his early advocacy of this reform. So of Dorman B. Eaton of New York, never a member of congress, who studied the experiences of Great Britain and shaped the measure that finally passed as the Pendleton Bill, named for its original sponsor, the Democratic senator from Ohio, whom President Cleveland sent as minister to Germany in 1885.

Charles Sumner had desired this reform, and General Hawley of Connecticut and Mr. Hoar of Massachusetts were active advocates in the Senate of the Pendleton Bill. In August, 1881, following Garfield's assassination, the National Civil Service Reform League was formed. Before that, in 1877, a civil service reform association had been established in New York State, and George William Curtis began his stately and effective public advocacy of this cause that ended only with his death. Other persons of light and leading scattered over the country labored in like unselfish spirit for this governmental improvement before the national awakening came. It is unnecessary to say that the Republican very early enlisted in this movement.

Without forfeiting friendships, President Arthur was able to turn aside undesirable demands for place which came from former associates in New York politics. Not so easy was the adjustment with Mr. Conkling. The great man in retirement was offered a seat in the Supreme Court of the United States, and the tender was declined. This practically ended the old relations of the two men as Mr. Arthur exercised full responsibility for his office. It was a decent way to end that domination. Hugh McCulloch,

having intimate knowledge of things in Washington past and present, wrote that the Arthur administration "was distinguished, as few have been, for fairness, elevation of tone, and freedom from extreme partisanship." As between the parties that statement is true. But Arthur's appointments, in the main good, were made from a faction of his party, and so its dissensions were perpetuated. Not all of his appointees were desirable, as when Alanson W. Beard, the admirable collector of the port of Boston, was made to give way to Roland Worthington of the Boston Traveler, a follower of General Butler.

President Arthur's good sense and courage in vetoing an inflated river and harbor bill won the approval of the country. In that fortunate time the treasury showed a surplus of revenue over expenditures and Congress was tempted to extravagant spending. That bill of 1882 providing for the expenditure of over eighteen million dollars was abhorrent to a people not yet accustomed to thinking in terms of billions, but the measure prevailed over the President's objections. In this and other ways an overturn in politics was being invited.

This began in the congressional elections of 1882, which gave the Democrats a majority in the House. The Republican total of 152-147 being a majority -was replaced by a Democratic total of 196, rising from 130, and the Republicans falling to 118. The Republicans lost four districts in Massachusetts. Patrick A. Collins was elected, and Leopold Morse reëlected from Boston. Colonel Henry B. Lovering was chosen in the sixth district,

and Theodore Lyman as an independent in the ninth district.

President Arthur's recommendations to Congress were well considered, though few were acted upon. He secured a reduction in letter postage. Within the limitations created for him, and which he accepted, he made an efficient president and maintained the dignity of the office. He lost his wife shortly after election to the vice-presidency, and his sister, Mrs. Mary A. McElroy, presided with gracious adequacy over the social activities of the White House. Business men regarded President Arthur with favor, and history will respect the record he made.

XXX

WHEN BENJAMIN F. BUTLER BECAME GOVERNOR

THE year 1882 brought to Massachusetts a political campaign which involved much acrimony. It witnessed the humiliation of old guard Republicans in the nomination of the candidate for governor, and in the election the triumph of General Butler. Sharp differences were developed. The Talbot reform year called to the front a group of strong men in the Legislature who joined with the governor to lower the state tax from two million dollars to half a million dollars. That was accomplished in 1879 through the agency of a joint special committee of the Legislature known as the retrenchment committee. Its chairman was Robert R. Bishop, president of the Senate. He was a lawyer living in Newton, six years afterward to become judge of the Superior Court.

John D. Long had been smoothly governing the State for three years and was to get through in 1883. The old guard sought to nominate as his successor William W. Crapo of New Bedford, an admirable gentleman, son of Michigan's war governor, long resident in this State, who had been for four terms a member of Congress and knew both business and law. The opposition put forward Senator Bishop, whose greater familiarity with state affairs was urged by

men who had served in both branches of the Legislature and shared in the fight for economy. It became a contest between old leaders and those who desired to assume leadership. The supporters of Bishop won in the convention, but lost the election and their hopes of leadership.

Whether Mr. Crapo might have prevailed over Butler must be doubted. Mr. Bishop did not possess the qualities necessary for magnetic leadership, but Mr. Crapo did not have them either, though he was the abler man. The campaign on the Republican side lacked the enthusiasm unity brings. There was growing restlessness among the rank and file of voters, to whom Butler's glittering promises, oft repeated, made appeal. Many otherwise sensible citizens had become ready to take a gambler's chance and say "Let's elect the old man and see what he will do." This temper of mind was not lessened by mistakes made in the conduct of the campaign in behalf of Mr. Bishop. When the Republican candidate came to Springfield he was lavishly entertained at the Springfield Club. This was popularly resented as an exclusive function, and aroused enmity. So things went wrong in a variety of ways. The end was that through his persistence in politics for so many years, in more than two political parties, Butler at last obtained opportunity to sit in the executive chamber. His plurality was 13,949 in a total vote of 253,278.

This accomplishment had been the ambition of Butler's later life. But the realization of it, this welcome confounding of his enemies, failed in the test of the executive office either to bring the personal