For, as thou smilest through the sparkling dew, Like sweet blue eyes that smile through shining tears, And strangely mingle joy and sorrow too. O blossom, does it sadden thee to know How soon thy beauteous blooming will be o'er? Seddie E. Anderson. "BABY-EYES" (NEMOPHILA). ΤΟ DREAR are California meadows Winter, wild and stormy, follows, Weeping rain and dew; Then there shine on all the hill-sides Eyes of azure hue. So, the weary waiting over, Tears and anguish too, Shall there bloom, O happy mother, Baby-eyes for you. Chas. S. Greene. CREAM CUPS. You love the sandy spaces where the sun Your hairy stems like exhalations rise O graceful buds, as you unclasp and throw B. P. Wall. POPPIES AND GRASS-FLOWERS. ON left and right a whisper floats Now which, my lady, like you best,— E. C. Sanford. THE CALIFORNIA ESCHSCHOLTZIA. THE orange hue of the rainbow Is not so deep as thine; On its calyx of pink thy corolla Of a truth the dainty fay-maidens Deep down in the cup of thy petals As the scintillant dust of amber At dusk thou modestly closest Amelia Woodward Trus ROTATION IN OFFICE. THERE is a tendency under all popular governments to the formation of political theories and doctrines into brief and epigrammatic maxims. The superior readiness with which such maxims are popularly received, as compared with the theories which they represent, causes them to multiply. But this same cause renders them the more dangerous, and therefore they should be accepted - by the careful thinker only after full investigation. There will always be a temptation to the demagogue to gain popular support by the employment of such phrases; and even those errors which we have fallen into in good faith become more difficult of correction when expressed in such a form. The langer lies in the obscuring of the theory by iewing it through the medium of a plausily sounding phrase. The expression sounds s if the doctrine ought to be correct, and nental inertia deters us from examining into That lies behind it. Perhaps a half-conscious ear of the shock which the overturning of > beautiful a structure would give us also as a deterrent influence. Rotation in office such a phrase. We have accepted it from ildhood, without more than an indefinite ea of what is meant by it. We have aditted that it is essential to our form of govnment, without honestly asking ourselves by it is so. We have considered it desirae and beneficial, principally on the theory at what is, should be. It is an investigan of this doctrine that I now desire to tke, in the hope that, should it rest on an or, we may discover it. Theoretically, rotation in office means a tinual changing of the officeholders, to end that each citizen may in his turn oy the honors and emoluments of office. s generally based upon the idea that holdoffice educates the incumbent in the scie of government, thereby making him re valuable as a citizen; and on some illned theory of a property right in the offices which entitles each and every citizen to support at the expense of the government, to an extent varying with his necessities. In practice, however, this theory meets with many obstacles, not the least of which is the unfortunate scarcity of the offices, compared with even that small portion of the citizens who desire to hold office. It is evident on the slightest consideration that to appoint to office every aspirant, or even every worthy aspirant, would soon result in a paralysis of public business; for it would be impossible for the incumbents to become acquainted with the duties of the office during the short term that such a practice would necessitate. As has been before intimated, however, many consider rotation in office an essential element of a republican form of government, being necessary to effect that intimacy between the government and those governed which is its distinguishing feature. They therefore contend that rotation is necessary, and to be carried out to the greatest possible extent, even though it may be liable to abuse. It is this latter view of the subject that I propose to consider, for as an educational institution the government must necessarily be a failure. Considerations of both efficiency and economy would rather lead to the establishment of colleges of political science, if it is desirable for the government to assume this educational function. Political science can no more be learned by holding office, than can any other science be learned by attempting to practice it without the preparation of direct, special study. No person would propose that the education of the student of medicine should be commenced by his prescribing for the sick, or that the law student should learn jurisprudence by practice in the courts alone; and yet the more complicated science of politics is to be taught by practice, without any of that preparatory study which would make the ef fort anything but a leap in the dark. If the itself, affect their qualifications in the slight object for which this government is carried est degree, and the most radical change of on is the political education of the citizens, political faith cannot influence the performthe machinery is not well adapted to its ance of their duties. The dominant party purpose. may change, tariffs may be reformed up or down, silver may be monetized or demonetized, but the duties of these officers remain the same. Even more erroneous is the idea of an ownership of the government offices. It is exceedingly elementary that governments are formed to secure to the individuals composing them their rights-personal and proper ty-and the offices are created solely to carry out this object. Any other doctrine is irrational. Imagine the effect if a corporation permitted each of its stockholders, in turn, to conduct its affairs and hold its offices. The completeness of its failure would be proportionate to the magnitude of its business. The government officers to whom this doctrine of rotation is applied in this country fall naturally into two classes. In the first class are those whose duty it is to express, in the form of legislation, the popular will, and to execute and interpret such expression. In it are included all our elective officers, and some few who are appointed. They are the representatives, through the medium of whom the government is conducted by the people: the governors, legislators, judges, and like officers. But in carrying out their acts there is a vast amount of work to be done which is of a purely bus iness nature, and this gives rise to the appointment of the second class of officers: the heads of what may be called the business houses of the government. Under these heads there are numerous clerks, but with them we have no present concern, for the doctrine of rotation in office has never been extended to them. The duties of this second class of officers differ widely from those of the first class. As already stated, they are of a business nature; as the collection of the customs duties, the coinage of the moneys, the distribution of the mails. Questions of governmental policy do not come before them, and they have no direct influence in their official policy, in shaping or interpreting the laws, or even in determining how they shall be executed. Adherence to any political party cannot, of The distinction between these two classes of officers-the political and the non-politi cal, those exercising representative functions on the one side and those exercising business functions on the other-should be clearly borne in mind; for, from a failure to recog nize it much of the confusion on this subject has arisen. As to officers of the first class, there can be no question that rotation, secured by a stated term of office, is not merely desirable it is essential to the representative charac ter of a republican government. But with the second class of officers, who are not in any sense representative, no such consideration applies. Rotation in office in their case, if desirable, must be so for some other reason. At the time of the establishment of this government, these officers were appointed to hold during their good behavior. The power of the President to remove them at all without the consent of the Senate was at one time seriously questioned; but, on the ground of concentrating the responsibility of an un just removal on one person, it was decided to be vested in him alone. The question of limiting their tenure by any fixed term was not raised until thirty years later, and the under such curious circumstances as to deserve consideration. In 1820 an act was introduced into Congress limiting the terms of certain officers to four years. The change was a radical one, and it would be expected that a thorough discussion would be had before its adoption. The opposite, in fact was the case: the bill passed both houses without any debate and without record ed vote, and was approved by the Presiden before any one outside of Congress knew X the proposed change. By this act the ter of collectors, naval officers, and surveyors any |