanlike governor. Governor Long, as reported in the Boston Traveller1 (July 27, 1881), says:

"Mr. Dawes would have done better service" (than in seeking some other remedy) "if he had developed the simple, practical, and excellent plan reported last year by the committee of which he is an able member, and of which Mr. Pendleton is chairman. It is a plan which has the merit of working no violent changes. It applies only to bureaus where fifty or more appointees are employed. In New England, therefore, it would affect, I take it, only the Boston Custom House and Post Office. Its adoption would make no more shock than the shifting of a belt from one wheel to another. It guards against unfit and mistaken selections, by putting every successful candidate upon probation, so that if with all his success and merit in passing examination he fails after a few months' trial in practical work, he receives no appointment, and gives way to the next in order. This reform is coming as sure as fate," "not because we have not good men now in our civil service, nor because, indeed, we can much improve on them; not because it is English; but because it is fair, because it is democratic, and gives to the people equal chance to go in on their merit and not on their control of political influences. And, finally, it is coming because the business interests of the people demand it, - demand that the congressman shall give his time, which is their time, to questions of legislation and not of office filling, and because the congressman himself feels the imperative need of such relief." "But just as soon as the PendletonDawes bill is made plain to the people, and they see what a practical measure it is, and realize its value, they will compel the adoption of it or something else as good."